Drunk sends young girl to hospital

[Fancy]

Actually I think that's exactly what a "big stick" is, extreme punishment for an extreme crime... That's what you want as long as it saves one life right?
but what if it ruins more lives than it saves?
Life is always more complicated than a perpetrator and victim...

Punishment is what it is. I don't see how punishment ruins more lives - a life hurt or gone ruins just as many. The point is getting the drunks off the road seeing how they are not learning the lesson the easy way.

[my5cents]

What I was getting at is the mind set.

Can we have a society that condones ignoring certain laws and then expects other laws to be obeyed strictly and faithfully ?

Yes, perhaps the limit through Trout Creek is low, it's an area with several fruit stands, intersections, driveways, but look at Sexsmith and Hwy 97, 80 KPH.

Ever gone across he floating bridge at 60 KPH ?

So we have a society that tells us which laws to strictly obey by increasing the severity of the penalty and in the case of drinking and driving removing our Charter rights.

Sorta like mommy and her children. They ignore her calls for compliance until she doubles the volume and takes several steps toward the children.

“If they really wanted me not to speed the fine would be $500 and I wouldn't have the right to go to court.”

It’s an expensive system, because it’s predicated on the police being there to make sure there is compliance. Demonstrated by news reports of Drinking and Driving Roadblocks to "remind" drivers not to drink and drive (that's right, I keep forgetting that it's illegal to drink and drive), speeding thru Trout Creek unless there is a cop there.

Ever travel S/B across the floating bridge in the 60 KPH zone, then notice the "Slow to 60 KPH Construction zone" sign while you are still in the 60 KPH zone. Maybe they should have just put another 60 KPH speed sign with a "We Really Mean it This Time" sign below it.

Actually I think that's exactly what a "big stick" is, extreme punishment for an extreme crime... That's what you want as long as it saves one life right?
but what if it ruins more lives than it saves?
Life is always more complicated than a perpetrator and victim...

Yes, and ad to that, automatic guilt and limited appeal procedures and we have a recipe for victimizing the supposed "perpetrator". 21st century lynch mob.

[Roadster]

Actually I think that's exactly what a "big stick" is, extreme punishment for an extreme crime... That's what you want as long as it saves one life right?
but what if it ruins more lives than it saves?
Life is always more complicated than a perpetrator and victim...

Punishment is what it is. I don't see how punishment ruins more lives - a life hurt or gone ruins just as many. The point is getting the drunks off the road seeing how they are not learning the lesson the easy way.

No one is aiming for one life saved anymore, its passed that. One life saved was back when we needed to educate people, now we all know how it kills and hurts families, those who choose to do it still are the ones who slept in class when the rest of us got it... Its time to up the penalties and stop it from killing even one because its not as if we havent seen the damage it causes in commercials and the news and even knowing someone killed, distant or family or friend. Its time.

[ukcanuck]

Actually I think that's exactly what a "big stick" is, extreme punishment for an extreme crime... That's what you want as long as it saves one life right?
but what if it ruins more lives than it saves?
Life is always more complicated than a perpetrator and victim...

Punishment is what it is. I don't see how punishment ruins more lives - a life hurt or gone ruins just as many. The point is getting the drunks off the road seeing how they are not learning the lesson the easy way.

Well I can think of one right of the top of my head. The guy whose had one too many and heading home to a house full of dependants who will no longer have their meal ticket cause his *bleep* is going to the slammer.
There is no sweet innocent victim in an early grave or broken up in a hospital bed, but we got one idiot off the road and BC s human resources has a new family to feed. I could spin off a thousand heart breaking stories from there... Doesn't take much imagination. Poverty drug addiction separation issues ...on and on. I'm sorry I'm with you on wanting to illuminate wrongful and needless deaths on our roads but I see a bigger picture too

[normaM]

I am sorry, don't see your bigger picture.. someone drinks drunk and harms someone else.. let them go sit in jail.

[my5cents]

I am sorry, don't see your bigger picture.. someone drinks drunk and harms someone else.. let them go sit in jail.

So, what do you think of the basic de-criminalization of drinking and driving in BC. No criminal record, no jail. Just lots of costs, the loss of a vehicle for a time, a driving suspension, a course and an ignition interlock.

I guess it's a big impact for the average person, and their family, not much for the wealthy.

Thoughts ?

[Trunk-Monkey]

Well I can think of one right of the top of my head. The guy whose had one too many and heading home to a house full of dependants who will no longer have their meal ticket cause his *bleep* is going to the slammer.
There is no sweet innocent victim in an early grave or broken up in a hospital bed, but we got one idiot off the road and BC s human resources has a new family to feed. I could spin off a thousand heart breaking stories from there... Doesn't take much imagination. Poverty drug addiction separation issues ...on and on. I'm sorry I'm with you on wanting to illuminate wrongful and needless deaths on our roads but I see a bigger picture too

Yes there is a bigger picture here. If the person that had one too many actually gave a crap for his dependents, he or she would not even consider the risk of drinking and driving and all that it could bring...from both sides. The point here is that you cannot condemn the laws that are set forth for deterring or attempting to prevent such acts the same way you should be condemning the person committing said acts. The person who had one too many can still put food on the table; he or she just may have to take a bus to work. If his or her job is such that he or she has to drive or needs a DL to work...well there is always McDonalds. One that holds a job where there is a DL needed should know better...period.
I know I sound like I don’t have any compassion when it comes to these sorts of things, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. I just feel that you have to put 100% of the blame right where it should be...on the person committing the act, not the laws that are there to prevent them.
The new laws have had so much media coverage and so much attention has been focused on them that IMO there is no excuse for not knowing what they are all about. Reading comments on this forum and some others though it is obvious there are still people out there that feel drinking and driving is no big deal and the gov't should just mind its own business. Thats pretty sad...but some people feel that way.

[Roadster]

I am sorry, don't see your bigger picture.. someone drinks drunk and harms someone else.. let them go sit in jail.

So, what do you think of the basic de-criminalization of drinking and driving in BC. No criminal record, no jail. Just lots of costs, the loss of a vehicle for a time, a driving suspension, a course and an ignition interlock.

I guess it's a big impact for the average person, and their family, not much for the wealthy.

Thoughts ?

To me thats ok in the idea of preventing them from Killing someone, once they hurt or kill someone they should become a criminal and be charged, again according to what happened,,, attempted murder for pointing the car at someone and almost murdering them and as a murderer for killing someone...
They should lose their licence for life after caught driving drunk more then once,,, a good three months and a hige bunch of bills on the first offence.

[Trunk-Monkey]

I am sorry, don't see your bigger picture.. someone drinks drunk and harms someone else.. let them go sit in jail.

So, what do you think of the basic de-criminalization of drinking and driving in BC. No criminal record, no jail. Just lots of costs, the loss of a vehicle for a time, a driving suspension, a course and an ignition interlock.

I guess it's a big impact for the average person, and their family, not much for the wealthy.

Thoughts ?

Yes you are right to a certain exent. The cost of the IRP system is not cheap and even a wealthy person would feel it. There is a cost to getting an interlock device on your vehicle if ordered to do so. Yes a wealthy person would not feel it as much as the common Joe but the intent of the interlock is not to have the cost of it as a penalty but rather the fact that you have to blow sober to drive your car acts as a preventative penalty.
You have to know that the IRPs are not just for anyone. There is criteria that has to be met before the cop can proceed by way of IRP.
1) No previous Drinking and driving convictions on file for the last 5 years.
2) Not applicable in a collision.
3) Not applicable if the person has been issued an IRP previously.
etc
So as you can see this narrows the field down a bit. Cops start every impaired investigation with the intent of going criminal code...if the criteria is met during that invest to issue the individual an IRP that is up to the cops discretion. If the criteria is not met ... the cop has to go Criminal code,no discretion.

[MAPearce]

Yes you are right to a certain exent. The cost of the IRP system is not cheap and even a wealthy person would feel it. There is a cost to getting an interlock device on your vehicle if ordered to do so. Yes a wealthy person would not feel it as much as the common Joe but the intent of the interlock is not to have the cost of it as a penalty but rather the fact that you have to blow sober to drive your car acts as a preventative penalty

No it doesn't....

Some drunks will drive..period..

Don't tell me that the chronic drunk respects the law...

How many do YOU pull over that don't have a licence or insurance that are *bleep* faced ??

It doesn't stop them..The average Joe that had one or two gets the point ...and the fines and penalties.

The Chronic is the one that kills and the only way to stop them is dilligent traffic enforcement.

[gordon_as]

The ignition interlock should be more affordable , but should be required more widely. Perhaps if someone blows between .05 and .08 , a year of having to blow into the device every time they want to drive might get them using their head. Second offence , throw the book at them , just for being idiots.

How about a D sticker on the back of the car ? Let's the cops know that you have had a impaired conviction in the past 5 years.

[Trunk-Monkey]

No it doesn't....

Some drunks will drive..period..

Don't tell me that the chronic drunk respects the law...

How many do YOU pull over that don't have a licence or insurance that are *bleep* faced ??

It doesn't stop them..The average Joe that had one or two gets the point ...and the fines and penalties.

The Chronic is the one that kills and the only way to stop them is dilligent traffic enforcement.

Mike do you have a solution to offer? You say traffic enforcement is the way....but in previous posts you complain about having too much police contact or involvement in peoples personal lives???
I at no point was saying that the IRPs and other laws will STOP drinking and driving completely. In fact the only thing that can is the individual person making that choice. I believe in the IRPs as well as the Criminal Code way as well and think the combination of the two is the way to go for a number of reasons.
You are incorrect IMO, the chronic people are not the only ones killing people if and when they drive drunk...it could and does happen to anyone that does. More people need to get that into their heads and make the right choice...NOT to drive after having one too many. Stiffer fines and harsher sentences IMO will help drive this point home....pun intended.

[Trunk-Monkey]

The ignition interlock should be more affordable , but should be required more widely. Perhaps if someone blows between .05 and .08 , a year of having to blow into the device every time they want to drive might get them using their head. Second offence , throw the book at them , just for being idiots.

How about a D sticker on the back of the car ? Let's the cops know that you have had a impaired conviction in the past 5 years.

Ignition locks are purchased from a private company.....free enterprise.

The police have computer data bases for that...they know.

[Graphite]

Well I can think of one right of the top of my head. The guy whose had one too many and heading home to a house full of dependants who will no longer have their meal ticket cause his *bleep* is going to the slammer.
There is no sweet innocent victim in an early grave or broken up in a hospital bed, but we got one idiot off the road and BC s human resources has a new family to feed. I could spin off a thousand heart breaking stories from there... Doesn't take much imagination. Poverty drug addiction separation issues ...on and on. I'm sorry I'm with you on wanting to illuminate wrongful and needless deaths on our roads but I see a bigger picture too

If that guy goes to jail that would be on him, not the law. You have got to be joking.

If you need me to spell it out to you, if someone has had one too many, they should not be driving!!!!

[Roadster]

A D sticker,,, now we are talkin,,,,