# A National Disgrace



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

I thought more progress had been made on this problem - I was wrong...are we still a backwoods society?

* Despite years of public messaging about the dangers of drinking and driving, Canada ranks No. 1 among 19 wealthy countries for percentage of roadway deaths linked to alcohol impairment, according to a new study. 

The finding by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control should serve as a warning to lawmakers that new strategies are needed to combat impaired driving, which remains the top criminal cause of death in Canada, safety advocates say. 


"The CDC does the best studies; their information is undebatable," said Andy Murie, CEO of MADD Canada. "It’s a wake-up call. We need to do more." 


The study found that while fewer people were dying from motor vehicle crashes in Canada (the crash death rate in 2013 was 5.4 per 100,000 people, a drop of 43 per cent from 2000), the proportion of deaths linked to alcohol impairment was 34 per cent, higher than any of the other countries in the survey*


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

My wife and I have a very strict policy with regards to drinking and driving.

We simply don't.

In fact, although I've never been a drinker, when I started driving I all but eliminated drinking. I always figured if I had to choose between drinking and driving, it was a no brainer.

Now I drink a bottle of red wine once in awhile, but never think about driving afterwards.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Prepare to jack up the numbers when weed is legalized.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> Prepare to jack up the numbers when weed is legalized.


I'd wager more people wreck cars because of prescription drugs than weed.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

I am just going to leave this one alone. Aw I changed my mind. I will take my chances while on the road with a bicycle with a driver passing me with a BAC of .05 paying attention to his driving before I will take my chances with a cell phone yapping yuppie playing with his gadget between his legs booting down the road with no booze in his system.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I'd wager more people wreck cars because of prescription drugs than weed.


I have no idea but then prescription drugs are presently legal, weed isn't, therefore the quantity of people driving while on prescription drugs should be significantly higher. I'm all for legalization btw, that doesn't make me feel better about a nation full of Cheech and Chongs on the highways


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> I have no idea but then prescription drugs are presently legal, weed isn't, therefore the quantity of people driving while on prescription drugs should be significantly higher. I'm all for legalization btw, that doesn't make me feel better about a nation full of Cheech and Chongs on the highways


Well I don't drive with weed OR booze in my system, but having watched Up in Smoke a couple of times, I'm reminded of the scene where Cheech is driving stoned. Yeah that 6 mph crash is likely to be deadly, LOL

How many accidents happen because of prescription drugs? That doesn't show up in a breathalyzer.

We need a test for that.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

If I can drive 1 lap on my Forza app without hitting the walls, I'm usually good to drive.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

The worst impairment for me is being tired. And yes I've had a toke and driven or while driving and I'd wager a lot of other stoner a have as well. No where near the level of impairment as drinking or being tired, in fact makes me a bit more careful on the road. I And as I'm sure most of you have been over .08 and driven whether you will admit it publicly or not it's not something I admit proudly but I do know my limit of when I am unsafe to operate a vehicle.

Shit we used to get 40's of malt liquor and go ride our dirt bikes when we were teens, maybe we had horseshoes up our arses or maybe it made us better at knowing our limits. Or made us better drivers. No one ever got hurt badly, maybe a little bump here or there.. one thing we don't do anymore is drunk jousting on bicycles... that ended poorly...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The question people need to ask themselves...and which they rarely do...is whether they would feel comfortable driving at highway speeds with other drivers who have the same reaction time they currently do.

People think about their own driving, but they have no idea who else is out on the road and what their distractions, degree of vehicle control, and reaction time might be. It's never the stuff you can predict and control; it's the stuff you _can't _predict or control. The choice is therefore to optimize one's reaction time in whatever way you can, including taking slower routes where a faster reaction is not required.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

The thing about alcohol is that the more you imbibe, the less inhibitions.
It's also a drug (yes a drug) that you can totally blackout on.
Then, you're a zombie with no judgement.

I don't mean to turn this into a weed/booze debate, but it's been raised already.
I don't know anyone that will sit around all day, or all night, or both, and smoke weed.
Some drinkers would do that though, been there done that.

Most smokers that I know would be less likely to drive right after a hootie. That buzz will wear down eventually and you're good to go.
That small percentage (not small enough, apparently) of problem drinkers will lose perspective/judgement as the night/day wears on.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

You just never know who's going to be loaded. Earlier today there was a news report of a drunk driver and though I don't know him personally, he's around town a lot because he's a tradesman. It surprised me but maybe shouldn't have...anyone could be loaded.

I've been dry for 15 years, but used to be a wicked boozer, particularly alone. Didn't drive drunk, ever, but drove hungover a few times which I now believe to be almost as bad. I'm lucky it didn't get me into trouble.

I'm opposed to smoking anything, period. That doesn't make me anti-weed, I just believe it's better in brownies.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You know what would be really instructive? A realistic driving game in which the user could insert a delay between their actions and when they are implemented. In a great many instances, the difference between life and death or serious injury is a matter of 200-300msec. Okay, so insert a delay of 300msec into the game to mimic the effect of delayed reaction time. You see something you might hit, and you steer away or brake, but the game_* waits*_ another 200-300msec to accomplish that action. See how accident free you come away.

35 years back, I sat in a then-state-of-the-art driving simulator at the U of A that was used to study impaired driving, driving in older adults, and a variety of other situations of concern. Think of it like a small scale IMAX movie. The participant sits in a very realistic driver seat and your entire field of vision is covered by several screens, featuring a recorded trip from Edmonton to Jasper. I forget how it was done, but when you experience an accident in that immersive environment, you feel nauseous. Not Castle Wolfenstein bad-3D nauseous, but oh-s***-I'm-going-to-die nauseous.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I have visions of a stoner cruising the 401 doing about 50 kph while playing Pokemon Go


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> I have visions of a stoner cruising the 401 doing about 50 kph while playing Pokemon Go


Wow, add booze and you have the perfect storm.

I doubt the pokemon and weed demographics line up though.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Darwinism in it's active state. Unfortunately, collateral damage occurs.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> Darwinism in it's active state. Unfortunately, collateral damage occurs.


I only worry about the collateral stuff, I'm insensitive that way.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

Milkman said:


> Well I don't drive with weed OR booze in my system, but having watched Up in Smoke a couple of times, I'm reminded of the scene where Cheech is driving stoned. Yeah that 6 mph crash is likely to be deadly, LOL
> 
> How many accidents happen because of prescription drugs? That doesn't show up in a breathalyzer.
> 
> We need a test for that.


There is one in place already. If a Police Officer suspects Impaired Driving they can ask for a blood test to be taken. Obviously its done by someone trained to do it, not the officer himself. The blood test can test for prescription drugs as well as pot, cocaine, heroine etc. They do this for alcohol as well, its just not as popular as the breathalyzer.


----------



## fretzel (Aug 8, 2014)

mhammer said:


> I forget how it was done, but when you experience an accident in that immersive environment, you feel nauseous. Not Castle Wolfenstein bad-3D nauseous, but oh-s***-I'm-going-to-die nauseous.


I drive for the Toronto Transit Commission. They have a simulator for buses. I am not sure what other vehicles the program can load. We are required every 3 years to do a recertification program. The groups are about 12-15 ppl. The sim is built like you said. Screens everywhere and a realistic operators area. 
As I was waiting my turn so many were complaining of nausea. I didn't think it would happen to me but it did. Not to bad but........I believe the reason it creates this sensation is due to the fact that you're not physically moving yet your other senses are stimulated to believe that you are.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

One of the problems we have is the fact that the judges are so lenient with these people. From what I've read, it's not unusual for a person with multiple convictions to give a sob story about losing his livelihood if his licence is lifted, and the judge lets him off with a fine.

I've also heard that the courts frequently go light on those who drive while their licences are suspended. I'm inclined to support a mandatory three month incarceration for this.

Ask yourself, how many people have died because we haven't imposed harsh penalties for these offences?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

fretzel said:


> I drive for the Toronto Transit Commission. They have a simulator for buses. I am not sure what other vehicles the program can load. We are required every 3 years to do a recertification program. The groups are about 12-15 ppl. The sim is built like you said. Screens everywhere and a realistic operators area.
> As I was waiting my turn so many were complaining of nausea. I didn't think it would happen to me but it did. Not to bad but........I believe the reason it creates this sensation is due to the fact that you're not physically moving yet your other senses are stimulated to believe that you are.


That can be part of it - the "inner ear uncertainty". One often gets it waiting at transit depots or train stations, where one's own vehicle is alongside another. If you know_ you're_ operating the vehicle, you can often disambiguate the situation and do not experience the nausea. If you're a passenger, your own vehicle is idling (such that the vibrations you feel could _possibly _mean engine-generated movement) and the information visually available to you does not allow you to attribute the movement to your own vehicle or the adjacent one, _that's_ when you experience the nausea. It's the ambiguity that does it.

As well, attempts to provide immersive 3-D with infinite depth of field (something our eyes can't and don't do) tend to elicit nausea, because your vision is directed to what's in focus. Folks who lived through the transition from early 3-D games like Wolfenstein and Doom to Nintendo 64, where things in the background were deliberately blurred to provide a more limited depth of field, can tell you that the one made them feel nauseous while the latter did not. Seeing clear perspective changes way off I the distance that were as clear as proximal perspective changes just drive the brain nuts.


----------



## fretzel (Aug 8, 2014)

Was going to mention the moving vehicle beside you as well. 

Can't really comment on the video games. Once I had kids and controllers got more than 3 buttons I gave up. LOL


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Krelf said:


> One of the problems we have is the fact that the judges are so lenient with these people. From what I've read, it's not unusual for a person with multiple convictions to give a sob story about losing his livelihood if his licence is lifted, and the judge lets him off with a fine.
> 
> I've also heard that the courts frequently go light on those who drive while their licences are suspended. I'm inclined to support a mandatory three month incarceration for this.
> 
> Ask yourself, how many people have died because we haven't imposed harsh penalties for these offences?


I'm on the side of stiff and consistently-applied sentences for such offenses. At the same time, sentences are supposed to partly serve the purpose of pointing the offender in a better life-direction, and should not be inappropriately severe.

One has to wonder what proportion of those who are picked up and charged for DUI live in the city centre as opposed to the outskirts or rural/semi-rural areas. If I was the sole driver in the family, and we lived where the buses didn't go, should my family be punished for my stupidity? Now obviously, I shoulda thought of that _before_ I threw back a few and hopped into my pickup. Nevertheless, sentences are supposed to affect the offender, and not those who are simply related to them. It's a tough set of considerations to balance, even when a judge has a more "modern" view of the blight of impaired driving.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

fretzel said:


> Was going to mention the moving vehicle beside you as well.
> 
> Can't really comment on the video games. Once I had kids and controllers got more than 3 buttons I gave up. LOL


I hear ya. 
If one can see (and is looking at) something beyond the adjacent vehicle, there is usually no problem. So, if I have 2 vehicles on my driver's side and I can see through the closest one to the one just beyond it, I will be able to see that my position, relative to _that_ vehicle has not changed - ergo I'm standing still. If there is very limited information beyond the adjacent vehicle - something that tends to happen when one is seated in a train station or bus depot and you can't see anything beyond the adjacent train/bus - then all you have is the change in relative position of your own vehicle and the other one. Your body says you're not moving, but the visual cues from the other vehicle say you are. The uncertainty produces nausea.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

We have the solution.

Put those blow units in every car. May not be perfect, but probably much better in the end.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Obviously I have no problem with the enforcement of current drunk driving laws. My only real problem lies within the driving high laws. Not so much the driving high part, but the fact that there's no strict, quantified standard for "impairment" with regards to drugs. I mean, with booze, there's a measured standard, 0.08 bac (I believe), but there's no similar standard for drugs. So that begs the question what IS impaired? I don't have a problem with enforcing the laws. I DO have a serious problem with the enforcement of ambiguous, wide ranging, relatively undefined laws left up to a person's OPINION of impairment (which could vary greatly from person to person or day to day).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

adcandour said:


> We have the solution.
> 
> Put those blow units in every car. May not be perfect, but probably much better in the end.


I'm in

No skin off my nose.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

JBFairthorne said:


> Obviously I have no problem with the enforcement of current drunk driving laws. My only real problem lies within the driving high laws. Not so much the driving high part, but the fact that there's no strict, quantified standard for "impairment" with regards to drugs. I mean, with booze, there's a measured standard, 0.08 bac (I believe), but there's no similar standard for drugs. So that begs the question what IS impaired? I don't have a problem with enforcing the laws. I DO have a serious problem with the enforcement of ambiguous, wide ranging, relatively undefined laws left up to a person's OPINION of impairment (which could vary greatly from person to person or day to day).


I concur. It's a bigger challenge than one might think. As long as there was this split between DUI being unique to alcohol, and all other forms of impairment being this distinct-but-undifferentiated universe, applying the law consistently was easy.

Once you bring weed into the picture, and DUI now starts to have _variations/categories_, one has to come up with equivalently enforceable and reliable criteria. We assume that alcohol impairment will be for recreational purposes. But what about someone who is "one toke over the line" for medicinal purposes? I honestly don't expect that to happen much, if at all. But let's say for argument's sake that someone is. On what basis would they be charged? Purely in terms of demonstrable altered coordination via on-the-spot testing? But what about someone who is affected by some other medication? If the concern is about "impairment", writ large, how does that get assessed and enforced in consistent manner? And should any penalties written into the criminal code be commensurate with the _source_ of the impairment, the _degree_ of impairment, or simply all treated the same?

Atsa lotta stuff to think about.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

adcandour said:


> We have the solution.
> 
> Put those blow units in every car. May not be perfect, but probably much better in the end.


I saw one of those the other day. The guy said if the unit detects any alcohol the car wouldn't start.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

adcandour said:


> We have the solution.
> 
> Put those blow units in every car. May not be perfect, but probably much better in the end.


That is a great idea. I am sure the lawyers would hold this one up as an infringement on people's rights. 

You would also need to put one on every motorcycle, snowmobile and four wheeler.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> I saw one of those the other day. The guy said if the unit detects any alcohol the car wouldn't start.


So you drink while you're driving, not before.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Steadfastly said:


> That is a great idea. I am sure the lawyers would hold this one up as an infringement on people's rights.
> 
> You would also need to put one on every motorcycle, snowmobile and four wheeler.


Right to what? Drink and drive?

It doesn't follow that if you put it on cars you have to put it on anything else. 

Imo, they should go on everything. I don't give a shit.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> I saw one of those the other day. The guy said if the unit detects any alcohol the car wouldn't start.


There's a company in the same office plaza as mine where they install those.

They have a steady stream of "customers". What's sort of scary is that I've seen tractors (as in tractor / trailers) in for the treatment more than once.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

davetcan said:


> So you drink while you're driving, not before.


program it so you also have to blow to turn it off or to lock it.

Really though the device doesn't come close to addressing the root cause. People will always find a way around such a countermeasure.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> So you drink while you're driving, not before.


That works. Or just get someone else to start the car.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

How about a sensor on the steering wheel?

Alcohol in your system = no go, regardless of whether you drink before or during the drive.

The system detects alcohol while you're driving, you get a 60 second warning that the vehicle will slow down and stop, then be locked out.
There, some smart young engineer needs to develop it. I'm sure the technology exists or is close.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Well, the current one's that are often court ordered cost somewhere in the region of $700 to install I think (don't quote me, it could be more). Why should I, as a person that doesn't drink more than 4 or 5 beers a YEAR, be forced to pay for one?


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I bet if they were mass produced and installed as a feature in every new car made it would be cheaper. Then again if we just changed the laws to a mandatory no questions asked 10 year minimum for your first offence then people might think twice before they do it. Especially if they know someone who had been charged which 99% of us does.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Cheaper or not, why should a non-drinker be FORCED to pay for a completely unnecessary (to them) item? I think the current system is fine, they're installed as part of a court order for people that have been convicted.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

The thread has drifted close to a sensitive point for me: the notion that driving requires a ZERO blood-alcohol level.

Of course I share the concerns of all, including MADD, about truly-impaired drivers and the mayhem that they cause. However I've watched MADD grow from a little organization that did a great job of pushing police across the country to more-rigorous enforcement of the existing (typically) .08% blood/alcohol level (BAL) laws, to a larger nation-wide organization that has been successful in most (all?) provinces at securing penalties for .05% BAL even though science connecting that level to accidents is less-certain.

Now MADD is a really big organization, offices across the country, a machine for raising millions in funding from governments, corporations, and donors, and lots of really good jobs for a whole lot of people. But they've got .05% BAL, they've got rigorous enforcement, they've got strong message delivery and education and support programs around drinking/driving and designated-driver. How to justify the big machine now, and keep collecting the money and all those jobs?

Well they have their sights set on 0.0% BAL, and they've been lobbying for it harder than most people may realize. Some people here apparently like the idea, but I don't. If they have their way, a citizen won't be able to have a glass of wine or beer with a dinner out and then drive home. That's not statistically-supportable, and another egregious infringement of rights based on the effectiveness of a group's political voice rather than any real need or any benefit significant-enough to justify the infringement.

MADD is also responsible for a use of language which, I wonder, might have helped CDC conclude that the situation was dire here. Years ago they helped shift communications from talking about incidents and statistics of incidents involving an "impaired" (a legal term) driver to talking of incidents where "alcohol was a factor" (not a legal term and easily-abused). In other words, incidents where a driver may have had a single drink - maybe long hours ago - and the drink was almost entirely or entirely coincidental to the incident; there's no solid basis whatsoever for the belief that the accident would have been avoided without the drink. Reporting this "alcohol was a factor" way has of course significantly raised the numbers of incidents reported and kept alarm, and justification for MADD's well-funded existence, high.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

What constitutes a public danger when it comes to vehicles and safety (and that includes pedestrians as well as other people in vehicles) is a moving target.

I will maintain to my dying breath that we've seen a number of systematic changes on the roads over the last 25 years:

more vehicles in general
greater commuting distances as more people move to bedroom communities for affordable housing
greater manoeuverability of small vehicles with shorter wheelbases (so they can dart in and out faster and more)
rapidly obsolete signage (often installed when people drove slower and there were fewer vehicles)
more drivers sitting higher up, such that perceived speed is distorted
All of this has been changing, and continues to change. This not only has implications for policy/law regarding impaired driving, but also for very young and much older drivers, and what we might require from them in order to maximize public safety. And of course, we can expect that target to move yet again as even smaller electric vehicles and self-driving ones start to populate our roads. I doubt we shall see laws or bylaws that sit still and make everybody happy for periods longer than 6 years before needing to change yet again.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

boyscout said:


> The thread has drifted close to a sensitive point for me: the notion that driving requires a ZERO blood-alcohol level.
> 
> Of course I share the concerns of all, including MADD, about truly-impaired drivers and the mayhem that they cause. However I've watched MADD grow from a little organization that did a great job of pushing police across the country to more-rigorous enforcement of the existing (typically) .08% blood/alcohol level (BAL) laws, to a larger nation-wide organization that has been successful in most (all?) provinces at securing penalties for .05% BAL even though science connecting that level to accidents is less-certain.
> 
> ...


Once an "objective" turns in to an industry it needs to continually seek new targets for it's continued preservation. There are all kinds of them out there and they pay very well to their staffs. You might think that there is a reduced need for the National Non-smoker's Rights Association now that it's off the streets and out of the bars and restaraunts and people are switching to vaping as an alternative. I'm sure that when the last cigarette is extinguished they'll turn to gum-chewers as their next target.

How many billions of dollars is the Cancer Industry worth? If they find a cure tomorrow do you think these folks will all give high-fives and go home?

Will MADD close shop if drinking and driving is eliminated? Or will they move on to driving while listening to the radio? Or walking and breathing?


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2016)

mhammer said:


> .. we can expect that target to move yet again as even smaller electric vehicles and self-driving ones start to populate our roads.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> more vehicles in general
> more drivers sitting higher up, such that perceived speed is distorted.


Forgive the snip, but these two points strike home for me.

The tendency for people to drive SUVs, Minvans and trucks means the are sitting higher than they should with the resulting high center of gravity.

It's like volume wars in a band only everybody is trying to sit higher than the other guy.

I just don't see why you wouldn't want your ass as close to the road as possible. It's just much less likely to roll that way.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't get snippy with me young man! 

I suspect it's probably feasible to design a vehicle that has a low center of gravity but seats the driver high; passenger compartments being mostly empty space. But wherever the center of gravity may be, sitting higher moves the visual horizon farther off and makes visual approach to that horizon take longer, such that the driver perceives their velocity as slower than they might if they were lower to the ground. Obviously, a driver can look at their speedometer and behave appropriately, but many of us simply drive at the speed of accompanying traffic, or according to what "feels about right". Unfortunately, you can fix the physical stability of the vehicle but you can't change how visual perception works and what that does to driver behaviur.


----------



## Xelebes (Mar 9, 2015)

I can't drive so you can't blame any of it on me!


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

laristotle said:


> View attachment 22203


Far fuggin out. It's the only way to drive/fly.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

JBFairthorne said:


> Cheaper or not, why should a non-drinker be FORCED to pay for a completely unnecessary (to them) item? I think the current system is fine, they're installed as part of a court order for people that have been convicted.


What about someone who borrows your vehicle or your kids? They thing is you just never know. Maybe it could be an option and you get a insurance break on it? I would like to see some sort of incentive to have one.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I own a GMC 4X4, 2 Jeeps, a Chevy Cobalt and a 78 Trans Am. I prefer to sit up higher. My truck feels very stable but the 2 Jeeps, a 2016 and a 2004 you wouldn't want to make any sudden moves with.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

TA462 said:


> What about someone who borrows your vehicle or your kids? They thing is you just never know. Maybe it could be an option and you get a insurance break on it? I would like to see some sort of incentive to have one.


I'm not sure if insurance companies would be interested in giving a discount. They don't really have anything to gain. It's my understanding that (and I could be wrong) being drunk behind the wheel (in the case of an actual accident) automatically voids your insurance.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

JBFairthorne said:


> I'm not sure if insurance companies would be interested in giving a discount. They don't really have anything to gain. It's my understanding that (and I could be wrong) being drunk behind the wheel (in the case of an actual accident) automatically voids your insurance.


Yes your right buy what about the drunk moron that hits you? Your insurance pays if the other guy is drunk. If you could take away the possibility of your vehicle used by someone who has had a few drinks then it is a benefit to all insurance company's. Think of it like snow tires, you don't have to have them and some people swear they don't need them but in the over all picture of things snow tires are a benefit for everyone that uses the roads. If you use them or not.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

boyscout said:


> The thread has drifted close to a sensitive point for me: the notion that driving requires a ZERO blood-alcohol level.
> 
> Of course I share the concerns of all, including MADD, about truly-impaired drivers and the mayhem that they cause. However I've watched MADD grow from a little organization that did a great job of pushing police across the country to more-rigorous enforcement of the existing (typically) .08% blood/alcohol level (BAL) laws, to a larger nation-wide organization that has been successful in most (all?) provinces at securing penalties for .05% BAL even though science connecting that level to accidents is less-certain.
> 
> ...


 Bingo how many six figure incomes are generated by the whole MADD system for their managment. ITs about your ability to drive a vehicle with out your reactions being impaired. But these guys want to dictate how people live their lives. Two drinks on a Saturday night does not impair my driving ability or anyone else I know. Are you prepaired for the end of the bar industry if so play into their mandate and that is a BAC of 0.
I do support getting drunks off the road. That being a BAC of .08 which has been tested and proven to be the point of impairment.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

My purely anecdotal, unscientific hunch is, dui is a bigger problem in rural areas than cities. It's way too common a topic at my wife's family reunions....(they live about 3hrs outside the city, and all have had friends \relatives end up driving into the ditches while drunk, killed in snowmobile/boatingand drinking accidents,etc.
Maybe it's the "good ole boy" culture, or the lack of public transit. I dunno.
Alcohol just seems to go with whatever they do at night.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

The difference here is that not having snow tires doesn't automatically void your insurance though.

I can't see how MY insurance company giving me a discount for an item to help prevent me from driving drunk and voiding my own insurance, saving the OTHER guys insurance company money is a benefit to MY insurance company. Most companies in general don't care much about saving competitors money.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Distortion said:


> Bingo how many six figure incomes are generated by the whole MADD system for their managment. ITs about your ability to drive a vehicle with out your reactions being impaired. But these guys want to dictate how people live their lives. Two drinks on a Saturday night does not impair my driving ability or anyone else I know. Are you prepaired for the end of the bar industry if so play into their mandate and that is a BAC of 0.
> I do support getting drunks off the road. That being a BAC of .08 which has been tested and proven to be the point of impairment.


Depends what the two drinks are. Two beers over an hr. or two, maybe not but slam back two Double Jacks on an empty stomach and see what might happen.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Well 2 double Jacks is actually 4, no?


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

JBFairthorne said:


> Well 2 double Jacks is actually 4, no?


Its actually a catch phrase


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

JBFairthorne said:


> Well 2 double Jacks is actually 4, no?


No. A Double Jack is in one glass, it's one price and it goes down in one swallow. Same as a Boiler Maker or a Depth Charge. How two Zombies back to back. 
@Diablo....when I used to drink, if it was in a bar in town you'd eventually leave and drive home. Out in the country you'd usually find a place to sleep it off....away from the party. Or ride/drive home and hope for the best.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

vadsy said:


> Its actually a catch phrase


A shot of Jack Daniels and a shot of Yukon Jack, in a glass. No ice. I suppose swinging 12 lbs of steel at the end of 36" of Hickory all day might have the same affect on some people.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

I consider a drink to be one 355 mil bottle of beer (12 ounces). A serving of wine you know them little glasses the ladies like.One ounce of 40 % spirits. All dragged out over a evening
Not a shot glass of newfee 150 proof screech. Most of the whiners are recovering Alcoholics that want to ruin every ones party, because they could not exercise restraint when having a drink or two.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Electraglide said:


> A shot of Jack Daniels and a shot of Yukon Jack, in a glass. No ice. I suppose swinging 12 lbs of steel at the end of 36" of Hickory all day might have the same affect on some people.


Now take those two drinks and sip it all Saturday night you wont blow anything on the meter.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Distortion said:


> I consider a drink to be one 355 mil bottle of beer (12 ounces). A serving of wine you know them little glasses the ladies like.One ounce of 40 % spirits. All dragged out over a evening
> Not a shot glass of newfee 150 proof screech. Most of the whiners are recovering Alcoholics that want to ruin every ones party, because they could not exercise restraint when having a drink or two.


Never could see the point of sipping a little glass of wine or that little amount of beer and dragging it out over an evening. To me that is not a drink.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Electraglide said:


> Never could see the point of sipping a little glass of wine or that little amount of beer and dragging it out over an evening. To me that is not a drink.


 The point is not to drive impaired. That is what you got to do. If you want to get bombed don't drive.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I couldn't sip a drink all night - I need hydration. 

But alternating works for me. A beer, then a pop/water. Then another beer, etc. Stay hydrated, can still drive home. At least as long as the rules are as they are now.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

I hear you High Deaf. I generally have two 16 ounce drafts dragged out over 2.5 hours and If I blew it would be 0 or a trace at best. I have blown with one beer and it was a big fat 0. Cop was not happy. His partner laughed and said we have never had anyone come out of that bar and blow a 0.Bar drinks are just too damn expensive anyhow.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Distortion said:


> The point is not to drive impaired. That is what you got to do. If you want to get bombed don't drive.


There-in lays my problem and why I don't drink or do drugs anymore. That being said and to get back to the OP, I don't think that it's a "national disgrace". I also figure the limit we have now is fine and 0% is not achievable.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Yes the legal limit in Quebec is still .08. They told MADD to stuff it, they want to keep the resturant and entertainment industry alive. Ontario at .05 you are penalized.Pulled that number out of a hat I guess.


----------



## Guest (Jul 23, 2016)

.08 here as well.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

laristotle said:


> .08 here as well.


I here you but if you blow a warn which is .05 to .08 roadside you get towed and a three day suspention so I consider this the point of getting your fingers slapped. I believe if you get caught twice with a warn there is more penalty's.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not going to get mad at MADD. I suspect that if you've lost a loved one to anything that was engaged in irresponsibly or with foreseeable risk, be it alcohol, other psychoactive substances, prescription meds, firearms, motorcycle injuries, bunjee jumping, etc., you become more insistent about restrictions, if only because that loved one's death has to _*mean*_ something by resulting in preventing other needless deaths. It is always admirable to want to reduce harm, but you'll never eliminate it like smallpox or polio by going overboard with unworkable or inequitably-enforced restrictions. You aim for something that is workable and adds clear value, the people it burdens a teeny bit quit their whining, and you move on, knowing it can never be perfect and seamless.

Blood alcohol levels in legislation are arrived at based on epidemiological research. There are plenty of driving researchers out there right now that are putting people in driving simulators, and varying something about the dashboard, the lighting, the physical state of the driver, or something else,and seeing what the accident rate is. There are also far too many figures obtainable from where an accident has occurred and a blood sample was obtained by the coroner or police. Blood alcohol levels are set on the basis of known empirical relationships between risk and blood levels. The challenge is, as I noted in an earlier post, that the driving context is a constantly moving target, and what is acceptable risk reduction in one context isinsufficient in another.

My late father in law was an old school "two foot driver"; one on the gas and one on the brakes. Dangerous AFAIC. He had also suffered cognitive decline and couldn't process a lot of info at once. But the guy NEVER took the highway; only a few municipal streets and country back roads he knew well. His cognitive state was certainly a risk for other driving contexts,but not the one he rigidly stuck to.

Why are there probably more rural alcohol-related driving fatalities? Some have mentioned absence of public transit (or taxis/Uber for that matter), and I think that is relevant. But also, people who live in rural areas have grown so accustomed to, and impatient with, the long stretches of road that they regularly have todrive, that they drive faster on them than the rest of us would. If I'm on a rural two-lane minor highway, and some guy passes me 35kph above the limit after having run out of passing hashmarks, it's a local who will turn off the highway shortly. Mix that impetuousness with some alcohol impediments to reaction time, and you have trouble.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

"At .08, it would take a 200-pound guy seven straight drinks in two hours, on an empty stomach, to blow a criminal level.”" This is a quote from this article that based on personal experience I don't particularly believe.
Is there a safe number of drinks I can consume before driving?
I might not blow .08 but I sure as hell shouldn't drive. 7 shots in two hrs.. Hell I'd be up dancing with the strippers. 
This is how Ab. looks at it. https://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType4789/Production/QA.pdf


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

The solution is coming and it is driverless cars. And they won't be mixed with regular cars on the road, that won't work, so non-automated cars will be outlawed.
People don't really care to be driving anymore, they have more important things to do, like tweeting, texting, watching movies, shaving, or as in the current discussion, drinking.
Most of us grew up with the car culture, but the following generations did not. Through their actions they are basically asking not to drive anymore, and will get their wish. The vehicles are getting safer all the time, but the drivers getting more unsafe.
Taking the driver out of the equation solves the issue. I'm not for it, but I'm pretty sure that's where we're going.

As far as the BAC .08 vs .05 thing, as far as I know, the .08 impaired is the criminal offence (National) whereas the .05 is in some provinces and is not a criminal offence. As far as I know, multiple .05's can not lead to jail like a .08 impaired can. In BC I believe the .05 is run by the insurance (ICBC). I'm not sure exactly how the legality of the .05 works.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

jb welder said:


> The solution is coming and it is driverless cars. And they won't be mixed with regular cars on the road, that won't work, so non-automated cars will be outlawed.
> People don't really care to be driving anymore, they have more important things to do, like tweeting, texting, watching movies, shaving, or as in the current discussion, drinking.
> Most of us grew up with the car culture, but the following generations did not. Through their actions they are basically asking not to drive anymore, and will get their wish. The vehicles are getting safer all the time, but the drivers getting more unsafe.
> Taking the driver out of the equation solves the issue. I'm not for it, but I'm pretty sure that's where we're going.
> ...


Get a .05, almost anywhere in Canada I think, and it's a 3 day driving ban, a fine, in B.C. at least points, and if you are a learner or under 21 you probably will have to start over again. I believe that's the law. On top of that your insurance goes up with each suspension.
As far as automatic cars go, you forgot sex.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

jb welder said:


> The solution is coming and it is driverless cars. And they won't be mixed with regular cars on the road, that won't work, so non-automated cars will be outlawed.
> People don't really care to be driving anymore, they have more important things to do, like tweeting, texting, watching movies, shaving, or as in the current discussion, drinking.
> Most of us grew up with the car culture, but the following generations did not. Through their actions they are basically asking not to drive anymore, and will get their wish. The vehicles are getting safer all the time, but the drivers getting more unsafe.
> Taking the driver out of the equation solves the issue. I'm not for it, but I'm pretty sure that's where we're going.


I don't disagree that this is where we're going, just wondering out loud what will happen to bikes/motorbikes in this situation. I can't envision a driverless bike  Might just make life on a bike a damn site safer, if they're still allowed of course.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I have a serous problem with these roadside driving bans. I mean I can see (for safety reasons) banning someone for 12 or 24 hours, enough time to sober up. However, being punished for 3 days WITHOUT having your day in court seems to go against everything our legal system is based upon. I feel the exact same way about the similar bans for "stunt driving". How can the police sentence you to ANYTHING? That's not their job. They charge you, the court (a judge) sentences you...AFTER you've had your day in court. Grrrr this makes me SO angry (not that it's ever affected me directly). Let's just say you beat the charge in court, you can't get those days without your vehicle back. And if you think your insurance company will just forget about it and NOT use any excuse to jack your rates...well...


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Myself, I'm not as hopeful about the future of self-driving vehicles as many seem to be. "Safe" driving, and negotiation of one's position in a stream of traffic, is a complex process, and likely more complex than what Watson had to engage in to beat Ken Jennings. As such, it can certainly _happen_, but not at the sort of speeds people would like, particularly if they live far from where they wish to go. Being able to do something _other_ than cope with idiots cutting in is a wonderful thing. But if it takes an hour and a quarter to go from Scarborough to Kensington Market, or from Sherwood Park to West Edmonton Mall, I don't know how much thrill people would find in that.

So, as near as I can tell, there will always be roadways where the driver dictates what the vehicle does. Whether self-driving or driverless vehicles have their own roadways, or merely a distinct lane in an existing roadway, is another thing. Clearly, if they have to share part of a roadway with driver-based vehicles, that complicates the decision process for the onboard algorithms even further. Far better for them to have their own distinct roadway where all vehicles can be synced and drive at a common speed. But if you thought the municipal tab for maintaining roads was unbearable _now_, just wait.

There is also the matter of scanning for those pesky pedestrians. The computational demands and risk are reduced by precluding pedestrians from being in the equation. But again, that requires not only different cars but different roads and very specific location of roads. On the other hand, if I think about the low-traffic no-sidewalk suburban streets where I live, and the fact that school zones have low speed limits, the computational demands on the vehicle are reduced.

Self-driving vehicles will certainly be a boon for seniors and for people with young children in the car; those cases where the driver has a hard time negotiating all the information that has to be integrated to drive the car themselves. I heard someone talking the other day about driverless vehicles being used as Uber cars, such that one could own a fleet of suitable vehicles and they'd just go where you send them, picking up passengers, and dropping them off. Yeah, right.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

davetcan said:


> I don't disagree that this is where we're going, just wondering out loud what will happen to bikes/motorbikes in this situation. I can't envision a driverless bike  Might just make life on a bike a damn site safer, if they're still allowed of course.


I think safe driverless vehicles are a long, long way down the road. And that would be a very limited road especially if they use something like google maps to guide them. Sex in a vehicle would increase a hell of a lot tho.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

JBFairthorne said:


> I have a serous problem with these roadside driving bans. I mean I can see (for safety reasons) banning someone for 12 or 24 hours, enough time to sober up. However, being punished for 3 days WITHOUT having your day in court seems to go against everything our legal system is based upon. I feel the exact same way about the similar bans for "stunt driving". How can the police sentence you to ANYTHING? That's not their job. They charge you, the court (a judge) sentences you...AFTER you've had your day in court. Grrrr this makes me SO angry (not that it's ever affected me directly). Let's just say you beat the charge in court, you can't get those days without your vehicle back. And if you think your insurance company will just forget about it and NOT use any excuse to jack your rates...well...


Seems like the 24 hr bans don't work. In Ab. you blow between .05 and .08 you get suspended....that it seems is the law so it is part of the police officers job.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

So you support a Police officer charging you AND passing sentence without your opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law? That's one of the most basic principles of our legal system...right along with innocent until PROVEN guilty.

The purpose of a 3 day ban is to punish, the purpose of a 12 hour or 24 hour ban is to protect public safety by ensuring that a driver SUSPECTED of being drunk will be banned for a period of time so as to sober up and not be a threat. I have no issue with ANY length of ban that is decided by a judge in a court of law after a fair trial with the defendant being afforded the opportunity to defend himself and face his accuser, whether it's a 3 day suspension or a year, or a lifetime ban for that matter.

I get really uncomfortable with ANY of our rights being infringed upon, even one's that might be considered minor (not necessarily this). That's how government's are slowly changed from a democracy to something far more controlling. Personally I like democracy. You've got to protect the people's less important rights if you have any hope in protecting the far more important ones.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

I get stopped by an officer and blow between .05 and .08 the law clearly states the penalty. If I blow between .05 and .08 I am guilty. The breathalyzer is the judge. If 
I refuse to blow the breathalyzer 
I believe that 
I am guilty of a criminal offense which is a lot worse that a 3 day. They also can take you to a hospital for a blood test. If you are not offered a breathalyzer that is a completely different story even if you are only give a roadside sobriety test. The law clearly states the limits of a ''warning''. And also states what the officer has to do based on the results of a breathalyzer test. You are not suspected of ''being drunk''. You are according to the law. What can be any fairer than failing a breathalyzer unless they charge you with being drunk in a public place which usually is time.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

The only issue I have with your statement is, the findings of a breathalyzer can be challenged in a court of law. Just because a machine says guilty doesn't necessarily make it so. You can challenge the results of the test based on several factors including but not limited to following proper procedures as well as challenging the accuracy based on when it was calibrated last.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> You can challenge the results of the test based on several factors including but not limited to following proper procedures ..


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

JBFairthorne said:


> The only issue I have with your statement is, the findings of a breathalyzer can be challenged in a court of law. Just because a machine says guilty doesn't necessarily make it so. You can challenge the results of the test based on several factors including but not limited to following proper procedures as well as challenging the accuracy based on when it was calibrated last.


This is true, same as a speeding ticket, but, at the moment you are given a breathalyzer the police officer has to go by it's readings as of that moment. He has no other choice....that's the way the law is written. If he believes the machine is wrong he can take you in for a blood test or give you a 24 hr, driving under the influence, ticket which still leaves you sitting by the road side. Same as a speeding ticket if you are doing more than a certain speed over the speed limit. They pull your liscence and your car sits by the roadside until it can be towed to the nearest impound. It's a bitch if you drink and drive but that's the way it is.


----------



## amagras (Apr 22, 2015)

laristotle said:


>


Oh my


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

Milkman said:


> How about a sensor on the steering wheel?
> 
> Alcohol in your system = no go, regardless of whether you drink before or during the drive.
> 
> ...


My father is working on something very similar. Obviously, I can't get into detail, but it's all coming...

I believe he's working on the prototype now.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

JBFairthorne said:


> So you support a Police officer charging you AND passing sentence without your opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law? That's one of the most basic principles of our legal system...right along with innocent until PROVEN guilty.
> 
> The purpose of a 3 day ban is to punish, the purpose of a 12 hour or 24 hour ban is to protect public safety by ensuring that a driver SUSPECTED of being drunk will be banned for a period of time so as to sober up and not be a threat. I have no issue with ANY length of ban that is decided by a judge in a court of law after a fair trial with the defendant being afforded the opportunity to defend himself and face his accuser, whether it's a 3 day suspension or a year, or a lifetime ban for that matter.
> 
> I get really uncomfortable with ANY of our rights being infringed upon, even one's that might be considered minor (not necessarily this). That's how government's are slowly changed from a democracy to something far more controlling. Personally I like democracy. You've got to protect the people's less important rights if you have any hope in protecting the far more important ones.


 If you get a 3 day ban for driving under .08 or if your caught speeding above 50 then its all ready proven that you did it isn't it? Your the one that blew over or your the one that was caught by the radar gun. You seem to forget that driving is a privilege , its not a right. In my opinion way to many people think its a right. Nobody has the right to drive with no more than .04 in their system while driving and nobody has the right to drive 50 k over the speed limit. These morons get their day in court and this is where the REAL National Disgrace is, they fight it and charges are either lowered by the Crown Attorney because of a backlog of cases or thrown out on a technicality even though they did what they were charged with.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I agree driving is a privilege. Being innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW is a right. Don't be so quick to assume what I might or might not have forgotten. Clearly none of you seem to mind our civil liberties being infringed upon though, so I'll just leave it at that. When you start to lose rights that actually matter to you, don't look around and ask "How did this happen?". It happened slowly, one small right after another, right under your noses while you weren't paying attention or didn't seem to care.

Bear in mind, I've been driving 30 years, never been charged with any drinking related offense and never even been asked to blow into a breathalyzer. This isn't just someone bitching because I got nabbed drinking and driving, crying how it's not fair. There are larger issues here which don't seem to matter to anyone here but me, based on the responses so far. I hope the day never comes when issues like these matter to you all, when one right after another has been stripped away and Canada barely resembles what it once was. Of course, by then, it will probably be too late to undo the damage.

Please, return to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

JB, the only issue I have with your argument is that your not looking at the 99% of the population that follows the rules, what about their rights? When I drive on the street I fully expect that everyone around me isn't high or drunk and that everyone drives to the rules of the road. Unfortunately that is not the case. This is why I've taken many defensive driving courses and performance driving courses. They make me a better driver so I can react without thinking when I encounter one of these morons on the street or highway when they do something stupid. I'm sorry you feel your rights are being taken away from you because you feel these clowns deserve their day in court first before they are removed from the roads. I don't and I believe they all should have their day in court sitting on the side of the road as they are watching their car get towed away. I've been driving for 35 years and I've encountered a lot of people who truly just don't care about us 99% so I say the hell with them.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

I don't support a BAC content for new drivers of 0. Read this story and you will see why. Last six paragraghs if you don't want to read it all..http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2149644-sex-in-cruiser-cop-sentenced/


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Huh? What does that have to do with BA level rules for new drivers? An officer crossed the line, pure and simple. The young woman should have known better, and so should the officer, whether the driver was G, G-1, or G-2, and regardless of what the legally permissible level is. What you're suggesting is like saying you don't believe in speed limits because someone tried to get out of a speeding ticket via the same sort of "oral persuasion".


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

JBFairthorne said:


> So you support a Police officer charging you AND passing sentence without your opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law? That's one of the most basic principles of our legal system...right along with innocent until PROVEN guilty.
> 
> The purpose of a 3 day ban is to punish, the purpose of a 12 hour or 24 hour ban is to protect public safety by ensuring that a driver SUSPECTED of being drunk will be banned for a period of time so as to sober up and not be a threat. I have no issue with ANY length of ban that is decided by a judge in a court of law after a fair trial with the defendant being afforded the opportunity to defend himself and face his accuser, whether it's a 3 day suspension or a year, or a lifetime ban for that matter.
> 
> I get really uncomfortable with ANY of our rights being infringed upon, even one's that might be considered minor (not necessarily this). That's how government's are slowly changed from a democracy to something far more controlling. Personally I like democracy. You've got to protect the people's less important rights if you have any hope in protecting the far more important ones.


I would agree with you that certain "rights" are being toyed with. As an example, according to the local paper there was a RIDE program in effect in Niagara this past weekend for which 300 cars were stopped. 2 drivers blew over .08 and one blew over .05. That's all fine to me - that's what the program supposed to do. It tells me that almost 99.4% of our drivers are not drinking!

But then the article goes on to add: 
_*
"Many fines were also issued to drivers in contravention of the Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act."*_

I have a problem with that. When RIDE was first enacted the police were not allowed to turn the program in to a "one-stop cop shop" and they had to limit the checks to impaired issues or serious vehicle related issues. Something about *just-cause* being required for the other things.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

allthumbs56 said:


> I would agree with you that certain "rights" are being toyed with. As an example, according to the local paper there was a RIDE program in effect in Niagara this past weekend for which 300 cars were stopped. 2 drivers blew over .08 and one blew over .05. That's all fine to me - that's what the program supposed to do. It tells me that almost 99.4% of our drivers are not drinking!
> 
> But then the article goes on to add:
> _*
> ...


 Yep they always walk behind the vehicle and check the sticker. Kind of like setting up a boarder patrol when ever and where ever they want. Papers Papers.Where have you been ? where are you going ? Had them questions at a ride stop.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

mhammer said:


> Huh? What does that have to do with BA level rules for new drivers? An officer crossed the line, pure and simple. The young woman should have known better, and so should the officer, whether the driver was G, G-1, or G-2, and regardless of what the legally permissible level is. What you're suggesting is like saying you don't believe in speed limits because someone tried to get out of a speeding ticket via the same sort of "oral persuasion".


Don't blame the victim. Don't forget about the pistol in the gun belt smiling at her.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

There's a cbc article about how the new concern for automated vehicles is people having sex while driving.

You can drop a phone a lot faster than you can throw your partner off you and grab the wheel.

I don't think the laws need much changing. I think it's our society that has to step up to the plate. People at a party or event are the first line of defence against someone who's been drinking, getting into a vehicle to go anywhere. If it gets to the point where someone is drunk and operating a vehicle, unless they were drinking alone then that shouldn't be the case.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> I think it's our society that has to step up to the plate. People at a party or event are the first line of defence against someone who's been drinking, getting into a vehicle to go anywhere. If it gets to the point where someone is drunk and operating a vehicle, unless they were drinking alone then that shouldn't be the case.


You're right about that. How many of us have been at a house party and watched a loved one we know has had one or two too many, get behind the wheel and drive himself and usually two or three others home?

I'm no different. Especially when it's borderline, how many of us will "start something" with a close friend or relative even when it's the right thing to do?

We all know we should, but do that at every gathering and you'll see your social calendar clear up rather quickly I'd say.


----------



## Guest (Jul 25, 2016)

Milkman said:


> We all know we should, but do that at every gathering and you'll see your social calendar clear up rather quickly I'd say.


I did that with my bro in law one time.
Almost had fists flying. 
He did not drive, and you what?
They don't remember a thing the next morning.
So .. I was still on his invite list.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I normally draw the line when I find them crawling across the parking lot on their hands & knees cause they can't walk..........and they look up at you and say, "just help me up into my truck, I'm ok to drive".


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

laristotle said:


> I did that with my bro in law one time.
> Almost had fists flying.
> He did not drive, and you what?
> They don't remember a thing the next morning.
> So .. I was still on his invite list.


They don't remember when they were hammered, but again it's the borderline situations that could be more of an issue.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> You're right about that. How many of us have been at a house party and watched a loved one we know has had one or two too many, get behind the wheel and drive himself and usually two or three others home?
> 
> I'm no different. Especially when it's borderline, how many of us will "start something" with a close friend or relative even when it's the right thing to do?
> 
> We all know we should, but do that at every gathering and you'll see your social calendar clear up rather quickly I'd say.


The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission had one of the very best ad campaigns ever in the early 80's. The message was simple and persuasive: "Friends don't let friends drive drunk". In other words, it encouraged the person not to judge the other individual, but to question the strength of their own friendship. Brilliant because it relied on cognitive dissonance: if you're half the friend you like to_ think_ you are, then why the hell aren't you doing anything to increase your buddy's safety, or are you a piece of crap who doesn't care about those you call your friends?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission had one of the very best ad campaigns ever in the early 80's. The message was simple and persuasive: "Friends don't let friends drive drunk". In other words, it encouraged the person not to judge the other individual, but to question the strength of their own friendship. Brilliant because it relied on cognitive dissonance: if you're half the friend you like to_ think_ you are, then why the hell aren't you doing anything to increase your buddy's safety, or are you a piece of crap who doesn't care about those you call your friends?


I like the approach and hope it helped but in real life, telling uncle Ron he shouldn't drive home can take some guts, and I suspect the "once bitten, twice shy" idea may come in to play.

Drunks are not often receptive to that sort of friendly advice.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I've had arguments with people advising them not to drive, even offered to drive them myself...you just can't reason with them. Best to just make a policy of taking the keys upon entry (if it's your place). Come on in, enjoy yourself...but I'll need your keys. That way, if they throw a fit when you refuse to give them back you can hand them the phone and tell them to call the cops to sort it out.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Makes for interesting stories now and then.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

mhammer said:


> The Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission had one of the very best ad campaigns ever in the early 80's. The message was simple and persuasive: "Friends don't let friends drive drunk". In other words, it encouraged the person not to judge the other individual, but to question the strength of their own friendship. Brilliant because it relied on cognitive dissonance: if you're half the friend you like to_ think_ you are, then why the hell aren't you doing anything to increase your buddy's safety, or are you a piece of crap who doesn't care about those you call your friends?


Yes, I remember that campaign. I didn't know it started in AB but I remember it being effective - to the point where we started saying things like "friends don't let friends drive Fords" or "friends don't let friends play Tele's". That's the sign of a good campaign; when it becomes a part of buddy banter and general conversation.

And I still say that's the best way to combat some of our other looming problems. Education that hits the populace square in the eyes and engages them. Drinking/driving is still a problem but nothing like it was in the 70s. I believe that campaign (and probably others like it) was one of the agents of change.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I like the approach and hope it helped but in real life, telling uncle Ron he shouldn't drive home can take some guts, and I suspect the "once bitten, twice shy" idea may come in to play.
> 
> Drunks are not often receptive to that sort of friendly advice.


It actually did have a beneficial impact, and as a result was emulated in other places. Of course, like any ad campaign, these things have a finite shelf life.

The nature of the approach one adopts is pivotal. "You're NOT getting in that car! Now, gimme the damn keys!" is unlikely to elicit a receptive response. On the other hand "I'm worried about you, man. I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to ya. You can crash here if you want." tends to result in a more positive and less hostile response.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I always liked the one looking through the empty beer glass, then they put another behind it, and another...straight to the point.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

JBFairthorne said:


> I've had arguments with people advising them not to drive, even offered to drive them myself...you just can't reason with them. Best to just make a policy of taking the keys upon entry (if it's your place). Come on in, enjoy yourself...but I'll need your keys. That way, if they throw a fit when you refuse to give them back you can hand them the phone and tell them to call the cops to sort it out.


I've been to party's like that. All the keys go in a bowl.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I find it ironic that bars can be denied liquor licenses because they don't have enough parking spots.


----------

