I hear what you're saying Len, and even mostly agree.
MADD is really just a reincarnated, new-age, Women's Christian Temperance Union. A bunch of neo-prohibitionists that have cleaverly disguised themselves behind things you can't disagree with (your mother & drunk driving). I know people that have lost loved ones to drunk drivers (my brother-in-law was T-boned by someone still intoxicated the next morning & lost his girlfriend; a friend at Western saw a friend get run over along Richmond row). I feel their sympathy & anger, but that organization is truly MAD.
What is ZERO tolerance? How do you measure it? What's the precision & accuracy of the devices they're using now (breathalyzers & blood tests)? If someone uses mouthwash & blows over a zero threshold, would they automatically be a criminal without any legal representation?
Maybe nobody should be driving, that would eliminated DD! No, the country doesn't have the infastructure for that... we need cars. So maybe nobody should be drinking? Aha! That's it! That's MADDness.
That said, I don't believe driving is a legal 'right'. It's really more of a privilege.
Looking for the original Bar Towel blog? You can find it at www.thebartowel.com.
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
We have a trivia question in order to register to prevent bots. If you have any issues with answering, contact us at cass@bartowel.com for help.
Introducing Light Mode! If you would like a Bar Towel social experience that isn't the traditional blue, you can now select Light Mode. Go to the User Control Panel and then Board Preferences, and select "Day Drinking" (Light Mode) from the My Board Style drop-down menu. You can always switch back to "Night Drinking" (Dark Mode). Enjoy!
The Art of Drinking and Driving
-
SteelbackGuy
- Beer Superstar
- Posts: 4613
- Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 12:11 pm
- Location: Hamilton, ON
- Contact:
thanks Derek, this is EXACTLY what I was getting at. You've said it better than I could have.Derek wrote:I hear what you're saying Len, and even mostly agree.
MADD is really just a reincarnated, new-age, Women's Christian Temperance Union. A bunch of neo-prohibitionists that have cleaverly disguised themselves behind things you can't disagree with (your mother & drunk driving). I know people that have lost loved ones to drunk drivers (my brother-in-law was T-boned by someone still intoxicated the next morning & lost his girlfriend; a friend at Western saw a friend get run over along Richmond row). I feel their sympathy & anger, but that organization is truly MAD.
What is ZERO tolerance? How do you measure it? What's the precision & accuracy of the devices they're using now (breathalyzers & blood tests)? If someone uses mouthwash & blows over a zero threshold, would they automatically be a criminal without any legal representation?
Maybe nobody should be driving, that would eliminated DD! No, the country doesn't have the infastructure for that... we need cars. So maybe nobody should be drinking? Aha! That's it! That's MADDness.
That said, I don't believe driving is a legal 'right'. It's really more of a privilege.
If you`re reading this, there`s a 15% chance you`ve got a significant drinking problem. Get it fixed, get recovered!
-
Jan Primus
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 8:57 am
My personal limit is 2 drinks after that I won't drive or if I have a 3rd I make sure it's been over a 3 hour (minimum) period. I have done a breathalyzer once in my life...I blew .01 after 3 beers over 2 hours. So I feel that I am never too close to the limit with my rules.
A few issues I've had with DD laws are:
1) The fact that you may not knowingly be commiting a crime...I wished that all cars had a breathalyzer you had to pass prior to driving.
2) There should be different penalties for extreme levels of drunkeness. Someone drinking 50 drinks could have the same penalty as someone having 3...that person having 50 is obviously far more dangerous. I know a guy who only remembered waking up in jail, that is just crazy.
3) What use are harsh penalties if there are not many ride patrols? I can count on one hand how many ride patrols I've driven through in my life...and I would guesstimate that I have over a million km driving experience...I would like to see ride patrols on the reg but I don't want to see people getting screwed over 1 or 2 drinks.
I don't like the idea of ZERO tolerance either, though I'm sure it will be here in my lifetime. Have a drink with lunch and not be able to drive the rest of the day?
A few issues I've had with DD laws are:
1) The fact that you may not knowingly be commiting a crime...I wished that all cars had a breathalyzer you had to pass prior to driving.
2) There should be different penalties for extreme levels of drunkeness. Someone drinking 50 drinks could have the same penalty as someone having 3...that person having 50 is obviously far more dangerous. I know a guy who only remembered waking up in jail, that is just crazy.
3) What use are harsh penalties if there are not many ride patrols? I can count on one hand how many ride patrols I've driven through in my life...and I would guesstimate that I have over a million km driving experience...I would like to see ride patrols on the reg but I don't want to see people getting screwed over 1 or 2 drinks.
I don't like the idea of ZERO tolerance either, though I'm sure it will be here in my lifetime. Have a drink with lunch and not be able to drive the rest of the day?
Driving is definitely a 'privilege' not a 'right' - just consider the way cars hog public space, and the incredibly unfair advantage of force a motor vehicle has against anything else. It's easy to get blasé about this & get used to having the privilege of driving, despite the potential danger.
(Admit to doing!! Perhaps it's more??)
Clamming up about something probably more than half of people do, something that is actually going on, is really really stupid and perhaps demonstrates exactly how censorship & "political correctness" is destroying people's ability to communicate clearly & effectively.
BS. Some people are just allergic to honesty - which this thread is really about, it's about admitting the problem honestly, not about justifying clearly dangerous behavior. I think it's commendable to open a discussion of awareness around something 50% of respondents admit to doing, since we rarely talk about it.jethro796 wrote:I can't believe that anybody would suggest such a discussion.
This thread should be deleted.
(Admit to doing!! Perhaps it's more??)
Clamming up about something probably more than half of people do, something that is actually going on, is really really stupid and perhaps demonstrates exactly how censorship & "political correctness" is destroying people's ability to communicate clearly & effectively.
In Beerum Veritas
-
icemachine
- Beer Superstar
- Posts: 2637
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:20 am
- Location: Aurora, ON
- Contact:
I can admit to having likely been over my personal line a time or two and still driving, although I think I have been more impaired from lack of sleep and driving than drink driving.
The .05 limit is a defacto limit but it is an Ontario Highway Traffic Act violation, not a Criminal Code of Canada one (.08 ). You should not end up with a criminal record for the 3 day suspension. You also have the right to request a second test if you register between .05 and .08 and the officer indicates he will suspend your licence.
I know a few police officers and have blown .02 after having 3 beers over a couple hours, and .06 after having two beers over the same time span, which indicates to me either those breathalysers aren't that great or alcoholic absorbtion rates can vary quite a lot.
The .05 limit is a defacto limit but it is an Ontario Highway Traffic Act violation, not a Criminal Code of Canada one (.08 ). You should not end up with a criminal record for the 3 day suspension. You also have the right to request a second test if you register between .05 and .08 and the officer indicates he will suspend your licence.
I know a few police officers and have blown .02 after having 3 beers over a couple hours, and .06 after having two beers over the same time span, which indicates to me either those breathalysers aren't that great or alcoholic absorbtion rates can vary quite a lot.
"Everything ... is happening" - Bob Cole
Just look at the poll's results, and then tell me its not something that needs to be brought to our attention.jethro796 wrote:I can't believe that anybody would suggest such a discussion.
This thread should be deleted.
Ian Guénard
http://www.bieresetplaisirs.com/index.php
http://www.bieresetplaisirs.com/index.php
I'm afraid I've done this before but it was the morning after having got drunk. Strangely - and I still wonder about this - I didn't feel anything but sober when I was getting dressed and ready but then suddenly felt the buzz when I was out on the road. Since then I've been careful never to underestimate how the alcohol effect can linger.
-
The_Jester
- Bar Fly
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:01 pm
- Location: Peterborough
I can't believe that this thread went beyond one post!?! How can any sane person have any problem with a .05 limit? For a fucking warning?! (Losing one's car for a day or three does not make one a "hardened criminal.") Is it really worth the risk? I guarantee you that not one "drunk" who ever killed someone with their car was thinking "I'll probably kill someone, but I'm going to exercise my right to drive myself home anyhow." As an idiot who has done it, I can assure you that it's more of a hazy "It'll never happen to me" that's drifting through the drunk driver's brain. As someone said earlier, it's not fucking rocket science. Figure it out. If you're gonna have more than a drink or three, don't drive. And if the social drinking out part is more important to you than the lives you potentially endanger by driving after said drinks, then you have another problem that requires addressing.
"The time for delay is over, we need to address the threat of climate change activism immediately if we hope to protect the future prosperity of our children’s employers." Scott Vrooman
I was just listening to Exodus in the car, and dude those would be good thrash metal song lyrics!The_Jester wrote:I can't believe that this thread went beyond one post!?! How can any sane person have any problem with a .05 limit? For a fucking warning?! (Losing one's car for a day or three does not make one a "hardened criminal.") Is it really worth the risk? I guarantee you that not one "drunk" who ever killed someone with their car was thinking "I'll probably kill someone, but I'm going to exercise my right to drive myself home anyhow." As an idiot who has done it, I can assure you that it's more of a hazy "It'll never happen to me" that's drifting through the drunk driver's brain. As someone said earlier, it's not fucking rocket science. Figure it out. If you're gonna have more than a drink or three, don't drive. And if the social drinking out part is more important to you than the lives you potentially endanger by driving after said drinks, then you have another problem that requires addressing.
By the way, it's crappy ice rain on the roads tonight in Kingston, so hopefully every drunk driving idiot will get nabbed running harmlessly into a phone pole or a ditch.
In Beerum Veritas
This whole topic is very polarizing. Honestly I don't go beyond two or three pints of regular beer with food(5%) over a period of 2 or 3 hours, but I'm a 250 lb man. Sometimes I get to one and I don't feel I should drive after. Mostly I just go out with peeps that I know aren't drinking.
I did speak to a friend of mine who is an police officer and he said that he watched the road crew guys testing the breathalyzers and he said a guy "our size"(240-250) had downed 5 shots of whisky in an hour and half and had not blown over. The scary part is you do have to drink a lot to blow over so the .05 isn't so bad IMO.
Here is a website that discusses some of the myths surrounding Madd. It's kind of an interesting read. For instance they lump a lot of vehicle accidents in with "impaired driving" without any verification, thus inflating the numbers.
http://www.getmadd.com/index.htm
I did speak to a friend of mine who is an police officer and he said that he watched the road crew guys testing the breathalyzers and he said a guy "our size"(240-250) had downed 5 shots of whisky in an hour and half and had not blown over. The scary part is you do have to drink a lot to blow over so the .05 isn't so bad IMO.
Here is a website that discusses some of the myths surrounding Madd. It's kind of an interesting read. For instance they lump a lot of vehicle accidents in with "impaired driving" without any verification, thus inflating the numbers.
http://www.getmadd.com/index.htm
Icemachine is on the right track with respect to the legalities and charter implications.
Driving is not a right; it is a privilege granted to a licensee. The license grants the privilege of driving on public roadways with certain terms attached. Suspension of the license is a penalty for terms relating to intoxication. Similarly, suspension is the consequence of non-payment of license fees, including non-payment of tickets.
Driving at 0.05 over the limit is not a crime, but it does violate the terms of the license. In the same way, it's not a crime to let your license expire (as long as you don't drive after it has expired). If you commit a crime you're assumed to be innocent and can defend yourself. I'm not sure what recourse you have if you feel that your license has been revoked without having actually violated terms of the license (they took your money and ran). Consider the similar case of suspension for non payment, but if you had in fact paid. Perhaps you could sue?
The only point that may be questionable is notifying the insurance company. It's kind of like if the cops phoned your employer to bad mouth you without having been convicted. I can see that one being challenged in the courts and would be interested to see how judges weigh the issue.
I imagine they would say that it's one of the terms of the license agreement and you can elect to not drive if you don't like the term. Could always buy up land and build your own roadway, you know
If you drive over 0.08, you have committed a crime (and are presumed innocent by the court, as long as you show up to defend yourself). If you're convicted, you end up with a record.
Yes, getting around without a car is frustrating, especially in winter. Yes, driving is very important to many people. Yes, the penalties are severe and yes they don't seem to make sense in every case. But, the rules are the rules. Your best bet is protest the rules in a constructive way (lobby your representative, raise public awareness, etc).
Obviously, until you get the rules changed you'd better obey them, because they do apply.
Ultimately, I like the 0.05 limit - it's effectively a zero tolerance policy, and if you plan on drinking, you should plan to stay over or get home safely. Consider the implications of living in the booneys before deciding to live there; it's not an excuse to drive drunk any more than it is to steal someone else's car.
Driving is not a right; it is a privilege granted to a licensee. The license grants the privilege of driving on public roadways with certain terms attached. Suspension of the license is a penalty for terms relating to intoxication. Similarly, suspension is the consequence of non-payment of license fees, including non-payment of tickets.
Driving at 0.05 over the limit is not a crime, but it does violate the terms of the license. In the same way, it's not a crime to let your license expire (as long as you don't drive after it has expired). If you commit a crime you're assumed to be innocent and can defend yourself. I'm not sure what recourse you have if you feel that your license has been revoked without having actually violated terms of the license (they took your money and ran). Consider the similar case of suspension for non payment, but if you had in fact paid. Perhaps you could sue?
The only point that may be questionable is notifying the insurance company. It's kind of like if the cops phoned your employer to bad mouth you without having been convicted. I can see that one being challenged in the courts and would be interested to see how judges weigh the issue.
I imagine they would say that it's one of the terms of the license agreement and you can elect to not drive if you don't like the term. Could always buy up land and build your own roadway, you know
If you drive over 0.08, you have committed a crime (and are presumed innocent by the court, as long as you show up to defend yourself). If you're convicted, you end up with a record.
Yes, getting around without a car is frustrating, especially in winter. Yes, driving is very important to many people. Yes, the penalties are severe and yes they don't seem to make sense in every case. But, the rules are the rules. Your best bet is protest the rules in a constructive way (lobby your representative, raise public awareness, etc).
Obviously, until you get the rules changed you'd better obey them, because they do apply.
Ultimately, I like the 0.05 limit - it's effectively a zero tolerance policy, and if you plan on drinking, you should plan to stay over or get home safely. Consider the implications of living in the booneys before deciding to live there; it's not an excuse to drive drunk any more than it is to steal someone else's car.
Mat