|
|
North of London | Again last night there was a horrific car crash that killed a 29 year old woman and left her 2 month old son in critical condition.
Couple weeks ago another woman was killed in London in a bad crash.
Last summer several died in another crash
Common denominator in all these were drunk drivers.
It is time we all discriminate against anyone who drives after drinking
You drink then you walk or call a taxi or if you drive your life will forever be troubled as 'we' sane sober people will discriminate against you.
There is no going back when you drink and drive you should be an outcast ever after.
No excuses!
Canada ranks number 1 and it is one top rating we do not want or need.
Tell any idiot who thinks they should drink anything and then drive No More we have had it and you will be punished when we catch you, no excuses!
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-drunk-driving-death-rate-worst-among-wealthy-countries-u-s-study-finds |
|
| |
|
| I totally agree |
|
| |
|
| I'm not arguing with you, but wondering.
What are you going to do to them?
Here we confiscate their vehicles, throw them in jail, fine them at ungodly rates and costs. Take away their license for years and sometimes forever.
They still do it. Do you think that after all that's already being done, shaming will do any good? |
|
| |
|
Callao, Missouri | You already do. I've heard plenty of stories of old guys that can't go fishing in Canada because sometime long ago they got a dwi. So way to go Canada, keep the drunks native.
I don't really have a solution for you, have dealt with a drunk driver only once. If I ever have to do it again I'll just clip his valve stems instead of trying to reason with him. |
|
| |
|
Sanilac Co. Michigan | As Slick Willie was wont to say, "I feel your pain", but what additional enforcement of the law and what more draconian punishment than already mandated do you recommend?
Does your province have sufficient law enforcement personnel to man the number of testing sites that would be needed in order to prevent or sufficiently reduce the number of incidence and if not, do you believe your tax payers would be eager to cough up the additional tax revenue to fund that kind of expansion? My point is keeping someone off the road by threatening public shamming isn't enough to keep them from climbing behind the wheel. You would need law enforcement to literally catch them before they can kill or injure someone. That kind of approach faces the double whammy of not only costing more money but also infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. Might not be too popular and down here that kind of approach might be taken as a violation of our bill of rights. Don't know how well it would play in Ontario.
Punishment has had quite an effect in Michigan. Get caught driving impaired the first time and things get real expensive right away, but you're still allowed one bite of the apple. Second time, it gets real hairy financially and restriction wise, might lose your driving privilege permanently. Third time and you stand the very real prospect of doing time in the big house. Felony and all that carries with it. The state got real serious about the problem around 1990.
I have a couple of opinions on this, just my opinions mind you. First is, I don't think there's a whole lot of risk from hard core alcoholics or professional drunks. The risks are from the amatures who occasionally get tight, then get behind the wheel, that's most people. The hard core alcoholic has learned to compensate in order to function.
My other opinion is that the only way to reduce the incidence of drunk driving is education from a very early age and harsh enforcement because once you're impaired and get behind the steering wheel it's too late.
|
|
| |
|
west-byGod-Pa. | Precious friend lost her husband-an Army lifer to a 17 yr. old drunk, while riding a Harley. How do you stop that? The whole world system is awash in alcohol . |
|
| |
|
Suver, Oregon | Tatoo "DWI" onto thier foreheads.
Make it a felony to sell or serve alcohol to anyone with said tatoo. |
|
| |
|
| Alcohol is not really the problem and often our laws are completely unable to cope with this sort of problem. Frankly more laws will probably just make it harder for law abiding citizens. The answer is good parenting and possibly fewer laws limiting parental rights (kids need correction, not participation awards) and possibly make saying "no" the politically correct answer.
Irresponsible folks are not affected by laws. |
|
| |
|
North Central Illinois | I agree that the current laws are about as effective as we can expect them to be. What needs to happen is for us, collectively to stop looking the other way when a family member or friend is leaving a social event intoxicated. Nobody wants to offend uncle Fred by telling him he is too drunk to drive home from the wedding reception, or whatever the event may be. |
|
| |
|
Elmira, Ontario | The challenge I have is that there are different approaches, but none of them will work on their own. Lowering limits doesn't seem to answer the right question. I have never read an article that said the drunk driver had .05 when he caused the collision. It's always well over .08 and usually double that. The occasional drinkers with meals don't seem to get into collisions that I hear about. So casting the net wider by saying zero tolerance of any drinking doesn't work in my opinion. Next, we have the additional enforcement option already discussed. We know it would take vast resources and massive intrusions into our privacy rights to do this to the point it would solve the problem of people who are willing to chance levels much greater than .08. As mentioned, I don't think we could tolerate that level of police state even here in Ontario. The next option is to increase penalties to the point that even one event (collision, or just being caught) is so painful that most people will self-select not to get into the situation. I'd argue we already have sufficiently strong penalties if they are actually applied. Then we can continue to work on the education aspect along with making a society standard that this in not acceptable. We've come a long way, but the age of the drivers involved recently tells me we seem to have failed with a younger generation at education. I think the best is to really work on increasing peer pressure education to make it uncool to drink to excess and drive. Double, triple the ad budget geared to friends/families of drivers to help them say no to the driver. |
|
| |
|
Moreauville LA | HERE, the biggest problem is the District Attorney sweeps most of them under the rug to keep himself in power. The crime isn't recorded, but the offender pays court costs and that goes to the DA. Meanwhile, the pre-trial diversion system keeps the money n the DA's office and circumvents the sheriffs office from getting paid, while doing their job.
I feel it is all about maintain power and control and little about punishment and consequences. |
|
| |
|
SE Nebraska | Didn't read all of the posts, but I'm wondering why we keep expanding the number of places that serve alcohol. Many of these places are reached by their patrons in motor vehicles, hence the need to return to their homes in said vehicle after consuming such beverages. I guess a lot of people can't have fun without alcohol.
Edited by KnowAFarmer 11/28/2016 22:19
|
|
| |
|
Central Illinois | Biggest problem around "here" is the Laws only apply to those that cannot afford to pay the membership dues so the Laws do not apply to them. |
|
| |
|
Mid Michigan | The punishments for drunk driving are indeed harsh in michigan. I have a lot of friends that can attest to this. They can't do anything like they could before the DUI. Always trying to find a way to work. Can't go anywhere spontaniously anymore. It's extremely expensive to always have to have somebody cart you around everywhere. I honestly don't know how some of these guys wives will stay married to them it made their lives so difficult. One of my friends rides a moped everywhere. Even in 6 inches of snow or a thunderstorm. I recently found out it's not even legal for him to drive the moped. Hasn't had a license in 10 years. Just got a restricted this month with a device he has to blow into every few minutes while he's driving. And the thing has outrageous restrictions on it. And he has to pay a fortune to have it in the car every month. Thousands in fines and fees. I won't even touch alcohol because it would be a disaster if I lost my license. |
|
| |
|
sw ontario | Latest numbers I seen were now more people get killed from distracted driving by ones on cell phones and /or texting........I know most now are careful about drinking and driving..........now our Castro loving,pot smoking Prime Minister is going too legalize pot I expect new issues....... problem is ones that need to sharpen up are too stupid or don't care too do something about it......death penalty maybe? really now its lose your license and 2-3 yrs. jail or house arrest for vehicular manslaughter |
|
| |
|
| I know someone that has not had a license in 20 years ,they just "go" |
|
| |
|
North Central Illinois | The laws have been so tough for so long that drunk driving in Illinois is a fraction of the problem it used to be. I think texting and driving is a far worse problem now than drunk driving. Don't get me wrong, drunk driving is not cool. Alcohol impairs judgement and causes people to make bad decisions which include getting behind the wheel. Texting is nothing more than someone saying "I know this is extremely dangerous but I'm going to do it anyway". |
|
| |
|
Hillsdale Michigan | know of a guy here who lost his license, he drives all over, they will not do any thing to him as hes a big shot farmer, they took away his semi, so now he trucks his crops to the mill by tractor pulling a semi trailer.........drunk, he carries a cooler on his tractors full of beer, some days you can back track to where he was working by all the broken off mailboxes |
|
| |
|
Sanilac Co. Michigan | davpal - 11/29/2016 01:04
The punishments for drunk driving are indeed harsh in michigan. I have a lot of friends that can attest to this. They can't do anything like they could before the DUI. Always trying to find a way to work. Can't go anywhere spontaniously anymore. It's extremely expensive to always have to have somebody cart you around everywhere. I honestly don't know how some of these guys wives will stay married to them it made their lives so difficult. One of my friends rides a moped everywhere. Even in 6 inches of snow or a thunderstorm. I recently found out it's not even legal for him to drive the moped. Hasn't had a license in 10 years. Just got a restricted this month with a device he has to blow into every few minutes while he's driving. And the thing has outrageous restrictions on it. And he has to pay a fortune to have it in the car every month. Thousands in fines and fees. I won't even touch alcohol because it would be a disaster if I lost my license.
I agree, there does come a point where the punishment becomes excessive. Like you say, it gets to the point where spouse, children and friends are punished along with the person popped. That doesn't seem right to me, but MADD really doesn't care. Very powerful lobby that works in tandem with the insurance lobby. What they've managed to do is introduce prohibition without a constitutional amendment. Top it off, insurance premiums don't seem to reflect their efforts. Then too, insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums, not paying indemnities... |
|
| |
|
Paradise KS | Its not excessive if you can kill someone. |
|
| |
Discriminate against these people
