Zero tolerance for drunk driving is CRAZY.

[Mao Tse Tongue]

New legislation will make it illegal for young and new drivers to have a single drop of alcohol in their system when they drive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/538684

An example of absurd zero tolerance policies that have no relationship to reality. I'm all for reducing drunk driving, absolutely, but not in absolute terms. You can't ask people to not have one drink. It's criminalizing people in a wholly unreasonable way.

No doubt the responses will be along the lines of: "Mao how can you be against stopping drunk driving!" I am not. I think it's impossible to tell young and new drivers they can't have one drink before getting behind the wheel on a Friday night. Not gonna happen. Keep the exisiting blood/alcohol limits in place and it all works out. This won't prevent drunk driving one bit, just criminalizes the moderates.

 

[skypilot]

I agree with zero tolerance for EVERY offense for young and new drivers including drinking. Anything we can do to get young drivers off the road is a plus.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

I agree with zero tolerance for EVERY offense for young and new drivers including drinking. Anything we can do to get young drivers off the road is a plus.

You realize how fascist that is. Let's get red-haired drivers off the road as well. And dawdlers. And big, noisy trucks that drop gravel as they drive.

 

[ig-88]

New legislation will make it illegal for young and new drivers to have a single drop of blood in their system when they drive.

I agree. That is way too harsh.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

I have no idea what you guys are talking about^^^^^^

edit, cough, edit, cough...

 

[Vixens]

This has actually been in place since graduated licensing started but it only applied to the G1/G2 portion. Once you got your G license, the regular limitations apply. Thing is, what makes it ridiculous is the fact that it will only apply to new/ young drivers. If you're going to implement a no tolerance policy, it should apply to everyone. "Criminalizing the moderates" may actually make a significant impact.

Cheers!
Steph
416-966-6966

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

This has actually been in place since graduated licensing started but it only applied to the G1/G2 portion. Once you got your G license, the regular limitations apply. Thing is, what makes it ridiculous is the fact that it will only apply to new/ young drivers. If you're going to implement a no tolerance policy, it should apply to everyone. "Criminalizing the moderates" may actually make a significant impact.

You see how casually people give up their freedoms? Always amazes me.

The problem is DRUNK driving, not A DRINK driving. No law will stop young people from touching alcohol before they drive, so we're effectively criminalizing a whole raft of people, taking away their right to moderation, and creating an IMPOSSIBLE standard.

 

[ig-88]

What I don't understand is, if a person is killed by a drunk driver, or if a person is killed by a driver who was on the cell phone ... what is the difference?

The person is just as dead.

Why, then, are there more severe punishments for the drunk driver?

The bottom line is YOU are responsible for the safe operation of your vehicle. IMO, if you injure someone while driving (regardless of whatever you impaired or distracted yourself with), you should be punished severely.

I believe in no victim, no crime. And I think that the drunk driving laws are really just another attempt at prohibition and morality legislation.

But, I understand that mine is not a popular view, and that the remainder of society seems to be ruled by emotion rather than logic.

 

[Ashton.]

I agree with zero tolerance for EVERY offense for young and new drivers including drinking. Anything we can do to get young drivers off the road is a plus.

So you were never a young driver? God forbid that someone should start driving at a young age, regardless of how responsible they are. The fact that they're young immediately makes them a hazard.

 

[iprint]

You miss the point by a mile(what a surprise)They are new inexperienced drivers, so yeah they should have all their wits about them, so no they should not have one drop of alcohol in their systems. As someone who needs his license everyday for my family and my job , I have a no drink policy when I am driving, if I am going to a SC i make other arrangements(cab). I know 4 people who have beaten the impair change using ex-coppers(1 guy did it twice) but I also know a family that was destroyed when their son killed someone while impaired. So i guess I don't see your point at all. If you don't want these kinds of laws then fix they ones that are already in place. Teach the police how to get an impair charge to stick in court and get the courts to impose maximum fines and jail, if smart people learn that they won't get away with it then only the stupid will be charged.

The problem I see with this law,Already a loop hole, some medicines contain alcohol.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

You miss the point by a mile(what a surprise)They are new inexperienced drivers, so yeah they should have all their wits about them, so no they should not have one drop of alcohol in their systems. As someone who needs his license everyday for my family and my job , I have a no drink policy when I am driving, if I am going to a SC i make other arrangements(cab). I know 4 people who have beaten the impair change using ex-coppers(1 guy did it twice) but I also know a family that was destroyed when their son killed someone while impaired. So i guess I don't see your point at all. If you don't want these kinds of laws then fix they ones that are already in place. Teach the police how to get an impair charge to stick in court and get the courts to impose maximum fines and jail, if smart people learn that they won't get away with it then only the stupid will be charged.

The problem I see with this law,Already a loop hole, some medicines contain alcohol.

It's funny how you're rationalizing this new law by admitting it's not really the problem, but the fact that existing impaired laws are not enforced, which is what I said. The idea of introducing a new law because the exisiting one isn't enforced is more crazy, different day.

If you really want to put a dent in drunk driving, increase enforcement, spot checks (which really, really work), lobby for more funding for such things that work.

You're the one missing the point: You are criminalizing moderate drinkers who play by the rules because those who don't are killing other drivers. Insanity.

 

[iprint]

I believe in no victim, no crime.

So you are saying as long as you don't hurt someone it is ok to risk driving drunk.Why are your rights more important then the safety of my family, your logic is wrong and you display the thought of the drunk driver just before he kills someone.You are the classic drunk driver.

 

[shakenbake]

You realize how fascist that is. Let's get red-haired drivers off the road as well. And dawdlers. And big, noisy trucks that drop gravel as they drive.

If you voted for the 'Liberal' government at Queen's Park, you now reap what you have sewn.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

I agree strongly that driver distraction is the giant elephant in the room. It will dwarf drunk driving's impact in the near future (not saying one should be consider more important than the other). It does show you the power of MADD.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

If you voted for the 'Liberal' government at Queen's Park, you now reap what you have sewn.

This law has nothing to do with party stripes. The Conservatives could have easily introduced the very same legislation.

 

[shakenbake]

This has actually been in place since graduated licensing started but it only applied to the G1/G2 portion. Once you got your G license, the regular limitations apply. Thing is, what makes it ridiculous is the fact that it will only apply to new/ young drivers. If you're going to implement a no tolerance policy, it should apply to everyone. "Criminalizing the moderates" may actually make a significant impact.

Cheers!
Steph
416-966-6966

This is just another law that will be almost unenforceable. I doubt that it will have the desired effect, and not many violators will get caught. You cannot legislate common sense, or to legislate away a problem. Education is the better way. And, it has to be effective education aimed at the ones who will do the drinking and driving. I can liken the new proposed legislation to legal drinking age in general. With the legal drinking age set at 19, why do we have teen drunks, in the first place?

 

[jwmorrice]

New legislation will make it illegal for young and new drivers to have a single drop of alcohol in their system when they drive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/538684

An example of absurd zero tolerance policies that have no relationship to reality. I'm all for reducing drunk driving, absolutely, but not in absolute terms. You can't ask people to not have one drink. It's criminalizing people in a wholly unreasonable way.

No doubt the responses will be along the lines of: "Mao how can you be against stopping drunk driving!" I am not. I think it's impossible to tell young and new drivers they can't have one drink before getting behind the wheel on a Friday night. Not gonna happen. Keep the exisiting blood/alcohol limits in place and it all works out. This won't prevent drunk driving one bit, just criminalizes the moderates.

Let's get empirical. Of course you can tell young drivers that they can't have one drink before getting behind a wheel. Moreover, studies show doing so reduces car crash fatalities. Have a look here: http://www.madd.ca/english/research/zerounder21.pdf
and here: http://www.madd.ca/english/research/lessons_from_canada.pdf
and here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2252

jwm

 

[buckwheat1]

any drink of alcohol slowes down ones reaction weather driving or not I say
when caught with alcohol I'd seize the vehicle and sell it at public auction.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

With the legal drinking age set at 19, why do we have teen drunks, in the first place?

This is exactly right. It's like the Catholic Church saying no condoms to the flock. They won't fuck bareback will they?

I would argue heartily to more funding for spot checks and other methods that reduce drunk driving. Trying to criminalize an entire group of people who are going to drink is impossible.

 

[Mao Tse Tongue]

Let's get empirical. Of course you can tell young drivers that they can't have one drink before getting behind a wheel. Moreover, studies show doing so reduces car crash fatalities. Have a look here: http://www.madd.ca/english/research/zerounder21.pdf
and here: http://www.madd.ca/english/research/lessons_from_canada.pdf
and here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2252

jwm

These are compelling as a cursory read, for sure. But they're liberalized stats in matching up other factors. Not saying they're not true, but I'd have to look more closely at the studies themselves.

My point is that a drunk driving charge is a very serious social stigma. You are attaching this charge to people who are below any reasonable drunk driving limits as they exist now. Is this worth the yield? I believe that age bracket has a bigger problem in texting behind the wheel. Yet there is no such social stimga and career-limiting charge behind that. I believe there will be a driver distraction carnage with electronic devices that will create a new form of MADD. But anyway...

As a society, we must measure our liberties in relationship to the greater good. For me, this steps across the line.