So a friend and I were talking about driving drunk...

[Cobster]

...and here are the laws regarding that.
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/breaklaw/breaklaw.htm

Sufficient? Hard enough? Needs to be more strict?
What do you say?
I say they bump the fine up to $5000.00 from $600.00
WTF is $600 seriously?

That one year of prohibited driving on the first offence has got to be brutal.

 

[DistantVoyeur]

Look at the bottom of the page.....if you don't fight you save the legal costs, but the insurance jump is a ball breaker.

 

[SilentLeviathan]

A friend's father was a police officer who was killed by a drunk driver while he was talking to someone he had stopped. The drunk driver was sentenced to 1 year in jail and had a $10,000 fine imposed on him. Now compare this to some people who have been convicted (in the US anyway) of illegal file sharing. Their fines are sometimes in the millions of dollars are they have been setenced to years in a federal prision. Basically the government is saying that people who share files are worse then drunken cop killers. I know it's a little off topic, but that kind of stuff bothers me.

Back on topic, assuming you can get insured you're looking at around $10,000 - $20,000 a year in insurance.

 

[CapitalGuy]

interesting ideas, many of which I like.

would you raise the legal limit though? is it fair to do all that to a person who blows 0.08, for example, and who is for the most part capable of operating their vehicle (or at least as capable as the idiot who's putting on lipstick, or changing CD's, or dialling their cell phone)? A small woman could blow 0.08 after having 3 beer instead of stopping at 2, yet still be quite capable of safely operating her car - should she lose her car for a year and go to jail for a week, for drinking 3 beer? kinda steep. I'd prefer to keep the stiffer punishments for those who blow well over the legal limit, and hammer repeat offenders mercilessly.

 

[tboy]

Good ideas but I think your first offence with a fatality is WAY too lenient. This should be treated no differently than manslaughter and come with the same penalities (like they are tough enough...NOT). But if you kill someone while driving drunk and found guilty it should be a mandatory 5 yrs in jail. NO parole and a permanant loss of your licence. It should also be noted that you can not move out of province and get a licence there.

Why do I feel this way?

Well, no one FORCED you to drink too much, no one FORCED you to get behind the wheel, and if you could afford to drink to excess, you could have afforded a cab ride home. This is a totally preventable/avoidable situation.

 

[LateComer]

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, I believe the penalties are just about right. It's not like the old days where you got a $28.00 fine. Ontario's drunk driving laws are some of the strictest in North America.

 

[K Douglas]

Good ideas but I think your first offence with a fatality is WAY too lenient. This should be treated no differently than manslaughter and come with the same penalities (like they are tough enough...NOT). But if you kill someone while driving drunk and found guilty it should be a mandatory 5 yrs in jail. NO parole and a permanant loss of your licence. It should also be noted that you can not move out of province and get a licence there.

Why do I feel this way?

Well, no one FORCED you to drink too much, no one FORCED you to get behind the wheel, and if you could afford to drink to excess, you could have afforded a cab ride home. This is a totally preventable/avoidable situation.

I disagree. The judge should look at it on a case by case basis. #1 Does it serve the society to have that person locked up in prison? #2 What does the victim(s) family(ies) think is appropriate? #3 Is that person a danger to reoffend? #4 What was that person's pattern of drinking and driving i.e. did they drink and drive alot and not get caught (get this info by subpoena of friends and family). If no jail time then the person must perform x amount of community service by speaking to high risk groups about the dangers of drinking and driving, attend counselling, be forbidden to drink alcohol for 10 years and a suspension of drivers license for 2 years.

 

[MarkII]

Interesting responses...

They all however fail to recognize the responsibility of the drinker. Our society unfortunately still feels I drank responsibly is good enough to be safe while behind the wheel. Yet study after study shows that each drink you take makes your perception change. For men it's somewhere in the 3rd or 4th drink and for women in the 2nd and third drink.

That commercial that kept putting glasses in front of the camera was right.

What it didn't explain that our ability to reason between right and wrong lessens with each standard drink consumed. ( I say standard because a pint of draft is not 1 standard drink...it's more than that..but few people consider this. Many free pour and say I only had two drinks but they had 6 ounces of spirits..it easy to explain away what is fact)

As a country we need to have far stiffer penalties for drinking and driving. I can't even listen to the arguments where people say "I was in control..I know how much I can handle..I weigh a lot so I can drink more..." All are bullshit. Nothing more than a person trying to rationalize unacceptable behavior.

Lets be like Sweden where they impound your car and sell it at auction. You owe on it..tough! A rental..tough! You lose you privilege to drive permanently. No second or third chances!

Here in Canada we have laws that actually tell people we'll slap your wrist for the first, snarl a bit on the second and then get real on the third and subsequent infractions. WTF is that about? It's sort of ok to get charged once..you're pissing us off twice..and at the third and maybe 5th time we'll actually make you never drive again?

Am I the only one who sees this as lunacy?

Time to wake up and see he flowers on the roadside. There is no room for substances and driving. People die. If they didn't it's just a matter of time. Cause people get cocky. They did it once they can do it again...

I'm not innocent in this. I DID (past tense) when I was younger drive while under the influence. But I learned it was a no win situation. No amount of trying to justify my actions could explain away the potential for tragedy.

I've battled the bottle for years..I am winning now. But I never ever drove while under the influence in my adult years. I stopped that when I was 17.

I'd walk ten miles home before driving.

I may be a lot of things but I can say as an adult I've never driven drunk.

Ya'll are welcome to tell me how I'm wrong and you can handle it better than everyone else.

M2

 

[dondada]

somebody make millions off this

i think we need personal breathalyzers...screw all the courtroom drama...when you're of age...you have to get one...

if you say you don't drink for personal or religious or health reasons...then sign a waiver...

after that...no more excuses...and you're in control fully...go out have fun...use your breathalyzer...then get a cab or try again later...or hey you might be under the limit...drive home...

if drinking and driving is illegal...then have no limits...kinda stupid but great for lawyers...

 

[CapitalGuy]

That's the beauty of a democracy - we're all entitled to our opinions. D&D is wrong and I am a frequent taxi-rider to avoid it. So, for me, the current laws and consequences are already enough to deter me from driving after that 4th pint. Increasing them won't deter me any more, and I honestly believe impounding a car or jailing someone is too steep a penalty for someone who barely blows 0.08. The police recognize this and adjust the charges they hand out accordingly. The government recognizes this and they have established a scale of punishments to accommodate it.

The Swedish solution, in my opinion, is wrong for Canada. My understanding is they have a 0.00% tolerance because of a broad societal habit to drink to get drunk, as opposed to having a social drink, like most of us do in Canada. So they were faced with larger percentages of extreme drunks who could barely walk, getting behind the wheel. Canada, for whatever reason, does not have the drink 'till you're drunk tradition, to nearly the same extent as some other countries, so our D&D laws reflect that there are different degrees of offenders. A little girl who has 3 coolers instead of 2, then blows 0.08, should not lose her car; it is not an equitable punishment. It's a good one for the habitual drunk driver though, who blows 0.14 (or whatever).

 

[tboy]

Well CG, I disagree. That little girl who had 3 coolers instead of 2 shouldn't have been driving with 2 under her belt. Face it, the legal limit is .08. If you blow over for ANY reason (cough syrup can make you blow over as well) you lose your licence. END OF STORY. It is a no brainer really.

We already have degrees of drunkeness, if you blow over .05 - .079 you get a 24 hr suspension. Below .05 and you get a stern lecture. That's enough.

The message we're sending out now is that it is ok to drive drunk. Sure there are some consequences but obviously not harsh enough to stop some people so in order to prevent ANYONE from driving while impaired, the punishment has to be increased.

I will cite that example of the (no offence) portugese guy in Alberta who had 27 drunk driving convictions!!! TWENTY FUCKING SEVEN. I've also heard of people with 4 or more......So what they can't get insurance? So what they can't get a licence? They drive anyways.....

 

[KBear]

Not sure that it is being somewhat impaired that causes the accidents, it is being impaired and driving like an idiot.

I came upon an accident where a young lady, maybe 20, made a lane change on the highway and bumped a motorbike rider knocking him off his bike, where he was then hit by other cars and killed. She was impaired. It was certainly tragic, but don’t think it would serve society to lock her away in jail for years.

 

[to-guy69]

If one is irresponsible enough to drive over the legal limit then they do not deserve the privledge of driving anymore....plain and simple.

 

[tboy]

Not sure that it is being somewhat impaired that causes the accidents, it is being impaired and driving like an idiot.

I came upon an accident where a young lady, maybe 20, made a lane change on the highway and bumped a motorbike rider knocking him off his bike, where he was then hit by other cars and killed. She was impaired. It was certainly tragic, but don’t think it would serve society to lock her away in jail for years.

See, I think it is "driving like an idiot" whenever someone is DWI ing. Impaired means: cough meds, alcohol, drugs (legal or illegal) and would that young lady have knocked the biker off if she wasn't impaired??? Probably not....

 

[Cobster]

Bringing this back up, since my friend was curious about this thread (told him about it).
Those insurance rates are killer though. lol

 

[hot rod]

I have another pet peeve that relates to this issue:

If you find that you have had a drink or two more than you intended, and very responsibly decide to grab a cab home, all is well and good if you are in a bar or pub in the downtown core. If you can't phone a cab you can step out and flag one down and you're on your way and home before you know it. But if you are in the suburbs (I'm in Brampton), it's a whole different story. Cabs don't cruise the streets out here and at bar closing time, you can't get through on the phone lines. We've tried, LOTS of times (even put it on auto redial) and you get a steady busy signal for sometimes up to two hours. It's a combination of dispatchers taking the phones off the hooks, drivers not answering radio calls at that hour, not enough cabs on the road, and cabs owned by independant drivers who work days only and are not on the road at that hour. Bottom line is if you want or need a cab to get home when the bar closes, more times than not it simply isn't going to happen. Granted that's still no excuse for driving drunk, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed and solved.

 

[marcus aurellis]

So the punishment isn't severe enough? Lets review:

3 years ago I was convicted of driving over .08, NOT impaired driving, but both have the same consequences.

Was arrested (first time ever) as are the majority of the over 90,000 arrests yearly for these "crimes".

Convicted, fined $600 (not negoitable) and had to pay $500 to attend alchohol counselling in order to get back my license and had my license suspended for ONE year. All these are the minimum penalties.

To those who think they are too lenient let me add:
-I was randomly pulled over, cop had no probable cause, wasn't weaving, driving errratically etc.

Wasnt charged with Impaired driving, simply with having one to many after work. Gee, none of you holier-than thou's has ever done that?

Was handcuffed, had my car towed and licence immediately suspended for 90 days. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

After my one years suspension was up had the option of driving again, but only if I installed, at my expense ($1200), an ignition interlock device. I chose not to drive for the second year.

Insurance is around $7000 a year if you can get it!

Imagine the humiliation when your young kids ask why every other dad drives and you dont?

So its over 3 years later, still don't drive, paid $1500 in fines, classes towing? Have a criminal record at age 43, can't afford inflated insurance and my quality of life has drastically been altered.

Isnt this strict enough?

Oh and before you pontificate how I could of killed a school kid on a resedential street. It happened as I was leaving my business at 3am in an industrial part of town.

 

[hambone]

I have another pet peeve that relates to this issue:

If you find that you have had a drink or two more than you intended, and very responsibly decide to grab a cab home, all is well and good if you are in a bar or pub in the downtown core. If you can't phone a cab you can step out and flag one down and you're on your way and home before you know it. But if you are in the suburbs (I'm in Brampton), it's a whole different story. Cabs don't cruise the streets out here and at bar closing time, you can't get through on the phone lines. We've tried, LOTS of times (even put it on auto redial) and you get a steady busy signal for sometimes up to two hours. It's a combination of dispatchers taking the phones off the hooks, drivers not answering radio calls at that hour, not enough cabs on the road, and cabs owned by independant drivers who work days only and are not on the road at that hour. Bottom line is if you want or need a cab to get home when the bar closes, more times than not it simply isn't going to happen. Granted that's still no excuse for driving drunk, but it is an issue that needs to be addressed and solved.

Call a towing company. They will deliver you AND your car home safely

 

[DistantVoyeur]

Not being able to get a cab can be a problem, but easily solved. One of you stay sober, and take turns. Usually, the designated driver has more fun watching the drunks. I speak from experience on this. More often that not, I was the designated driver.