Castanet

People STILL drink and drive?
With all the media attention and bad stigma around it, it's a wonder why there are still people out there who STILL do it!

I think it should work on a shaming system, just like in some U.S. cities when "Johns" get caught propositioning Prostitutes when the authorities post their names and or photos in the media or on a website.

Considering the amount of people drunk driving kills every year and out of all those people the amount of children it hurts or kills and the fact that people STILL aren't GETTING IT, after all these years of drunk driving campaigns, horrible news stories of families ripped apart and the heartache it causes everyone, it's just a thought, and probably a good one at that.

Shaming would be a good way to deal with it. Anyone caught drinking or smoking pot and driving, gets to have their picture and name posted on every social media outlet, every news outlet and maybe a wall somewhere. It could have a caption of "Not only do I not care about my own life, but I don't give a **** about anybody else either, so I chose to drink and drive".

Tony wrote:Shaming would be a good way to deal with it. Anyone caught drinking or smoking pot and driving, gets to have their picture and name posted on every social media outlet, every news outlet and maybe a wall somewhere. It could have a caption of "Not only do I not care about my own life, but I don't give a **** about anybody else either, so I chose to drink and drive".

Does this apply to all life threatening driving infractions?
Speeding, distracted driving, unsafe vehicles (tires etc.)?

I would hazard a guess that distracted driving and speeding cause more accidents than stoned drivers.

OllyV wrote:Does this apply to all life threatening driving infractions?
Speeding, distracted driving, unsafe vehicles (tires etc.)?

I would hazard a guess that distracted driving and speeding cause more accidents than stoned drivers.

I was going to add legal prescriptions, dogs in lap, and a bacon double cheeseburger in one hand and a Timmies Coffee in the other.
The sad irony most people don't want to acknowledge, and I most definitely do not say this in defense of alcohol impaired driving, is that the vast majority of impaired drivers on the road are actually impaired by doctor prescribed pain killers and OTC meds like cold medicines and codeine containing products like Tylenol 1"s.
If John Law could test for antidepressants, pain meds, "happy pills", could go on forever here if I went thru the Merck Manual.....main st would be empty and so would the Mall prking lots.

twobits wrote:The sad irony most people don't want to acknowledge, and I most definitely do not say this in defense of alcohol impaired driving, is that the vast majority of impaired drivers on the road are actually impaired by doctor prescribed pain killers and OTC meds like cold medicines and codeine containing products like Tylenol 1"s.

That is a very valid point and a bit of a sobering (pardon the pun) reality...

It does present a bit of a slippery slope here. If a news outlet is going to publicize the names of those charged with drinking and driving, they have a moral obligation to publicize the outcome of th3 trial as well, whether guilty or not guilty. Sadly, most news outlets simply don’t have enough staff to follow up on all of these trials.

RupertBear wrote:It does present a bit of a slippery slope here. If a news outlet is going to publicize the names of those charged with drinking and driving, they have a moral obligation to publicize the outcome of th3 trial as well, whether guilty or not guilty. Sadly, most news outlets simply don’t have enough staff to follow up on all of these trials.

Technically, under the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”, wouldn’t media outlets be obliged to wait until after conviction to publish names?

2 bits....think you have to take Tylenol 3 to get codeine but your points are well placed. Smoking tobacco while driving is also a distraction as is really loud music but no one talks about that. *removed*

RandyDandy wrote:2 bits....think you have to take Tylenol 3 to get codeine but your points are well placed. Smoking tobacco while driving is also a distraction as is really loud music but no one talks about that. *removed*

Nope, Tylenol 1's have codeine. They are just not on the shelf in the store. Kept behind the counter due to theft. Just ask the pharmacist and they will sell it to anyone without a prescription. 8 mg of codeine in each pill and any Pharma will sell you a bottle of 200 basically saccharine sized pills. Legally and cheap. A responsible pharmacist would deny the sale of two bottles but there is nothing stopping a visit to the next pharmacy two blocks away.
A T3 has 30 mg of codeine. Do the math.

Does this apply to all life threatening driving infractions?
Speeding, distracted driving, unsafe vehicles (tires etc.)?

I would hazard a guess that distracted driving and speeding cause more accidents than stoned drivers.

No, not all life threatening infractions, just drunk and impaired driving.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here! ;)

You can call speeding, distracted driving and mechanical problems a mistake or oversight, I don't think anyone should or can call drunk driving a mistake or an oversight, not anymore with all the news and talk about it out there.
It's a clear and selfish action to drink to the point of having your functions impaired then, THEN, getting behind the wheel and driving, you can't call that a mistake or a "duhhh, brain fart" moment, it's selfish, stupid, and criminal, period!

And if you follow the cases through the courts the drivers get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. A relative has been caught a number of times and still thinks he is entitled to do as he pleases. Make the penalty a lengthy ban on driving and make it non negotiable. Vehicle seized and a ban from purchasing another until the license is returned.

summerlandab wrote:And if you follow the cases through the courts the drivers get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. A relative has been caught a number of times and still thinks he is entitled to do as he pleases. Make the penalty a lengthy ban on driving and make it non negotiable. Vehicle seized and a ban from purchasing another until the license is returned.

Plus a massive fine - like $50,000. You don't drive or do jail time until it's paid.

summerlandab wrote:And if you follow the cases through the courts the drivers get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. A relative has been caught a number of times and still thinks he is entitled to do as he pleases. Make the penalty a lengthy ban on driving and make it non negotiable. Vehicle seized and a ban from purchasing another until the license is returned.

My money is on you not following "the cases through the courts". I suggest you are just speculating.

I say that because hardly any cases go through the courts. The reason,,,, police don't charge drinking drivers under the Criminal Code. Drivers don't have trials. They are found guilty at the curb. Processed under the Motor Vehicle Act, Immediate Roadside Prohibition provisions. (easy to look up)

As for those that are charged under the Criminal Code. For starters after 21 days the person charged is issued a 90 day prohibition by the Province of BC, completely separate from anything they may get if found guilty in a criminal trial.

There has been mention of "drunk and impaired driving". They are the same thing. The two main criminal drinking and driving charges are "Impaired" and "Driving with a blood alcohol over 80 mgs in 100 ml of blood" ("over 08")

The criminal code dictates fines. Impaired first offense minimum $1000, 2nd not less than 30 days and 3rd and more not less than 120 days. Serious Impaired driving a term not exceeding 5 years, Less serious (summary conviction) not more than 18 months. The judge can specify driving prohibitions as well, but in addition to the judges order, the Province of BC has it's own.

Over 08 is a fine not more than $1000.

If the incident involves injury or death the penalties go up.

On top of those fines the MVA dictates 1st offence one year suspension, 2nd three years, 3rd indefinite. There are provisions if the convictions are many years apart 5 and 10 years.

I suspect your relative is playing the game, "it's not a big deal".