Drunk driving laws to be made stricter in Saskatchewan
herbie @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:01 pm
Again, BC has addressed that problem. New drivers get an N license. That's got zero tolerance. After a couple years, you can get your regular license.
If you get busted with the N, you get to start again.
You also have to display a big N on the ass end of your car. So if you screw up at all, people can rat you out.
Lemmy @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:11 pm
It's still fucked up logic. When you tell young people that they're not allowed to have any alcohol before driving during their first 5 years of driving, you're also telling them, by implication, that after 5 years of driving experience it's okay to go drinking a bit before you drive. What message does that send?
rick's point is valid. What I'd argue is that 18 is too young to be deemed a legal adult. We know, physiologically, that people's brains aren't developed until their early 20s. What we should change is the age of legal adulthood. 18's too young. I wasn't an adult when I was 18. No one is. And they're all bad drivers at that age, sober or not. Way more dangerous on the road than drunk adult drivers.
rickc @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:35 pm
martin14 martin14:
rickc rickc:
I have a problem with one part of this article. Andrew Murie (the CEO of MADD Canada) is proposing that the Province establish a zero tolerance for alcohol for people under age 22. I call bullshit. Either one is an adult legally responsible for their decisions, or they are not.
There is something to be said with respect to younger drivers just not having the experience of older drivers, and the combination of alcohol and lesser driving experience, mixed with nighttime driving, and it's just begging for trouble.
Slovakia and other V4 countries are all zero tolerance.
You decide before you go out or crack a bottle if you are going to drive or not.
The only drunk drivers are the ones who are so shit faced they don't care anymore.
I think zero works best. Not much fun for the driver, but life's tough.
If they made it zero for everyone, I would not have a problem with that. As long as everyone is treated equally under the law I am ok with it. There is way too much unequal treatment under the law these days. A lowly machinists mate takes six pictures on a nuclear sub and he is a convicted felon doing time. Hillary Clinton mishandles thousands of pieces of classified material, and she is laughing (and lying) her way in to the most powerful position on the planet.
rickc @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:58 pm
I think its too easy to get (and keep) a drivers license these days. Every day that I get behind the wheel I feel like I am taking my life in my hands. A couple of years ago I took the Richard Petty driving experience ride along at the Daytona international speedway. Even though I was doing 160mph and pulling G's in the corners, I still felt safer than I do on a daily basis going to and from work. A lot safer. There is way too many shitty drivers on the road, texting, putting on make up, shit faced, tired, etc.
I used to be a dues paying member of the libertarian party. I still believe in their principles, but the party has been hijacked by nut jobs and anarchists. This year when they had their convention they literally wasted days arguing about how people should not need a drivers license, and how Johnson was a sell out for thinking that drivers should be licensed. Yet they wonder why no one takes them seriously, and they bitch when they don't get invited to the debates. When you spend days arguing that driving without any license requirements should be a part of your party platform, you demonstrate that you are not ready for prime time.
We have way too many incompetant dangerous drivers who actually have a license. I shutter to think what it would be like on our roadways if we did not have even this minimum requirement.
herbie @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 6:46 pm
What is it with you friggin' ploughboys? Paw had ya pickin taters instead of in school?
NEW drivers get an N license. That means if you're 50 bloody years old and go for a license you get treated the same as a 16 year old.
And when they made the rules (before Trump!) they assumed after x number of years you were capable of learning things. Not concluding 'now it's okay to drink and drive"... jesus!
Just like every 12 year old knew the fucking difference between a crime, charged with a crime, and convicted of a crime.
Lemmy @ Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:50 pm
rickc rickc:
I used to be a dues paying member of the libertarian party. I still believe in their principles, but the party has been hijacked by nut jobs and anarchists. This year when they had their convention they literally wasted days arguing about how people should not need a drivers license, and how Johnson was a sell out for thinking that drivers should be licensed. Yet they wonder why no one takes them seriously, and they bitch when they don't get invited to the debates. When you spend days arguing that driving without any license requirements should be a part of your party platform, you demonstrate that you are not ready for prime time.
Spot on! Of course they're not taken seriously. They're not even actual libertarians. No actual libertarian would belong to a Libertarian party because libertarians reject the very notion of political parties. So, yeah, any Libertarian party is hijacked from actual libertarians right from the get-go. And I guess the mental midgets you describe arguing about licensing never considered that licensing driving and prohibiting driving are mutually exclusive concepts. You can prohibit people from driving without licensing those who aren't prohibited.
DrCaleb @ Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:39 am
rickc rickc:
I think its too easy to get (and keep) a drivers license these days. Every day that I get behind the wheel I feel like I am taking my life in my hands. A couple of years ago I took the Richard Petty driving experience ride along at the Daytona international speedway. Even though I was doing 160mph and pulling G's in the corners, I still felt safer than I do on a daily basis going to and from work. A lot safer. There is way too many shitty drivers on the road, texting, putting on make up, shit faced, tired, etc.
The more performance driving courses I take or teach, the more I say that.
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
I even got to do a couple laps at Indy, loud pedal to the floor of my daily driver.
bootlegga @ Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:56 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Yep, some drunk asshole killed a mother of two during rush hour last week, but anyone want to bet that he won't get punished anywhere near as hard as the victim's family?
No defendant is ever punished sufficiently from the victim's perspective. Are you preferring we go to "an eye for an eye" justice?
In any case, the article is a bit misleading. Impaired driving is a criminal offence and, therefore, a matter of federal, not provincial, legislation. So it's not entirely clear what Saskatchewan (or any province) can or can't do with respect to impaired driving. Provincial powers only extend to provincial driving offences.
I'm not suggesting an eye-for-an-eye - I've said many times that I'm against capital punishment.
However, if this is that jackass's first offence, you can pretty much guarantee that he will NOT get the maximum sentence (life in prison) for killing that woman. Odds are, like so many other drunken assholes, he'll get a relative slap on the wrist.
Another dumbass ran over a kid sitting on a patio with his parents in 2013 - his punishment? Four months in jail - even though he admitted to having several shots! That's goddamned travesty.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.3646286
That's what I mean when I say the punishment is never anything close to just.
IMHO, Richard Suter should have gone to jail for years, not months.
It's time the legal system started throwing the book at impaired drivers, because the carnage they create is almost always far greater than the punishment they receive.
Lemmy @ Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:25 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
However, if this is that jackass's first offence, you can pretty much guarantee that he will NOT get the maximum sentence (life in prison) for killing that woman. Odds are, like so many other drunken assholes, he'll get a relative slap on the wrist.
Relative to what? He'll get the same penalty as anyone else for their first conviction for this offence. That's precedent. Why should he get the maximum? The maximum is supposed to be reserved for the worst offenders.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Another dumbass ran over a kid sitting on a patio with his parents in 2013 - his punishment? Four months in jail - even though he admitted to having several shots! That's goddamned travesty.
But that's the way our Youth Criminal Justice system is set up: less punishment, emphasis on rehabilitation. Kids make stupid mistakes and our system recognizes that. What benefit would anyone get by putting that stupid kid in jail longer?
bootlegga bootlegga:
That's what I mean when I say the punishment is never anything close to just. IMHO, Richard Suter should have gone to jail for years, not months.
From who's perspective? I'm not disagreeing with you, but dead people can't be revived. Dumb kids who make mistakes can change their ways. Most do, myself included.
bootlegga bootlegga:
It's time the legal system started throwing the book at impaired drivers, because the carnage they create is almost always far greater than the punishment they receive.
Why are we going to "throw the book" at impaired drivers while not "throwing it" at people who are driving badly for other reasons? Why the selectivity?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think if you cause a crash you should be punished harshly. If you hurt someone, you should go to prison. If you kill someone, you should go to prison for a very long time. But I maintain that if you don't cause any damage you haven't harmed society so society oughtn't have any reason to want you punished. And I further maintain that it's quality of driving that ought to be the pertinent evidence, not some arbitrary BAC level.
BRAH @ Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:39 am
herbie herbie:
Again, BC has addressed that problem. New drivers get an N license. That's got zero tolerance. After a couple years, you can get your regular license.
If you get busted with the N, you get to start again.
You also have to display a big N on the ass end of your car. So if you screw up at all, people can rat you out.
If you get busted with the N, you get to start again.
You also have to display a big N on the ass end of your car. So if you screw up at all, people can rat you out.
The N is still used in BC? Shocking a safe space millennial SJW's haven't complained it discriminates against immigrant drivers. In Alberta when a drunk driver kills a 4 year old and doesn't even serve 6 months in prison the system is fucked.
Thanos @ Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:09 am
The gradients of drunkenness are there for a reason. It's so that someone who has four beers and is barely wobbly will still get in a bit trouble (with a fine, an impounding of their vehicle, and insurance problems later) if they're pulled over by the cops but they won't get their ass handed to them in the same way some sociopathic drunk who pounds back two bottles of vodka while he's at work and then kills five people with his cement truck. The breathalyzers and such might be an imperfect system but short of doing on-the-spot blood tests with a mobile lab it's the best that can be done right now. What is being argued here anyway, that if the determining system isn't 100% perfect then nothing should be done at all, even when a blatantly shit-faced and wildly lethal driver is pulled over? Where the hell, and why exactly, is this dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion coming from? 
jazz10 @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:36 am
herbie herbie:
$1:
0.05 or 0.08 are arbitrary
.08 is NOT arbitrary. It's a studied, detailed, proven statistical point. More than MOST DRIVERS show provable impairment at that Online program dui level. That's why it's been the point of reference for all these years.
Add in the reading error factor, they didn't charge you unless you blew OVER 0.10
Here in BC they take your car and license for 24 hrs if you blow over .05. Towing, impound and the like can set you back significant money.
Hi
I think Blood Alcohol Content is the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream that is measured by grams of alcohol per 100 grams of blood. Here is an example, if you have 8 grams of alcohol in 10,000 grams of blood, that's 0.08% BAC.
they didn't charge you unless you blew OVER 0.10.
Canadian_Mind @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:47 am
Thanos Thanos:
The gradients of drunkenness are there for a reason. It's so that someone who has four beers and is barely wobbly will still get in a bit trouble (with a fine, an impounding of their vehicle, and insurance problems later) if they're pulled over by the cops but they won't get their ass handed to them in the same way some sociopathic drunk who pounds back two bottles of vodka while he's at work and then kills five people with his cement truck. The breathalyzers and such might be an imperfect system but short of doing on-the-spot blood tests with a mobile lab it's the best that can be done right now. What is being argued here anyway, that if the determining system isn't 100% perfect then nothing should be done at all, even when a blatantly shit-faced and wildly lethal driver is pulled over? Where the hell, and why exactly, is this dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion coming from?
This is how I feel. I always thought the old .08 limit was fine. Generally, it is beyond this point where alcohol actually becomes a probable cause of an "accident" instead of it being general negligence.
bootlegga @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:09 am
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Thanos Thanos:
The gradients of drunkenness are there for a reason. It's so that someone who has four beers and is barely wobbly will still get in a bit trouble (with a fine, an impounding of their vehicle, and insurance problems later) if they're pulled over by the cops but they won't get their ass handed to them in the same way some sociopathic drunk who pounds back two bottles of vodka while he's at work and then kills five people with his cement truck. The breathalyzers and such might be an imperfect system but short of doing on-the-spot blood tests with a mobile lab it's the best that can be done right now. What is being argued here anyway, that if the determining system isn't 100% perfect then nothing should be done at all, even when a blatantly shit-faced and wildly lethal driver is pulled over? Where the hell, and why exactly, is this dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussion coming from?
This is how I feel. I always thought the old .08 limit was fine. Generally, it is beyond this point where alcohol actually becomes a probable cause of an "accident" instead of it being general negligence.
Actually, impairment starts at just .02 and just gets worse the higher it goes:
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Co ... ffects.pdf
bootlegga @ Thu Feb 23, 2017 6:15 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
bootlegga bootlegga:
However, if this is that jackass's first offence, you can pretty much guarantee that he will NOT get the maximum sentence (life in prison) for killing that woman. Odds are, like so many other drunken assholes, he'll get a relative slap on the wrist.
Relative to what? He'll get the same penalty as anyone else for their first conviction for this offence. That's precedent. Why should he get the maximum? The maximum is supposed to be reserved for the worst offenders.
We'll have to agree to disagree, because IMHO, if you kill someone behind the wheel while impaired, you should get the book thrown at you.
Lemmy Lemmy:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Another dumbass ran over a kid sitting on a patio with his parents in 2013 - his punishment? Four months in jail - even though he admitted to having several shots! That's goddamned travesty.
But that's the way our Youth Criminal Justice system is set up: less punishment, emphasis on rehabilitation. Kids make stupid mistakes and our system recognizes that. What benefit would anyone get by putting that stupid kid in jail longer?
Richard Suter is not a kid, he is middle-aged - his victim was a toddler.
Lemmy Lemmy:
bootlegga bootlegga:
It's time the legal system started throwing the book at impaired drivers, because the carnage they create is almost always far greater than the punishment they receive.
Why are we going to "throw the book" at impaired drivers while not "throwing it" at people who are driving badly for other reasons? Why the selectivity?
I'm not disagreeing with you. I think if you cause a crash you should be punished harshly. If you hurt someone, you should go to prison. If you kill someone, you should go to prison for a very long time. But I maintain that if you don't cause any damage you haven't harmed society so society oughtn't have any reason to want you punished. And I further maintain that it's quality of driving that ought to be the pertinent evidence, not some arbitrary BAC level.
I guess I wasn't clear, anyone who kills/injures someone while impaired needs to go to jail for a long, long time. current penalties for drunk drivers who get pulled over without hurting anyone (except themselves) are acceptable.