Drinking and driving

[hungry101]

Regular Guy I am with you. I can't put my finger on it but there is something about drunk driving legislation that stinks of political correctness. I was in favor of the .10 in the USA and the the federal government threatened my State to withhold funds until they reduced the legal limit to .08...hell, I wake up .08 but I digress. A driver over 18 but under 21 has a BAC of .01 and he is drunk and guilty of a felony? He is not too young to get his head blown off in the Middle East but he (or she) can't drive at .07 BAC like everyone else? In my state they have to give you two tickets. One for driving while intoxicated or under the influences and the other for BAC of above .08...why? Because you can prove that you can still function and are therefore not driving while intoxicated. Oh and by the way, how many police officers are arrested for drunk driving or are given tickets? Not very many. Why? Because they have had some training and have seen the results of drunk driving? Not on your life! It is because their fellow officers will let them off each and every time. I just read an article on Yahoo about how police across the country are writing more tickets to make up for budget short falls. i know how we can pay for health care. Increase the drinking age to 26 and reduce the legal limit to .04 and give out free beer. It's about making money and sounds good to the ladies in the beauty parlor sitting under a hair drier. It used to be about public safety and now it is about public safety and making money.

If we have a budget shortfall don't make up for it by harassing your populace. How about we cut the generous pensions of the loafers that work for US Government? Now there is a cause I would support. Reduce their pay and cut their pensions.

 

[Regular Guy]

Regular Guy I am with you. I can't put my finger on it but there is something about drunk driving legislation that stinks of political correctness.

Yes the whole business does seem to be way over the top. It is interesting to note that the one phrase which initiated the whole momentum was the the moniker MADD. Bring motherhood into the arena and you are on sacred ground. I have to laugh at Chris Selley's comment (editor of The National Poat newspaper) " The moniker remains a brilliant piece of marketing. You might as well oppose Kittens Against Nuclear Armageddon." Problem is that now with funding and the resulting momentum born of slick marketing through the media, it has become a juggernaut that is difficult to challenge. Canadians are notorious for not getting involved (unlike their American cousins). These Special Interest Groups count on this. They do not want people to engage in sober second thought about the issue. The website I quoted may be the first step in holding them to account. But without a budget to match, it just may be a difficult proposition. I guess it's a wait-and-see thing.

 

[master_bates]

BC what happened with your gf?

A buddy of mine beat his DUI but he was only at 0.081 and 0.083
He got off with paying a hefty fine.

 

[Regular Guy]

BC what happened with your gf?

A buddy of mine beat his DUI but he was only at 0.081 and 0.083
He got off with paying a hefty fine.

Don't count on that happening in Ontario. It has gone far beyond ridiculous now. The glass of wine with dinner is a thing of the past. The more I researched it, the more I began to see just how much has been slipped past us. Again, take a look at the website I mentioned in my last post, especially the part about the Ignition Interlock Device. Most people think it was mandated to keep someone who was drunk from starting the car. What the Quebec Government conveniently forgets to mention in their website is something called the "rolling retest". While you are driving in traffic (any kind of traffic e.g. rush hour traffic or the 40) the machine may demand a breath sample, NOW!!!! So let's see: Fumble for the hand held unit, watch for quick slowing of traffic ahead, blow into the machine with great force. Next suck in with great force. Next blow in with less than the first time. Hold that blow (usually with eyes screwed shut in concentration) for the time it takes you to count to 6 "steamboats" slowly until the tone stops. If you fail because you dropped the unit on the floor beyond the time allowed for the test or didn't do the test properly or held the hand cleaner a little to close to the unit (Don't laugh, it happened to a guy in the USA) then all hell breaks loose. The lights begin flashing and the horn blowing and will keep going until the car is exited from the highway and brought to a complete stop. Can you imagine having passengers in the car, trying to cut across four lanes to get off and panicking those around with this display. (And God help you if you drop the unit on the floor) Now tell me an accident will not happen someday. I just want to be present when MADD is confronted by a grieving mother because her child lost his/her life because of this irresponsibility. Down in the US, a few states have banned the device for just such a reason. But not here. What a bunch of hypocrites! They all come across as "holier than thou" Right!!!! (Check the page IID on the website www.duicanrevisited.com for a more comprehensive argument. That's where I got my info from.)

 

[metoo4]

I don't get it.

If you have a glass of wine with friends at dinner, you are way under 0.08. A good 2 hours dinner and you can even have 2.

Why does alcohol need to be involved anyway? I don't need to drink and it never caused me a problem in any gathering. To enjoy a good wine, no need to drink the bottle. To relax with a cold beer, no need to empty the 6 pack.

As far as the ignition interlock device, if somebody is stuck with one, it is because they deserved it. I know I will never have to deal with this, I don't know why anybody should. Nobody have a gun to their head to drink and drive.

In Québec that device is only to allow one to work, not for commuting, not to have a drive on Sunday, not to go the hockey game, it's to allow the person to work. There are not many around either because the rules to get one are strict. That device is there to do the person a favor. It is not a right. It is up to that person not to put himself in situation where testing could be dangerous. If the horns and lights start, the only person scared will be the person in the car. Others will be annoyed, nothing more. That person will be scared to be seen, that's it. That person have no reason to be scared of the noise, he know it's coming.

It is true the most dangerous are the repeat offenders. The .08 limit does not do much against them. Where do we start to make it illegal then? It is known since a long time .08 does affect reflexes already. Do we put it a .1 to allow for the occasional party?

 

[daydreamer41]

Hello Hormone,

I agreed 100% with you about a week ago...

Funny how your point of view can change.

We do have a strategy, and an honest one.

We where all surprised that she failed the test; she had a lot a beer (6) but over a long period of time (less than one per hour) and then stopped for about 2 hours before driving

We will have an expert calculate her theoretical blood alcohol concentration

Here is a link to educaloi if you are curious

http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/loi/drivers/13/

If your girlfriend is petite, 6 drinks is a lot.

If she is 110 lbs. and had 6 drinks, her Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was 0.225 minus (0.015 x 8 hours = 0.09) = 0.135

If she is 130 lbs. and had 6 drinks, her BAC was 0.174 minus 0.09 or 0.084.

Her weight would have a great factor in her BAC.


How To Calculate Your Estimated
Blood Alcohol Content / BAC


You can also view the "BAC Comparison Over Time" Chart.

Showing estimated percent of alcohol in the blood by number of drinks in relation to body weight. This percent can be estimated by:

1. Count your drinks (1 drink equals 1 ounce of 100-proof liquor, one five ounce glass of table wine or one 12-ounce bottle of regular beer).

2. Use the chart below and under number of "drinks" and opposite "body weight" find the percent of blood alcohol listed.

3. Subtract from this number the percent of alcohol "burned up" during the time elapsed since your first drink. This figure is .015% per hour. (Example: 180 lb. man - 8 drinks in 4 hours / .167% minus (.015x4) = .107 %

DRINKS

Body
weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 lb. .038 .075 .113 .150 .188 .225 .263 .300 .338 .375 .413 .450
110 lb. .034 .066 .103 .137 .172 .207 .241 .275 .309 .344 .379 .412
120 lb. .031 .063 .094 .125 .156 .188 .219 .250 .281 .313 .344 .375
130 lb. .029 .058 .087 .116 .145 .174 .203 .232 .261 .290 .320 .348
140 lb. .027 .054 .080 .107 .134 .161 .188 .214 .241 .268 .295 .321

 

[master_bates]

The machine that is installed on cars for the ignition to start here in quebec costs $200 to rent per month

If your girlfriend is petite, 6 drinks is a lot.

6 drinks is alot for anyone PERIOD

 

[Regular Guy]

The Real Truth

I don't get it.

If you have a glass of wine with friends at dinner, you are way under 0.08. A good 2 hours dinner and you can even have 2.

Why does alcohol need to be involved anyway? I don't need to drink and it never caused me a problem in any gathering. To enjoy a good wine, no need to drink the bottle. To relax with a cold beer, no need to empty the 6 pack.

As far as the ignition interlock device, if somebody is stuck with one, it is because they deserved it. I know I will never have to deal with this, I don't know why anybody should. Nobody have a gun to their head to drink and drive.

In Québec that device is only to allow one to work, not for commuting, not to have a drive on Sunday, not to go the hockey game, it's to allow the person to work. There are not many around either because the rules to get one are strict. That device is there to do the person a favor. It is not a right. It is up to that person not to put himself in situation where testing could be dangerous. If the horns and lights start, the only person scared will be the person in the car. Others will be annoyed, nothing more. That person will be scared to be seen, that's it. That person have no reason to be scared of the noise, he know it's coming.

It is true the most dangerous are the repeat offenders. The .08 limit does not do much against them. Where do we start to make it illegal then? It is known since a long time .08 does affect reflexes already. Do we put it a .1 to allow for the occasional party?

Okay, well let's look at these points one by one.

First off, as of May of last year the limit in Ontario has been lowered to .05 for a 3 day license suspension, a $150 fine, name entered into the police data base forever and towing charges. I hate to tell you this but you don't have to empty the bottle to blow .05. For many, a couple of glasses will do it. You are right, though about not getting intoxicated. But it's no longer about that. Setting the new limit is all about a different agenda. It is all about the first time offender.

Second, the Ignition Interlock device is not just for those who need it to work. But more about that shortly. But just to set the record straight first - In Ontario, a first time offense brings a whole host of extreme penalties:

-90 day drivers license suspension in force from the day the driver was stopped - not upon conviction. Remains on your record for 3 years. Automobile insurance rates go up for 6 years even if you are not convicted.

-$150 fee for application to have the license returned pending court date.

-Upon conviction a fine from $600 to $1000

-1 year driving suspension upon conviction

-criminal record for life

- Back on Track program incl assessment and treatment for alcoholism $475.00 +GST to be completed while your license is under suspension.

- an additional year suspension (total 2 years) which may be waived with the acceptance of an Ignition Interlock Device installed and used on the automobile. The Interlock System costs $125 to install, then $95 per month for monitoring and recalibration and $5 per month for insurance and finally $25 for removal. The total cost of $1,350 for one year, before tax.

- A dramatic rise in insurance rates approximately to $13,000.00 over three years.

Now all of this is not for the repeat offender. It is for the first time offender. Just a bit over the top for a wake-up call, don't you think? A young kid finishing University and makes a mistake at a party, can have his whole life destroyed. A criminal record can finish many careers before they are even started. That young student may realize that what he/she did is wrong and be genuinely sorry -but one thing for sure - nobody's listening.

You know? We are all so quick to bash the next guy. But it's the repeat offender who needs to be dealt with. For the first time offender this stuff is way over the top. To put a first time offender into an alcohol treatment program is just plain stupid when he/she may be no more of an alcoholic than the Dalai Lama.

As for the Ignition Interlock Device, well, as I said, it is for all first time offenders, not just to go to work. Is it dangerous? You bet. Studies have show it increases crash risk by 130%. All of these facts seem to be conveniently slipped under the radar of the public eye. Just a bit hypocritical - No? So I hope you have just a little idea now of where some of us are coming from when just a little bit of research reveals just how excessive it all is. But hey, maybe we should just ban all cold beer, fine wines and cocktails. I sometimes get the feeling that this is just where the Special Interest Groups working so hard behind the scenes, are after.

 

[daydreamer41]

I don't know how many serious fatal DUI's there are in Canada, but in the US it has been increasing and the people who are guilty of the DUI have included celebraties, athletes, and off-duty police officers. In NY, I can remember at least a couple of fatal DUI's were the guilty parties were police officers. Many states have increased pentalies for DUI's involving manslaughter convinctions. But many states go easy on first time offenders in which no accident has resulted. But the guilty are subjected to long driver suspensions (6 months to a year) and fines.

My belief is in a place like NYC or Centreville Montreal or I suppose Toronto or any large city, where there is public transportation and taxis all over the place, there is no excuse for getting in a car when intoxicated. You should not get in a car while intoixicated anywhere for that matter. However, I do agree 0.5 is too small of a BAC to carry around a criminal convinction for the rest of your life. A 180 pound man would have to drink 3 beers in 2 hours and have a 0.51 blood alcohol level. But 1 more drink and that 180 lb. man is over the magic 0.8 BAC. Do you think people are that skilled to know exactly when to stop?

 

[Mike Mercury]

It is for the first time offender. Just a bit over the top for a wake-up call, don't you think? A young kid finishing University and makes a mistake at a party, can have his whole life destroyed. A criminal record can finish many careers before they are even started. That young student may realize that what he/she did is wrong and be genuinely sorry -but one thing for sure - nobody's listening.

Destroyed? Talk about hyperbole. If a hand cuffs for a few minutes, a one year suspension and a criminal record for DUI is being destroyed what is getting maimed or killed?

Sorry? Sorry he go caught but not sorry for all the other times he did not get caught.

And yeah. Nobody is listening. GOOD!

 

[Mike Mercury]

However, I do agree 0.5 is too small of a BAC to carry around a criminal convinction for the rest of your life. A 180 pound man would have to drink 3 beers in 2 hours and have a 0.51 blood alcohol level. But 1 more drink and that 180 lb. man is over the magic 0.8 BAC. Do you think people are that skilled to know exactly when to stop?

0.5 & 0.8 !!! Át that point you are dead or close to it. You mean 0.05 and 0.08.

 

[bumfie]

I hope this isn't too far off-topic, but isn't having a U.S. DWI a huge problem when an American wants to cross the border? My son tried to cross the border in a car driven by an American who had a DWI in the U.S. and they were turned away. Is that the usual scenario? I was once interrogated at the border and repeatedly asked if I had ever had a drunken driving arrest, which I have not.

I never get in a car after drinking while I am visiting Canada...even one drop. A DWI seems messy enough in your own country. With the laws as strict as they now are in my state, it's two bottles of beer maximum before driving. I can drink myself into unconsciousness if I want in my own home, so why take a risk?

 

[bumfie]

Oh, and Mike is absolutely right. It is 0.05 and 0.08. At 0.8, you don't need a lawyer...you need an undertaker..

 

[Regular Guy]

Destroyed? Talk about hyperbole. If a hand cuffs for a few minutes, a one year suspension and a criminal record for DUI is being destroyed what is getting maimed or killed?

Sorry? Sorry he go caught but not sorry for all the other times he did not get caught.

And yeah. Nobody is listening. GOOD!

Well if I am guilty of hyperbole you get the prize for understatement. You obviously did not read the full list of sanctions. A few minutes in handcuffs? Where did that come from? First let me clarify one issue. The penalties quoted are for simply getting caught in a RIDE program. Should you be involved in an accident where someone is hurt or killed you suffer the same penalties as someone who is convicted of careless driving causing death. That is another matter. As usual when this topic comes up someone always arrives with the death or maiming argument. There are many instances in society where people engage in activities with a high risk factor. Using an Ignition Interlock Device in rush hour traffic is one of them BTW. This kind of attitude you are displaying here is not about a balanced view to providing reasonable sanctions for first time offenders, it is about optics and human nature. Anyone who exhibits signs of intoxication tends to be despised as weak or obnoxious. Not that all who blow .05 or .08 are. Studies have shown that the same level of alcohol affects different people differently. As true as that may be this kind of emotionalism should not be allowed to influence how we legislate. At times it is very hard to understand this lynch mob mentality where dui is involved. I am not talking about the chronic offender here. I am talking about the first time offender. The chronic offender needs appropriate and definitive intervention. If it involves drastic measures then so be it. That is where the focus should be. According to statistics they are the ones responsible for the kinds of traffic accidents which you have described - not he first time offender. And don't you think it's just a bit presumptuous of you to presume that every first time offender has offended many times before? You don't know that! That kind of statement smacks of a vigilante mentality. The movement towards influencing legislators has gone to the point where Special Interest Groups have lobbied legislators to pull an end run around judicial discretion in sentencing. We don't even do that for capital crimes! This is pretty serious stuff. Just how did this get so far out of control? I have to admit that the callousness of your parting statement defies belief. Well let's get the rope, torches and pitchforks out and head down to the town jail. Who's with me?

 

[bumfie]

Regular Guy, I do understand your pain in this and do feel bad for you...but of course you must realize that plenty of people are killed by drunk drivers who are nice people and are driving that way for the first time in their lives...and, as it turns out in some cases, the last.

 

[Mike Mercury]

Well if I am guilty of hyperbole you get the prize for understatement.

I lost my permit twice. I was waiting for my court date. Got one year & two years. They overlapped so it was only two years. And I am not guilty of understatement. I knew the rules. My car insurance were high for a few years after that.

So what is your big & personnal, ruined your life story? Got none? I didn't think you did. Keep driving sloshed. Keep driving just buzzed.

The first time offender is an offender who was not caught before. I know it, they know it, we know it, you know it.

 

[bumfie]

I guess I just don't understand. A crime was committed and society exacts a price. Lawyers try to mitigate the damage on the part of the offender (which is their job) and prosecutors attempt to seek the full shot (which is their job). What is the problem? This is the way it is. No one's life is ruined. Except, of course, the life of someone who is killed by a drunk driver, or has a child or spouse or parent killed by one.

The concept of these harsh penalties is that this is a serious thing, and the law wants to make it clear that it's serious. If you fine someone $50 for the first offense and laugh it off, how much thought do you think that person is going to give before they get hammered and go out on the road again?

 

[hungry101]

Just another tax

Ah Bullshit. It used to be about safety but now it it nothing more than a tax. The Mothers against drunk driving has made it legal to steal your money. I am all for the BAC being .12 or even .10 but no way should it be .08. How can they justify any detectable limit for a driver under 21? You can get your head blown off in Iraq but you can't have a beer. BTW, How many cops get drunk driving tickets? I just played golf with one. He said we never make a brother officer blow into a Breathalyzer. I remember a prominent judge's son in town walked with nothing. A CEO's son gets a drunk driving ticket in a company town and he brings in the Chief Council and he walks. Meanwhile they set up traps and if you blow .08 your going to jail and the insurance company, your municipality, and the lawyer will make a lot of money. They need to churn out these drunk driving tickets like widgets and drill presses and then we can still afford to give government loafers 80% of their salary when they retire at the ripe old age of 50. Better than laying them off like they would in the private sector.

 

[daydreamer41]

0.5 & 0.8 !!! Át that point you are dead or close to it. You mean 0.05 and 0.08.

Sorry about the typo. I meant 0.05 and 0.08.

 

[metoo4]

The post below isn't directed to anybody specifically.

Who is forcing anybody to drink and drive? You want to have 4-5 beers in a few hours and drive? It's your problem. You choose to be irresponsible, you better be ready to pay the price. It doesn't matter if you do it one or 10 times, it's the same thing: you are impaired enough to be dangerous. That is enough to make you suffer the consequences if you get cought. At .08 most peoples start to become dangerous so, changing it to .1 or .12 would be ridiculous.

Here's a few links:

http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/driver_licence/alcohol/index.php

See at the bottom of the link above for various situations.

Holders of a learner's licence and probationary licence are prohibited from driving after consuming alcohol. That is mainly younger kids. Why this regulation? Kids don't know when to stop so might as well don't let them start.

I never been arrested for DUI and never will. I don't understand why would anybody else get caught. The law tells you what the limit is, you follow the law and nothing bad will go on your record. If you don't know what's safe for your size/sex, you just have to play it safe. It's easy to understand and easy to apply. There's nothing more to it.

If you go over what's accepted as safe, you are a danger to me and other users of the road, no matter if you think you are or not. The .08 does account for weight/size/sex. If a 5'2 100 pounds woman is dumb enough to think she can have the same amount of beer as a 6' 250 pounds guy, there is a problem. It's not because your buddies are still drinking that you have to keep drinking also.

If a conviction cause problems to somebody's life, it's too bad but that person made it happen, not the cops arresting him, not the judge condemning him, not the lawmaker who wrote the law, nobody else but him. It's up to peoples to ensure they don't have to be dealt with by the law. Peoples should take responsibilities for their actions instead of blaming the system.