How to stop impaired driving

[HowSwedeItIs]

Originally Posted by deerguy

Is the whole job here to ruin the individuals life? Make them loose everything?

I'd say they put themselves in that situation, it's not the court's fault they decided to drive impaired. I don't agree with the mass installation of these machines for a number of reasons but I'd definitely like to see the penalties increased. First time offence you lose your vehicle and serious jail time, and if you kill someone then you're never getting out. All the booze cruisers I've known have been young punks who don't give a sh*t about anyone but themselves, if the fact they might harm innocent people isn't enough to keep them from getting behind the wheel than the punishment should be harsh enough to give them pause

[deerguy]

Originally Posted by HowSwedeItIs

I'd say they put themselves in that situation, it's not the court's fault they decided to drive impaired. I don't agree with the mass installation of these machines for a number of reasons but I'd definitely like to see the penalties increased. First time offence you lose your vehicle and serious jail time, and if you kill someone then you're never getting out. All the booze cruisers I've known have been young punks who don't give a sh*t about anyone but themselves, if the fact they might harm innocent people isn't enough to keep them from getting behind the wheel than the punishment should be harsh enough to give them pause

California has a 3 strikes policy, does not seem to be a deterrent of crime there.

[HowSwedeItIs]

Originally Posted by deerguy

California has a 3 strikes policy, does not seem to be a deterrent of crime there.

You can't compare California to here.

[deerguy]

Originally Posted by HowSwedeItIs

You can't compare California to here.

Why? It's 10 hours away from here. More in common with some in California then someone in Newfoundland.

Increased penalties are never the answer nor have they ever fixed the problems.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by deerguy

California has a 3 strikes policy, does not seem to be a deterrent of crime there.

Sure as heck it deters crime! After strike 3 they have a pretty hard time harming anyone that's not also in jail with them. Problem solved......

We'd need some strike 4 statistics to debate that one any further.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

That is about the most ridiculous idea that I have ever heard. The cost would be extreme to retrofit every vehicle with such a device, every mechanic would need to learn how to repair them, and every automotive store would have to stock parts for them. It would take many years to install the devices, and for the manufacturers to meet the demand in parts. As well, like everything else they fail, which would cause people even more issues, more time, and more money. Stupid idea!

And another thing. I'm blotto and want to drive home.
I just get a friend or relative who is sober to blow into the thing while I sit in the drivers seat and start the vehicle.
At least 1/2 the time I'll probably be able to find someone who doesn't think I'm too drunk to drive and will be willing to help me out.

[HowSwedeItIs]

Originally Posted by deerguy

Why? It's 10 hours away from here. More in common with some in California then someone in Newfoundland.

Increased penalties are never the answer nor have they ever fixed the problems.

Completely different demographics? Significantly higher population density? You're only fooling yourself here

[Sneeze]

I don't usually have too much trouble stopping while impaired driving. Push brakes, truck slows down and stops.

Although once I tried to hockey stop a pick up on a frozen lake, didn't work at all. I suggest sticking with using the brakes.

[Newellknik]

Deer guy fabulous derail .....do not be confused ,if that's possible .
The USA s drinking and driving laws are way stiffer than up here
In apathy land . Let's take you to downtown Calgary,and load up a long gun
And you can wander around . We will explain to law enforcement that it is a
Social experiment . Now in this political atmosphere , we have to hope
For two things ...1 you don't get shot dead before you can explain that
Your purpose was to prove an inane point on an outdoor forum . 2 There is no
Two...we will have left you just before the cops show up .
Likely you are no stranger to psych ward assessments , so you will be Ok .
The forum will judge on the experiment .

My analogy will stand ....drunk driving is a decision , a bad one but still
A choice . One of my best friends sits on the Alberta Review board ,the
Guys you go see to bull**** your way into getting your licence back .
His stories are sadly hilarious . Alcoholics have no exterior shame ,
Plenty on the inside but hey that's another story .
There is no doubt Frontal Lobotomy is the cure for DWI .

[Pathfinder76]

Quit drinking maybe.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by HowSwedeItIs

Completely different demographics? Significantly higher population density? You're only fooling yourself here

A drunken Newf might hit a moose, a drunken Californian will wipe out an entire gaggle of vegans, California has roughly the population of all of Canada, density is a factor.

[Halfton]

Originally Posted by BANG

I don't know how old you are but the acceptance of the drinking culture has changed very dramatically in my time on this ball of dirt.20 years ago it was common for the r.c.m.p in my home town to get the least drunk person to drive everyone home.

Yes the times are a changin, I am 61 now and it wasn't uncommon in my youth if you were pulled over for been drunk the police would just tell you to go straight home or as was stated to put the least drunk person behind the wheel. There is no way today you would get away with anything to do with drinking and driving that was commonly accepted practice back in the early 70ies.
I really noticed the crack down on impaired driving beginning in the early 80ies and has been escalating slowly more and more every year. I do believe you still have a problem today but no where near as bad as it was 30 some years ago, and I believe that it will continue to improve by getting to be less and less of a problem every year.

Jim

[CMichaud]

Alcohol IMPAIRS judgement. How many have done something incredibly stupid while under the influence? When younger I almost killed myself once (really should have died) not to mention the time I almost gelded myself on a fence while ****ed.

Best we can do is mitigate the occurrence of DD.

- Educate people on the effects alcohol has on judgement and health
- Educate people on planning head when they have the ability to think clearly
- Law enforcement to remove DD from the roads when they are driving

There should be retributive justice should a DD cause injury to another person however I am not sure this contributes to fewer incidences.

Originally Posted by Halfton

Yes the times are a changin, I am 61 now and it wasn't uncommon in my youth if you were pulled over for been drunk the police would just tell you to go straight home or as was stated to put the least drunk person behind the wheel. There is no way today you would get away with anything to do with drinking and driving that was commonly accepted practice back in the early 70ies.
I really noticed the crack down on impaired driving beginning in the early 80ies and has been escalating slowly more and more every year. I do believe you still have a problem today but no where near as bad as it was 30 some years ago, and I believe that it will continue to improve by getting to be less and less of a problem every year.

Jim

Jim - It would be interesting to see what the stats would tell us on this with respect to mortality and injuries. It always amazes me that anyone survived on our highways prior to drunk driving legislation, mandatory seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc etc.

Some interesting stats are available here

http://tirf.ca/faq/index.html

[ditch donkey]

Originally Posted by bobcatguy

There is a way to stop impaired driving. It would take the co-operation of at least 2 federal governments. Canadian & US feds make a law that any motorized vehicle car ,truck, boat, lawnmower ,etc. could only be mobilized by blowing into a breathalizer If you pass your vehicle will start if you fail it won't start... no more impaired driving. Make this mandatory on all motorized vehicles coming on market in say 2020 & the days of impaired driving in north America are numbered

Probably one of the silliest ideas I've heard in a long time! First, I don't want to be forced to pay for a blow box, in my truck, car, or lawn mower. Second, instead of enforcing the rules we have effectively, or tweaking them, you want to just treat everyone like criminals.

With that line of thinking you could probly land a nice job with Trudeau, drafting his new firearms policies.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by deerguy

Why? It's 10 hours away from here. More in common with some in California then someone in Newfoundland.

Increased penalties are never the answer nor have they ever fixed the problems.

Obviously the penalty wasn't severe enough. things like a life time driving ban would put a crimp in things. Penalties are no good if they're just a slap on the wrist. They have to hurt.

Grizz

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Obviously the penalty wasn't severe enough. things like a life time driving ban would put a crimp in things. Penalties are no good if they're just a slap on the wrist. They have to hurt.

Grizz

I know people that have been banned for life, yet they have been caught driving multiple times since. The only way to stop some people, would be to lock them up for the rest of their lives.

[bobcatguy]

So the most common argument against is the cost of retrofit. Don't retrofit ,just make it mandatory in all new vehicles. At one time radios were an option because of the cost. Produced by the millions the cost becomes irrelevant. How much extra does your backup camera cost? For those that wish to cheat the system by having their kid or buddy blow have serious consequences. Maybe 1 month in jail 1st offence then 6 mos. & so on. I'm sure these units could be built so they could be set to whatever the legal limit is in the jurisdiction said vehicle is registered in. As for the hassle of blowing ,well probably no more hassle than putting on a seatbelt.

[bobcatguy]

Originally Posted by Halfton

Yes the times are a changin, I am 61 now and it wasn't uncommon in my youth if you were pulled over for been drunk the police would just tell you to go straight home or as was stated to put the least drunk person behind the wheel. There is no way today you would get away with anything to do with drinking and driving that was commonly accepted practice back in the early 70ies.
I really noticed the crack down on impaired driving beginning in the early 80ies and has been escalating slowly more and more every year. I do believe you still have a problem today but no where near as bad as it was 30 some years ago, and I believe that it will continue to improve by getting to be less and less of a problem every year.

Jim

Yes the times are changing. I lived through the 70ies but I knew quite a few that didn't. Anyone that thinks the problem is under control only needs to follow the news. People get killed ,hurt every day in this country still.

[rbouchard]

It's frustrating for sure. I am 48 years old and have not once driven impaired. I grew up in a time where it was common place for people to drive drunk. It might have had to do with the fact that when I was 16 driving to town on Christmas eve and watched a head on collision and then sat in the back of the one car talking with the person who was driving only to find out that all the steam I thought was breath was just from the blood on her face. She died on impact and the drunk who hit her was laughing as they loaded him into the ambulance. I feel no pity what so ever for some one who drinks and drives. The problem is that the penalties come after getting caught. Far to many people get away with it to over and over. Make a first time offender lose his car, licence, face fines that will take years to pay off and you will still have people drinking and driving. Some people are stupid

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by bobcatguy

So the most common argument against is the cost of retrofit. Don't retrofit ,just make it mandatory in all new vehicles. At one time radios were an option because of the cost. Produced by the millions the cost becomes irrelevant. How much extra does your backup camera cost? For those that wish to cheat the system by having their kid or buddy blow have serious consequences. Maybe 1 month in jail 1st offence then 6 mos. & so on. I'm sure these units could be built so they could be set to whatever the legal limit is in the jurisdiction said vehicle is registered in. As for the hassle of blowing ,well probably no more hassle than putting on a seatbelt.

Maybe you missed several other outstanding reasons why this is ridiculous. The things have to be recalibrated every 90 days. There are monitoring fees, too easy to have someone else blow, systems can be overridden, etc. Never mind the fact that this is a massive intrusion upon the rights of every single driver on the road just for the sake of maybe preventing one accident. What about the millions of existing vehicles on the road? Either way you slice it is moronic and thankfully will never come to fruition. What are you even thinking suggesting that? Why should I have to pay for the installation of an IIS if I buy a new vehicle when I know with 100% certainty that I would NEVER get behind the wheel impaired?

[airbornedeerhunter]

Originally Posted by bobcatguy

Yes the times are changing. I lived through the 70ies but I knew quite a few that didn't. Anyone that thinks the problem is under control only needs to follow the news. People get killed ,hurt every day in this country still.

Yes, but people also get hurt and killed by wildlife, falling bricks, collapsing scaffolding, house fires, exposure, car accidents, falling down stairs, electrocution, drowning, suffocation, falling out of windows, cars slipping off jackstands, choking etc etc etc

Infringing on the rights and freedoms of the masses to satisfy an agenda is dangerous business.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Maybe we just need to educate people

Oh wait...


Or if you can turn down the stupidity

" it's ok I can drive "

Get rid of that effect with Alcohol and maybe just maybe
You won't have this problem

[bobcatguy]

Do you also consider having to wear a seatbelt an infringement on the right & freedoms of the masses? Do you use one?

[bobcatguy]

They could be made so they don't need monitored or recalibrated. I'm saying make them mandatory in new vehicles. Most vehicles made today won't be usable in 20 or 30 years. We would need to keep the same laws on the books that we have today for older vehicles

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bobcatguy

So the most common argument against is the cost of retrofit. Don't retrofit ,just make it mandatory in all new vehicles. At one time radios were an option because of the cost. Produced by the millions the cost becomes irrelevant. How much extra does your backup camera cost? For those that wish to cheat the system by having their kid or buddy blow have serious consequences. Maybe 1 month in jail 1st offence then 6 mos. & so on. I'm sure these units could be built so they could be set to whatever the legal limit is in the jurisdiction said vehicle is registered in. As for the hassle of blowing ,well probably no more hassle than putting on a seatbelt.

So how many years do you think that it would take for every single existing vehicle and lawn mower to be taken out of service so that every one in service has one of these devices? 30 years? 50 years? How about the classic cars that are 60 or 80 years old now, that still get driven. How about the riding lawn mowers that don't even have cabs, the system would need to be completely impervious to the elements. This is a totally impractical idea.

And then there is the part about treating every driver as a criminal, by making him/her provide a breath sample before being allowed to start the vehicle. That makes this idea not only impractical, but an insult to all law abiding drivers.

Thus idea is impractical, insulting, and just plain silly.

[bobcatguy]

Is a checkstop an insult to all law abiding citizens ?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by bobcatguy

Is a checkstop an insult to all law abiding citizens ?

Actually it is, but I can't even remember the last time that I drove through one, so it isn't such a huge deal to me. However I usually start a vehicle multiple times every day, so your silly idea would be much more of a concern for me. Check stops also don't cost a law abiding citizen considerable cost when purchasing a new vehicle.

[Redfrog]

Why not just have a vehicle registry and some paper work and insurance to own a vehicle. Maybe a course and a test to get a permit to operate one. and to make sure everyone is safe, how about a law making it illegal to drive while impaired. I wouldn't mind paying a few grand a year for this stuff if it saves one life.

Problem solved.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Why not just have a vehicle registry and some paper work and insurance to own a vehicle. Maybe a course and a test to get a permit to operate one. and to make sure everyone is safe, how about a law making it illegal to drive while impaired. I wouldn't mind paying a few grand a year for this stuff if it saves one life.

Problem solved.

More regulations and requirements are always the solution to every problem.

[javlin101]

Thus idea is impractical, insulting, and just plain silly.[/QUOTE]

To who?????

I appreciate the op throwing this idea out there. May not be the answer to the problem but may provoke some thought on the issue. Your posts not so much!