Well get you the first time

[calgarydub]

Re: Well get you the first time

That perspective is so dangerous to society I can't even express it properly. That's like saying I'm not black so I don't care if black people are thrown in jail for no reason. You don't have to be affected by a law or rule to be opposed.

You guys talk like "DRUNK DRIVING" is some sort of scientific absolute. The actual charge is IMPAIRED DRIVING and you can get it for being sleepy, talking on your cell phone, being overly emotional, having rowdy passengers, being on cold meds, etc. I guarantee every single one of you has driven while impaired by at least one of the above.

Do you really think we should be setting punishments that severe based on an arbitrary number that doesn't even cover half the population? What about drugs - there's no "blowing over" for narcotics.

I'm all for video of people's actual driving and behavior while on a stop - regardless of what impairment they have. Convict on that, and make it reasonable.

That's the other thing - if the punishment is crushed car, do you think a drunk is going to just pull over? What do they have to lose by running?

So many good points here, I'd like to see someone argue this.

[Canadian Turbo]

Re: Well get you the first time

In Australia they have checkstops were you are instantly asked to count to 5 into a non-contact breathalizer, no trying to figure out your state by the officers, just get a reading and either you can go on or not. Even to climb the Sydney harbour bridge I had to do the same thing, perhaps we need to up our level of detection and enforcement on this subject along with looking at the penalties.

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

That perspective is so dangerous to society I can't even express it properly. That's like saying I'm not black so I don't care if black people are thrown in jail for no reason. You don't have to be affected by a law or rule to be opposed.

You guys talk like "DRUNK DRIVING" is some sort of scientific absolute. The actual charge is IMPAIRED DRIVING and you can get it for being sleepy, talking on your cell phone, being overly emotional, having rowdy passengers, being on cold meds, etc. I guarantee every single one of you has driven while impaired by at least one of the above.

Do you really think we should be setting punishments that severe based on an arbitrary number that doesn't even cover half the population? What about drugs - there's no "blowing over" for narcotics.

I'm all for video of people's actual driving and behavior while on a stop - regardless of what impairment they have. Convict on that, and make it reasonable.

That's the other thing - if the punishment is crushed car, do you think a drunk is going to just pull over? What do they have to lose by running?

It's not like saying" I'm not black so it doesn't matter" because being black is not an illegal activity. Drunk Driving is. Net alone in this instance people are making the decision to do an illegal activity. I don't see this mentality to be an issue unless the bases of this law are unfounded and drunk driving is not actually an issue, which it is and I think we can all agree on that.

When we talk about drunk driving we are talking about being under the influence of alcohol.

If you don't stop for the police you may loose your life or land yourself in jail for even longer... that's what there is to loose.

[Khyron]

Re: Well get you the first time

So you feel that someone having a couple of glasses of wine over dinner and then driving a few hours later is a menace on the road? How about three?

I can be completely bombed (IMO) and not blow over .08 because I don't drink very often. Yet some russian guy who's been drinking vodka can be double the limit but to all intents dead cold sober. The test blows (pun!).

But that's not the point anyway. Point it 2 people, committing the same crime, both get completely different punishments based on their wealth. That is my problem with this law. Everyone is supposed to be equal, not one punishment for me and another for you. We don't have fines based on percentages of income etc.

Sidenote: If this law does pass, please let it apply to assholes that text while driving. I saw two today coming home. :(

[100%VAGitarian]

Re: Well get you the first time

i know most disagree with my views, but would you rather live without your ride? or live with the fact that you took someone else's life. like i said, it's a pretty fair trade off for stupidity. hell if you crash, your car's gone anyway. my '87 golf will kill just as hard as a 911. sure i'd be super bummed if i lost it. but it's a car i bought within my means. same with the 911 owner. it's within his means and we both have the same appreciation for what we've worked hard for. it doesn't matter how much the car costs. it's your weapon of choice.

maybe they should just make the fine $10000. that or jail. this way most would have to sell their car to pay the fine, or sit in a cell next to the guy who just B&E'd their home while you're waiting to get out.

here's an idea. how about not driving to the bar. that way you don't have the choice to drive your car home.

sorry, but i still don't know why someone would have a problem with it, unless you are regularly guilty of it. i think the threat of harsh punishment will deter way more than it takes, which is ultimately the goal.

perhaps we need to up our level of detection and enforcement on this subject along with looking at the penalties.

you are right.

[Kordain]

Re: Well get you the first time

so if we have a set fine of oh say $2000 who is that going to deter. our friendly student in his 92 escort that has next to no money and 2k would last a long time for or the oil magnet driving his lambo that makes that much an hour?

What if we have a sliding scale based on impact of the fine where the student gets fined 2k and mr oil gets fined 200k that may equal a same level of Deterrent. escort v lambo?

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

So you feel that someone having a couple of glasses of wine over dinner and then driving a few hours later is a menace on the road? How about three?

I can be completely bombed (IMO) and not blow over .08 because I don't drink very often. Yet some russian guy who's been drinking vodka can be double the limit but to all intents dead cold sober. The test blows (pun!).

But that's not the point anyway. Point it 2 people, committing the same crime, both get completely different punishments based on their wealth. That is my problem with this law. Everyone is supposed to be equal, not one punishment for me and another for you. We don't have fines based on percentages of income etc.

Sidenote: If this law does pass, please let it apply to assholes that text while driving. I saw two today coming home. :(

For he average person I would say its safe to say that they won't be buying beaters for drinking and driving and therefore for a lot of people what they drive is in proportion to what they can afford.

Sure this my not be always true in every cases but I'd say for most it would.
If I make 10k a year and they take away my 1k car that is in essence the same thing as taking away a 100k car from someone who makes 1 million.

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

here's an idea. how about not driving to the bar. that way you don't have the choice to drive your car home.

Couldn't agree more.

[Stonewall]

Re: Well get you the first time

Sidenote: If this law does pass, please let it apply to assholes that text while driving. I saw two today coming home. :(

You think thats bad? I have seen two police officers talking on cell phones while driving, not very well mind you. Sent and email to the police service and received a nice reply about how cell phones are important tools for police officers. Ohh I guess those expensive radios they where are just for show. To top it off the hypocrites are cracking down on drivers talking on their phones etc this month.

[stefan]

Re: Well get you the first time

police officers are professional drivers. they can do more while driving then you or I.

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

You think thats bad? I have seen two police officers talking on cell phones while driving, not very well mind you. Sent and email to the police service and received a nice reply about how cell phones are important tools for police officers. Ohh I guess those expensive radios they where are just for show. To top it off the hypocrites are cracking down on drivers talking on their phones etc this month.

There is a big difference between talking on the cellphone and reading and typing while driving.

LMAO you just can't let go of this lol

RE: 11-23-2007-One step closer to Speed on Green cameras

http://www.eurodrivers.ca/forums/sho...ghlight=police

"Here is part of the email I received after sending an email to the Calgary police about seeing police officers driving while talking on cell phones:
"Our officers are very well aware of the hazards of multi tasking while driving, unfortunately this is one of the many tools they utilize while protecting the citizens of Calgary. I would like to think that our officers are role models and do not use their cells phones while driving unless it is unavoidable."
I have seen it more then once and it didn't look safe at any time. They make hands free sets for a reason and if the police need their cell phones so bad f*%#in buy it for them."



PS. Would'nt they have to use a hand to hold the big ole radio?

[Stonewall]

Re: Well get you the first time

LMAO you just can't let go of this lol
PS. Would'nt they have to use a hand to hold the big ole radio?

Whats your point? They don't need hands to listen to dispatch calls.

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

Whats your point? They don't need hands to listen to dispatch calls.

How do they communicate to say they are accepting the calls. Im surprised your not taking issue with those dash mounted laptops they use.

[100%VAGitarian]

Re: Well get you the first time

police officers are professional drivers. they can do more while driving then you or I.

so you're saying that there is some sort of driving course i can take that improves my ability to chat while driving? lol! i'm sure a hands free set is cheaper.

To top it off the hypocrites are cracking down on drivers talking on their phones etc this month.

POLICE=LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!! in this situation, they are not.

but as for D&Ding, i don't think i've passed through a checkstop in almost 2 years, let alone even seen one.

[nordex]

Re: Well get you the first time

Yup no cell phones for police. Hopefully you don't find yourself in a situation where you need to get a hold of an officer and he can't take your call because he's driving. I frankly can live withe exemption nor am I 2 yrs old and need to follow an example. I try not to talk on the cell phone and drive because I dont want to get in an accident and for me thats enough of a reason.

Has it ever occurred that a simple headset could become very troublesome for an officer. Maybe he is being attacked and all he needs is another cord to have wrapped around his neck or better yet a cordless one which I'm sure would be real beneficial if he were to take a blow to the head...

Police can also have cool flashing lights and get to drive faster then us...does that mean I can speed to?