Should drunk driving be reduced to a $75 fine?

[googe]

Apparently Alberta still has no anti-cellphone/texting while driving laws, so I'll use California as an example.

Texting while driving is a $75 ticket here. It's still not overly controversial, you aren't going to have trouble getting a job if you get one. No car impound or anything.

Drinking and driving on the other hand, we know how that goes.

"A 2009 experiment with Car and Driver magazine editor Eddie Alterman that took place at a deserted air strip showed that texting while driving had a greater impact on safety than driving drunk. While legally drunk, Alterman's stopping distance from 70 mph increased by 4 feet; by contrast, reading an e-mail added 36 feet, and sending a text added 70 feet"

So following that logic, texting is about 20 times more dangerous? So maybe a fair punishment would actually be a $10 ticket for blowing 0.08, and a $75 ticket for texting.

And why do we put more stigma on a drunk driver (unconscious decision for the most part) than someone who is fully conscious and aware of what they are doing, yet does this 'worse' texting offence regardless?

It seems like we have some priorities confused.

[Melinda]

I think it's all in the same ballpark of stupidity and selfish recklessness and should be punished equally. (And certainly not with a $75 fine)

[Toma]

Studies have proven that driving while tired is more dangerous than moderate alcohol levels as well....

Should we get CRIMINAL records for that too?

In a word, YES, drinking and driving should be decriminalized, as should be the absurd "refusing to blow".

Criminal charges should only be applied to actually harming someone or their property with intent.

As for texting.... bah, who cares. I drive a LOT, and I am much more afraid of the middle aged/elderly chinese driver than the teenage girl texter.

Today, I tailgated a Chinese guy on Memorial who was doing 60 in an 80. He actually got so scared, he slowed even more and turned on his blinkers....

Jesus.

Pay attention when YOU drive, and you'll get into very few accidents. Everyone should worry a little less about what everyone else is doing.

[Grogador]

"Legally drunk" is barely feelin' it. Ever notice how all those gory accident reports say the drunkard blew a 0.2 or couldn't stand?

Paying attention vs. not paying attention vs. covering one eye so you can kinda see your merge lane are really different things! You can just as easily crash into someone while checking out a hot girl or looking for your address. Pay attention and use proper judgement about when to multi-task if you must. Would you keep your eyes glued to the GPS while tailgating a pickup truck at 190kph down a narrow, crowded US freeway? How about looking for a CD while on cruise-control along a flat, straight, deserted stretch of prairie highway?

[derpderp]

I am all for letting people do what they want, shoot guns in the house, do drugs, smoke have sex with a prostitute whatever, none of those things create a risk to me.

But when people decide to drive impaired or do other distracting things they are risking the people around them too, I don’t particularly see why others should have to be worried about idiots trying to text their friends “lol” and then when they look up from their phone notice the lane ends, take a hard right and end up taking someone off the road and killing them.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Grogador
"Legally drunk" is barely feelin' it. Ever notice how all those gory accident reports say the drunkard blew a 0.2 or couldn't stand?

http://forums.beyond.ca/st/319908/th...e-right-limit/

Originally posted by derpderp
I am all for letting people do what they want, shoot guns in the house, do drugs, smoke have sex with a prostitute whatever, none of those things create a risk to me.
.

You don't think shooting guns in their house... with bullets that could easily penetrate their wall, then yours, and into you, a "risk"?

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by Toma

Criminal charges should only be applied to actually harming someone or their property with intent.

Precisely! This is government double speak at its finest.

[derpderp]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
You don't think shooting guns in their house... with bullets that could easily penetrate their wall, then yours, and into you, a "risk"?

lol obviously I was making an exaggerated point

[rage2]

Originally posted by Grogador
"Legally drunk" is barely feelin' it. Ever notice how all those gory accident reports say the drunkard blew a 0.2 or couldn't stand?

Yea, DEFINATELY a myth haha. I had a solid 20 drinks this weekend on a completely empty stomach and blew a high of 0.07, was barely able to walk haha.

[Feruk]

While we're at it, lets give tickets to people for changing radio stations, or to companies whose billboards/ADs "distract" people causing an accident. Might as well ban people from eating/smoking/drinking coffee while driving as those can be a distraction too. Where does it stop?? I'd rather have a society where common sense rules then having a law for every stupid thing.

Is texting and driving dangerous? Heck yes. Should people be criminally charged for it? FUCK NO... they've committed no crime.

[calgary403]

What I think should be prosecuted is people who cause accidents. Everyday I see some idiot who doesn't know how to drive almost cause an accident. What's the real punishment for these people? Their insurance rates go a little bit higher? Some fat chick t-boned my brand new Celica (this was a few years ago) as I was driving down the highway and she blew through a stop sign on some range road. She completely totaled my car and she wasn't drinking or texting. Just some dumb driver who should not have had her licence in the first place. Since my "brand new" car was actually now "used" because I had driven it about 1500km I had to pay $4000 on top of the insurance pay out just to pay back the loan for my car.

What sort of punishment does she get? Her insurance rates go up a little bit? She could have killed someone. I think if you are at fault in an accident you should have a one year licence suspension and mandatory driver's ed. That's what I think would make the roads safer. Not any of these bullshit distracted driving laws. I can drive with a blindfold better than alot of drivers on these roads who are driving "legally."

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by Toma


Criminal charges should only be applied to actually harming someone or their property with intent.

Are you saying you would rather get maimed, injured, killed, or have a friend or family member suffer the same fate by a drunk driver, THEN have that person face charges?
Me, I would rather let the law stop that person at a checkstop and have them charged with driving while intoxicated BEFORE myself or my friends/family were put at risk.
You can't say in the same sentence we should all pay attention while driving, but also not worry about what other drivers are doing; those two things go hand-in-hand.

[SmAcKpOo]

While we're at it, let's ban Chinese from teaching other Chinese how to drive.

[msommers]

Originally posted by rage2

Yea, DEFINATELY a myth haha. I had a solid 20 drinks this weekend on a completely empty stomach and blew a high of 0.07, was barely able to walk haha.

Oh the things we do for science

[Toma]

Originally posted by Kennyredline

Are you saying you would rather get maimed, injured, killed, or have a friend or family member suffer the same fate by a drunk driver, THEN have that person face charges?
Me, I would rather let the law stop that person at a checkstop and have them charged with driving while intoxicated BEFORE myself or my friends/family were put at risk.
You can't say in the same sentence we should all pay attention while driving, but also not worry about what other drivers are doing; those two things go hand-in-hand.

I grew up at a different time, driving drunk was like a "maybe you shouldn't do that"

I never said dont make it illegal, I said decriminalize it. Pulled over at check stop and cant function, yeah, cab ride home and a ticket, not have your life ruined and $50,000 in fines/court costs.

The last part... of course I can say that. It's not like bad drivers or people making driving mistake suddenly appear out of thin air.

Being aware of your surroundings, and ready to act are what it's all about.

I was talking about how they are driving, and not worrying if they are texting or drunk. That is irrlevent to me as a driver, I am only worried about what the car is doing. If the car swerves into my lane, I could give a shit if the chick was texting, or putting on make-up, or drunk, or was distracted by a cute Chihuahua walking down the street. That is not one bit relevant. The relevant part is to make sure she doesn't hit me.

That is what I meant.

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Kennyredline

Are you saying you would rather get maimed, injured, killed, or have a friend or family member suffer the same fate by a drunk driver, THEN have that person face charges?
Me, I would rather let the law stop that person at a checkstop and have them charged with driving while intoxicated BEFORE myself or my friends/family were put at risk.
You can't say in the same sentence we should all pay attention while driving, but also not worry about what other drivers are doing; those two things go hand-in-hand.

I don't think he's saying that the person shouldn't be charged, or that the penalties shouldn't be stiff... just that it shouldn't be a criminal offense.

I have to say that I agree. While I adamantly oppose drinking and driving, I don't think people who are inebriated can really judge right from wrong. I also don't think most people who make that poor decision are really bad people who need to be labeled as criminal. As well, being high or drunk is a common defense in other (real) criminal cases... so why is it excusable there, and not for drinking and driving.

[Toma]

Also, not a fan of punishment and criminal charges based on a probability...

ie....

If you drive drunk, they claim that the probability that you will cause an accident is increased.... sure, I'll buy that.

But making someone a actual CRIMINAL under the criminal code for a probability? That is wrong IMHO.

That would be like saying... "he was window shopping, and that increases the probability of shoplifting, so lets make him a criminal for it."

Or "He take karate and lifts weights, that increases the probability that he will get in a fight/assault someone, so lets make learning karate a criminal offence".

[Toma]

Originally posted by Guillermo


I don't think he's saying that the person shouldn't be charged, or that the penalties shouldn't be stiff... just that it shouldn't be a criminal offense.

I have to say that I agree. While I adamantly oppose drinking and driving, I don't think people who are inebriated can really judge right from wrong. I also don't think most people who make that poor decision are really bad people who need to be labeled as criminal. As well, being high or drunk is a common defense in other (real) criminal cases... so why is it excusable there, and not for drinking and driving.

And what is even worse....

Refusing to Blow is also a criminal offence!! Jesus.

[msommers]

It is used as a defense but that's not something I support. Everyone makes choices, some are bad and some are terrible. Especially in this day and age, everyone knows the consequences of drinking and driving, there is absolutely no excuse.

A friend of mine, her boyfriend was arrested for blowing a 0.07. At the time I didn't know what that meant but now after Rage's test (scientific or not), it brings to light just how fucking wasted he probably was. It is at this point where my concern is, how much does this person care about anyone else's safety and what is that tangential to in terms of criminal charges and/or fines? Ruining someone's life based on a terrible choice one night may not seem worthwhile, but that same night that choice could kill other people. So is it criminal or isn't it? And if it isn't, what exactly constitues manslaughter?

As for texting, I've honestly stopped because I've caught myself in a close call and said fuck it, not worth it. I now have my bluetooth on all the time while I'm in the car and keep my phone on silent. To think back now, it shouldn't have even come to that point but it did. I remember one night on Crowchild I was driving some buddies home and I thought this person in front of me was wasted, all over the road swerving. I leave a lane space between us and pull up beside the car...it's some chick on her cell texting. 75 bucks won't deter anyone.

Everyone knows how stupid drinking and driving is but in the same breath don't want to have their texting privledges taken away. But if studies (and I know there are more than the one Googe posted) show texting is as bad or worse than drunk driving, why are the consequences so small? It makes no logical sense. Up the fines and possibly charge to the equation. Everything will think it will be dumb for the first bit, just as I'm sure drunk driving was. Give it time for people to realize how fucking stupid it is.

There are also voice-to-text applications that will read out your mail and you can reply while speaking. I haven't used it but could be a solution.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Texting while driving isn't even CLOSE to being drunk - I don't know who the hell they have doing these tests for them. I can easily text without even looking at my phone, but I still only ever do so at stoplights if I have to send a text for whatever reason. As long as my eyes are on the road, me doing something else at the same time is no different than talking to a passenger. I still don't text while I drive though. I suppose the laws have to account for the most retarded of people though, so maybe it would be good.

As for the drunks, IMO drunk driving punishments should be WAY higher. As of now you can get hammered, kill an entire family of five, and get 5 years in prison. Whoop de do. Maybe less people would do it if there was a 10yr jail sentence or something attached to it beyond a certain blood % (perhaps a bit higher than it is now). And if you kill someone while drunk, I'd like to see automatic 25 yrs.

IMO drunk driving shouldn't be any different than someone opening fire on a crowd of people or something - if the person knowingly does something to endanger the life of all the people, should he get a weak punishment just because he missed everyone and didn't kill them? In my mind drunk driving is the same, your chances of hitting someone are pretty high if you're hammered. If you get caught you get a slap on the wrist, and if you kill people, no problem there either - just a couple years in jail.