Drinking and driving

[Regular Guy]

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.

Thank you for your concern Bumfie but I have never been convicted of DUI nor is any court case pending. But thanks for the thought. In my last post I spoke of the danger of preconceived notions affecting how we legislate. I would prefer if anyone in this discussion who makes a conclusive statement back that up with facts, verifiable statistics or the like. The only way I will come to realize that “plenty” of people are killed by drunk drivers who driving that way for the first time in their lives is when I see the stats, real stats, not stats born of junk science. When we make statements about people just on a gut feeling we risk doing people an injustice both in our opinion or through legislation.

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.

Two things Mike, it isn't about nor does it have to be about me. As for what I know, what you think you know, or what you think everyone knows, how can anyone defend against a statement like that. I guess it simply is because someone says so and who are we to question it?

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.

Just a comment on this, I believe that a criminal record for life can ruin the life of a young person looking to start a career in many professions, (e.g. education, nursing, etc.). Just seems to be a bit over the top for a first time offender who has harmed no one nor who has ever driven drunk before in his/her life.

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.

This whole discussion, for me, is not about the blame. It's about what you refer to as “the price”. I had hoped I had made that clear. Is the price appropriate? When placed in context in our criminal justice system and compared with other transgressions, the penalties involved here for the first time offender are way over the top. They have not been set in the normal course of things, nor have they been set by something called “the system.” Powerful Special Interest Groups influencing legislators have worked behind the scenes and with slick marketing campaigns out front, to meet their own agendas of influencing public perception and implementing their own ideas as to what penalties should be. Is it that easy to arrest the workings of reason and astuteness in Canadians that they can be influenced to buy into this stuff? Apparently so!

But, all things considered, I'll say this much. Can we at least agree on one point that is glaringly obvious? The ignition Interlock Device which can ask for a rolling retest, randomly (and that includes in the middle of rush hour traffic in the left lane of the 40) is a safety hazard as dangerous if not more dangerous than the use of a cell phone under the same circumstances. Further that the fact that, the Quebec government states on its website that the Ignition Interlock Device is only needed to start the vehicle, is a major omission for which they themselves are responsible (Funny there are no penalties for that one!). And if we want to talk about killed or maimed, I want to be there when the mother of a dead child shows up to ask what jackass mandated the use of the device which caused the death of her child. How will that “jackass pay?” Well don't hold your breath.

 

[bumfie]

I'm certainly not trying to hijack this thread or be a jerk, but I want you to understand where I am coming from on this. I grew up at a time where, at least in some parts of th U.S., drunk driving was not taken nearly as seriously as it is now. I know, personally, at least five people who died in accidents while drunk when I was younger.

Why are they dead? In some cases, because they were stopped while drunk and let go with a warning and then went out and drove drunk again. Or because they went to court, pleaded down to something else with a lesser penalty and then went out and did it again. And they died.

This is why I support tough laws on drunken driving. Seriously, I do feel for your friend and understand why you are upset and why she is upset. But the fact remains that a severe penalty now may save her life, or someone else's.

 

[Regular Guy]

Discussion

I'm certainly not trying to hijack this thread or be a jerk, but I want you to understand where I am coming from on this. I grew up at a time where, at least in some parts of th U.S., drunk driving was not taken nearly as seriously as it is now. I know, personally, at least five people who died in accidents while drunk when I was younger.

Why are they dead? In some cases, because they were stopped while drunk and let go with a warning and then went out and drove drunk again. Or because they went to court, pleaded down to something else with a lesser penalty and then went out and did it again. And they died.

This is why I support tough laws on drunken driving. Seriously, I do feel for your friend and understand why you are upset and why she is upset. But the fact remains that a severe penalty now may save her life, or someone else's.

Actually I don't have a friend, female or otherwise who prompted my research into this. What got the alarm bells ringing for me is the proposed legislation to suspend the rights of all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to unreasonable search and seizure. There is a clause in the charter which allows legislators to pull an end run around it. This is dangerous stuff. It means that police officers would be able to stop anyone on a whim and require a breathalyzer. Now use your imagination to see the possibilities here. This goes beyond "tough laws." Once they get the right to stop anyone just for the hell of it, I wonder what some jerk of a cop could do with that.

Now I can appreciate traffic fatalities, all of them, not just the ones due to drunk driving though those seem to have the high profile. So far this debate in society has been very one-sided. Those who have, on their own, taken responsibility for influencing legislation, (i.e. MADD) have had a free ride more or less. Don't kid yourself. There is a bit of a seedy side to their efforts as well. There needs to be some accountability here beyond the sacred "motherhood" moniker which they have employed as a slick marketing ploy. Legislation of an extreme nature such as this must be challenged if only for the sake of ensuring a fair and dispassionate approach to formulating legislation. Someone should be playing the "Devil's Advocate" in that respect. The other side should be presented. I hope you can see the necessity for that and understand that I am approaching the issue with the intent to at least create some discussion to ensure that we go into these things with our eyes wide open and not be swept up into a lynch mob mentality.

First, there is no question in my mind, second, the stats will bear me out, and third, even the special interest groups admit, that it is the chronic offender who is the chief cause of traffic fatalities from drunk driving, not the first time offender. Don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. The question is then - who got us to where we are now with the present legislation hammering the first time offender? Could it be the potential revenue (cash grab) as was suggested above? Could it be that those left behind need closure and BAC is measurable? Probably a variety of things. One thing I have found to be glaringly obvious in my discussions is that the public generally has a very limited understanding of the legislation and penalties. We need to educate ourselves and be vigilant whenever Special Interest Groups get involved. That's where I am coming from.

 

[bumfie]

Like I said, none of this is personal, but just a matter of engaging in debate. The reason for stiff penalities is not for government revenue; it's an attempt to make sure first-time offenders who don't hurt or kill someone don't become second-time offenders who do.

 

[metoo4]

I still don't get it with peoples getting upset at stiff penalties for first time offenders. It is simple: you don't want to get hit by these penalties, don't drink and drive!!!

Nobody is forcing anybody into drinking. What is the harm in being cautious to be safe and have only one drink per hour instead or 2-3? I repeat, nobody is being forced into drinking. Those who do do it on their own free-will. Peoples need to take responsibilities for what they do. Everybody know the legal and physical risks of DUI. Those who decides to do it anyway because "it's only one time" or because "I was having so much fun I forgot to count my drinks" don't have a foot to stand on. They knew the rule and they broke it, they have to face the consequenses of their actions.

Joe Blow who gets just a small fine and demerits for a first conviction will likely laugh it off and do the same again at the next occasion. That next time, maybe he will kill somebody.
If Joe Blow decides to have a party and do away with the law and common sense because he feels his fun is more important than people's life, that's his problem and he asked for the consequences. If he gets a criminal record, that's his fault, nobody else.

Even today, with the risk of getting a criminal record, some are still stupid enough to drink and drive, imagine if the risk of criminal record was no longer there. The point of stiff penalties even for first-time offenders is to make peoples realize drinking and driving is not acceptable, no matter if it's the first time you are caught or the 20th, it makes no difference, it's unacceptable!

Anybody drinking and driving is the equivalent of somebody walking around with a loaded gun and shooting in the air. Sooner or later, a bullet will hit somebody. The more alcohol drank is like the more bullets being shot. The shooter will not aim at anybody specific but he might kill other peoples, even himself. Same with a DUI driver.

 

[Regular Guy]

I still don't get it with peoples getting upset at stiff penalties for first time offenders. It is simple: you don't want to get hit by these penalties, don't drink and drive!!!

Okay, so we are all agreed that no one should drink and drive, and if they do, they should be willing to accept any penalties which are handed out. Outstanding! Okay, well since that's settled I say who's for upping the penalties for the first time offender, caught at a RIDE checkpoint, to 15 years in jail and a 100,000 dollar fine. Or perhaps public pilloring and flogging. I mean if you accept the argument here that no penalty is too extreme for the drinking driver, then why not? If I am not mistaken I think the general term "stiff penalties" covers such a change. (God, we are such a trusting bunch, leaving decisions like that up to back room negotiating between Special Interest Groups and legislators. I wonder just how far they could push it before people start showing a little too much white around the eye - firing squads?) Well perhaps you have faith that these Special Interest Groups will do the right thing and bully legislators into setting the penalties which they judge to be just (after all, they are experts aren't they - and the legislators ignore them at their own peril?), I don't! I don't trust them. They have too much money and power and too much of an extreme agenda fueled by hatred and emotion and a resulting bias. This kind of self-serving legislation was fashioned under these conditions. They might be appropriate for the chronic offender but in no way shape or form are they appropriate for the first time offender. But with the drift towards "soft despotism" by democracies in general, this kind of "back room" legislation is to be expected, I suppose. More's the pity!

By the way, I assume that you also support mandating the use of the Ignition Interlock Device for starting the automobile and for random rolling retests at any time or place while the car is in motion. I would seriously rethink that one. Someone is going to get killed for sure. It is only a matter of time. You can take that one to the bank! But hey! What do I know?

 

[hungry101]

If caught driving and you blow .08 BAC or if you are under 21 and you blow .01, why not chop their hands off so that they cannot operate a car again or garnish 50% their wages for the rest of their life? That is unless you are a fellow police officer or your dad's a judge in town or your dad makes 20 million a year than you walk away Scott free.

 

[YouVantOption]

Okay, so we are all agreed that no one should drink and drive, and if they do, they should be willing to accept any penalties which are handed out. I mean if you accept the argument here that no penalty is too extreme for the drinking driver, then why not?

I don't see anyone arguing that here. Nice strawman, though.

By the way, I assume that you also support mandating the use of the Ignition Interlock Device for starting the automobile and for random rolling retests at any time or place while the car is in motion. I would seriously rethink that one. Someone is going to get killed for sure. It is only a matter of time. You can take that one to the bank! But hey! What do I know?

You quote, without supporting citation that these devices increase the likelihood of accident by 130%. I see that you neglect to state the figures for impaired driving, surely an oversight on your part.

As others have said before, the first-time offender is merely someone who hasn't been caught before. Keeping the penalties inordinately high do have a deterrent effect. I've taken plenty of taxis as a result. But hey, what do I know?

 

[YouVantOption]

If caught driving and you blow .08 BAC or if you are under 21 and you blow .01, why not chop their hands off so that they cannot operate a car again or garnish 50% their wages for the rest of their life? That is unless you are a fellow police officer or your dad's a judge in town or your dad makes 20 million a year than you walk away Scott free.

Ah ... reductio ad absurdum. A beautiful thing.

 

[Regular Guy]

You quote, without supporting citation that these devices increase the likelihood of accident by 130%. I see that you neglect to state the figures for impaired driving, surely an oversight on your part.

I do wish you had read the debate here from its inception. In any event if you check the website I quoted earlier you will find sources for these. But I will save you the trouble:

First:
*Study Finds Ignition Interlocks Increase Auto Crash Risk By Up to 130%
SANTA FE, N.M. - New Mexico legislators interested in safer roads should think twice before requiring ignition interlock devices (IID) for those convicted of drunk driving, according to the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%.

**For DUI first offenders, interlocks were so ineffective that the California DMV flatly stated, "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders," and concluded that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized."

*http://newcarbuyingguide.com/index.php/news/main/event=viewCat/900

**To request a copy of the California DMV report, "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California: Report to the Legislature of the State of California," contact Alison Preszler at 202.463.7110..

And second, a quote from an editorial by Chris Selley, Editor of the National Post Newspaper:

Chris Selley:
Posted: August 06, 2009, 5:10 PM by National Post Editor
Full Comment, Full Pundit, Chris Selley

Once upon a time, my anti-MADD ramblings were often met with confused stares, but I sense now a more widespread understanding that the organization's mandate has crept uncomfortably far from the utterly unimpeachable one its name implies. (The moniker remains a brilliant piece of marketing. You might as well oppose Kittens Against Nuclear Armageddon.) MADD's calls for ever-lower legal blood-alcohol limits continue unabated even as evidence suggests the vast majority of drunk driving accidents are caused by a degenerate, perhaps incorrigible rump of alcoholics who just can't or won't stop themselves. In 2006, according to Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics, 37% of fatally injured drivers on whom tests were performed were found to have had alcohol in their system. But 81% of those had blood alcohol contents that were over the legal limit, and 69% of those had BACs over .15, which is nearly twice the legal limit. Perhaps the responsible driving message has largely gotten through to politer society. Perhaps, I've heard some otherwise safety-conscious people muse, we shouldn't make criminals out of Canadians who have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home.

As to your rather flippant "strawman" comment, sometimes a little hyperbole is needed to get a point across on which the discussion seemed to have stalled. So rather than be dismissive on that point I think you might grant me a little license. In any event I hope this time the point hit home.

 

[YouVantOption]

I do wish you had read the debate here from its inception. In any event if you check the website I quoted earlier you will find sources for these. But I will save you the trouble:

First:
*Study Finds Ignition Interlocks Increase Auto Crash Risk By Up to 130%
SANTA FE, N.M. - New Mexico legislators interested in safer roads should think twice before requiring ignition interlock devices (IID) for those convicted of drunk driving, according to the American Beverage Institute (ABI). Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%.

**For DUI first offenders, interlocks were so ineffective that the California DMV flatly stated, "there is no evidence that interlocks are an effective traffic safety measure for first DUI offenders," and concluded that "the use of the devices should not be emphasized."

*http://newcarbuyingguide.com/index.php/news/main/event=viewCat/900

**To request a copy of the California DMV report, "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California: Report to the Legislature of the State of California," contact Alison Preszler at 202.463.7110..

And second, a quote from an editorial by Chris Selley, Editor of the National Post Newspaper:

Chris Selley:
Posted: August 06, 2009, 5:10 PM by National Post Editor
Full Comment, Full Pundit, Chris Selley

Once upon a time, my anti-MADD ramblings were often met with confused stares, but I sense now a more widespread understanding that the organization's mandate has crept uncomfortably far from the utterly unimpeachable one its name implies. (The moniker remains a brilliant piece of marketing. You might as well oppose Kittens Against Nuclear Armageddon.) MADD's calls for ever-lower legal blood-alcohol limits continue unabated even as evidence suggests the vast majority of drunk driving accidents are caused by a degenerate, perhaps incorrigible rump of alcoholics who just can't or won't stop themselves. In 2006, according to Traffic Injury Research Foundation statistics, 37% of fatally injured drivers on whom tests were performed were found to have had alcohol in their system. But 81% of those had blood alcohol contents that were over the legal limit, and 69% of those had BACs over .15, which is nearly twice the legal limit. Perhaps the responsible driving message has largely gotten through to politer society. Perhaps, I've heard some otherwise safety-conscious people muse, we shouldn't make criminals out of Canadians who have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home.

As to your rather flippant "strawman" comment, sometimes a little hyperbole is needed to get a point across on which the discussion seemed to have stalled. So rather than be dismissive on that point I think you might grant me a little license. In any event I hope this time the point hit home.

The California DMV study is unavailable to the general public, so we have to accept the re-assertion by a lobby group, the ABI, that it is accurate.Thanks, but I want to see the study. Sounds to me like faulty equipment or implementation.

An opinion piece by a National Post editor is not a credible source of fact.

 

[YouVantOption]

Faces of drunks: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30178023/DWI-Offenders-Jan-Feb-2010

 

[Regular Guy]

The California DMV study is unavailable to the general public, so we have to accept the re-assertion by a lobby group, the ABI, that it is accurate.Thanks, but I want to see the study. Sounds to me like faulty equipment or implementation.

An opinion piece by a National Post editor is not a credible source of fact.

You're kidding me right? And the government is really covering up the landings at Roswell.

Also the Editor Chris Selley was using what he is putting out as truth to back up his opinion. There's a difference. An editorial would be a stupid place to stick one's neck out or stake one's reputation for veracity. Getting caught in a lie there would guarantee one a swift relegating to the ranks of supermarket gossip rags.