Is Public Safety just a way to generate revenue?

[Bob Macadoo]

And you could very well get a ticket. If on 401 or similar, ticket city baby !And why? You are NOT legally packed.

Again why are you so self-important that you can't wait for that call? Know what I do, free hands it and still I say I'll call you right back. Its not worth it, even the wife.

but hey, you like a silly police state with no brains, welcome to it. The issue is intent.

Ticketing = Police State? Tinfoil hat much? The intent is laws are made for the lowest common denominator in our society much like our democracy. I'm sorry if you aren't part of the LCD but I prefer it to letting the yahoos run the asylum.

[guyser]

Again why are you so self-important that you can't wait for that call? Know what I do, free hands it and still I say I'll call you right back. Its not worth it, even the wife.

Youve gone from incorrectly asserting how the law works to an emotion angle?

Ya could have just said 'oh, didnt know that' Thats ok, I knew ya didnt. Not many do apparently

Ticketing = Police State? Tinfoil hat much?

No not at all. But they are moving us that way, all the new laws that police are exempt from, new laws that we have to follow for Officer Safety but if its uyou or me, well, no once cares.

The intent is laws are made for the lowest common denominator in our society much like our democracy. I'm sorry if you aren't part of the LCD but I prefer it to letting the yahoos run the asylum.

Your intent angle missed by a mile.

Laws are drafted to correct a wrong, but the people who draft some of these laws arent very bright.They fail to see most unwanted intents, or ignore them, who knows.The law of Unintended Consequences is long and . Witness the fed law that a little pot is worse than a pedophiles actions.

Not very bright.

The intent they wanted gets inflated to include other things that are not near the safety concern they wanted to address.

So, texting et al was a problem whilst driving as it took the drivers attention away, so please do tell us how the driver at a light is a safety concern? Apart from the fact no one can.

That is the intent, and our cops did themselves wrong by being idiots about this. No suprise here.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Guyser2

[Bob Macadoo]

Before I begin I'm new to your online forum.....are you normally called a "forum troll" by others here. I feel I'm being punked here.

Youve gone from incorrectly asserting how the law works to an emotion angle?Ya could have just said 'oh, didnt know that' Thats ok, I knew ya didnt. Not many do apparentlyNo not at all.

I understand the law, I'm not the one projecting motives and other innuendo associated with a corrupt police board. You can stop on the 401 and not receive a ticket....again I've done it. Officer checked on me and went on his way. I have no emotion regarding this, just observing and commenting on human behaviour; drivers and debaters. You are the one projecting.

But they are moving us that way, all the new laws that police are exempt from, new laws that we have to follow for Officer Safety but if its uyou or me, well, no once cares.

Hmmm I can't possibly explain how emergency drivers might need to drive and use hand held devices or touch screens at the same time....beyond understanding. Plus the probability of the sample of emerg vehicles with professional driver training vs the entire population who got their driver training from the Markham school of getting your drivers test in Bancroft. I'll bet on them with a separate law for us. Guess I'll be safe lemming when the police takeover.

Your intent angle missed by a mile.Laws are drafted to correct a wrong,

Everything after that was not based on any form of fact.

so please do tell us how the driver at a light is a safety concern? Apart from the fact no one can.

Really, you can't understand how a distracted driver at an intersection can cause a safety concern? An illegal left turner, a wide right turn truck, an offramp accelerator, etc. Its called defensive driving. Edited April 9, 2014 by Bob Macadoo

[bleeding heart]

Bob,

The idea that ticketing is "egalitarian" is based on class-based assumptions: namely, that if the justice system (even in relatively small ways, such as ticketing) hurts the less well-off more than it hurts the better well-off...that this is "Fair" or "egalitarian." Indeed, it is not.

That is, if a person of means is ticketed, it is only nominally a punishment...but there is no de facto punishment, because paying the ticket has no financial repercussions. It is nothing. He has been "punished" in the nominal sense of the word, but it doesn't affect his life.

Whereas for a person who cannot really afford the ticket, it can be a more serious problem. The punishment, as doled out by legal authorities, is greater--based on precisely the same offense.

In most realms of consumer life, this is not inherently unfair. There is no reason why everyone should be able to afford the same goods, the same lifestyle, what have you.

But in the justice system, a de facto unfairness--that a punishment affects people who lack money more than those that do--is intrinsically in opposition to "justice" in any sense of the word.

Obviously we have learned to internalize the idea that even the law should affect people differently....based 100% and only on income.

Edited April 9, 2014 by bleeding heart

[guyser]

Before I begin I'm new to your online forum.....are you normally called a "forum troll" by others here. I feel I'm being punked here.

Dont think Ive ever been called one.

I understand the law, I'm not the one projecting motives and other innuendo associated with a corrupt police board. You can stop on the 401 and not receive a ticket....again I've done it. Officer checked on me and went on his way. I have no emotion regarding this, just observing and commenting on human behaviour; drivers and debaters. You are the one projecting.

Hmm...no one said you cant stop on the 401 did they? All I did was explain how one could well get a ticket for pulling over on the 401.

Hmmm I can't possibly explain how emergency drivers might need to drive and use hand held devices or touch screens at the same time....beyond understanding. Plus the probability of the sample of emerg vehicles with professional driver training vs the entire population who got their driver training from the Markham school of getting your drivers test in Bancroft. I'll bet on them with a separate law for us. Guess I'll be safe lemming when the police takeover.

Cops are notorious for using their cells for calling home etc. Its not a tool exclusive for police work, and well minor, it does give the us vs them projection.

And did you know firemen and ambulance drivers got their licence in the same spot? Because as far as I can tell they have no special training.

Now what?

Really, you can't understand how a distracted driver at an intersection can cause a safety concern? An illegal left turner, a wide right turn truck, an offramp accelerator, etc. Its called defensive driving.

And you call me a troll?

Sitting at a light with other cars around one can and should be allowed to use or glance at the phone. Cant be defensive when stopped, that truck will still hit you, you cant move so whats the problem? Not to mention that truck will hit YOU, not the other way around. An illegal left turn means someone is moving if an accident is imminent in whioch case the phone should not be in use, again, if stopped for some time it should be ok.

[overthere]

It's taken a sycophantic compliant society to make this process work. Enablers would be another word for the type of people I mean. And it's only taken a few for the government and cops to believe and declare the people have spoken and thereby given them a mandate. We still end up with a ridiculously protective Nanny State that sucks money out us like there's no tomorrow. The only difference between the Nannies on offer is to suffer being smothered with concern or beaten with a baton.

Certainly there are 'enablers', another word would be asskissers, people who suck up to ayuthority figures like cops.

But the heart of the problem witht the cop mandate is that cops are jumped up civil servants with guns and attitudes. Their (sole source) employers are politicians and have few constraints on knuckling under to cop salary or manning demands- just raise taxes again to fight the big crime wave just around the corner. Of course, the lowdown on that imminent crime wave comes from guess who?

Just this morning my local paper had a front page feature on the horror of 'labs' producing hash oil to be used in E cigarettes. It's weed. Big deal. Of course, they also used the opportunity to tout the grow op interdiction squad and all the busts they made last year. Next up, guaranteed: need more officers etc to fight the spread of teens smoking hash oil in e- cigarettes.

Why not, since it's always worked before.

[Boges]

Police are like any civil servants. They need to justify their existence.

You never see cops just walking the beat, keeping a presence anymore but we've all seen a cop on the side of a road pointing a radar gun at cars going by.

The province has enabled cops all over by labeling Texting a menace worse than Drunk Driving. But catching people texting while driving is hard. It's easy to walk by stopped cars and write out $300 tickets.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Boges

[Bob Macadoo]

Police are like any civil servants. They need to justify their existence.

You never see cops just walking the beat, keeping a presence anymore but we've all seen a cop on the side of a road pointing a radar gun at cars going by.

The province has enabled cops all over by labeling Texting a menace worse than Drunk Driving. But catching people texting while driving is hard. It's easy to walk by stopped cars and write out $300 tickets.

No one has said texting is worse than DD, just more pervasive and can be corrected. People have complained for years that .08 is too low, yet now it has been accepted...even pushed further.....are those who despise text-hawks alsoadverse to this?

[guyser]

No one has said texting is worse than DD,

Yes they have.

6 times worse in fact.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.html

or this....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004

or this...

http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-magazine/north-america/Texting-while-driving-now-a-worse-public-hazard-than-drunk-drivers

As for .08, I say make it .000000 , no booze at all. At least that isnt arbitrary for anyone and makes the law clean and clear.\

[Bob Macadoo]

Yes they have.6 times worse in fact.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/files/Driving-while-Texting-Six-Times-More-Dangerous-than-Driving-while-Drunk.htmlor this....http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004or this...http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-magazine/north-america/Texting-while-driving-now-a-worse-public-hazard-than-drunk-driversAs for .08, I say make it .000000 , no booze at all. At least that isnt arbitrary for anyone and makes the law clean and clear.\

It is most certainly arbitrary, dependant upon the whims of the officer, to breathalyze or not. So judgement in one area is fine but not for others........skewed on what your particular vice is. Bias.

Its 6 times more dangerous b/c its more probable......pretty simple logic there.

[overthere]

As for .08, I say make it .000000 , no booze at all. At least that isnt arbitrary for anyone and makes the law clean and clear.\

One way to really. really cut down on the occasional drunk drivers(the majority) is to have mandatory seizure and sale of the vehicle involved. First offence, secodn offence, whatever, no exceptions. If you're over the limit, you lose your vehicle. And your licence for a while too.

No penalty short of incarceration will ever stop the extreme chronic offenders- the guys who have 15 DD convictions sort of thing.

But losing your car will slow down the guys thinking about driving home after a couple too many.

[guyser]

It is most certainly arbitrary,

I meant as respects the individual . You drink, you get busted.

Its 6 times more dangerous b/c its more probable......pretty simple logic there.

Perhaps its because more have died texting and driving than drunk driving?

[Boges]

Great let's make criminals of people who have a wine or beer with dinner. That won't embolden cops even more to get into the lives of people.

[Bob Macadoo]

One way to really. really cut down on the occasional drunk drivers(the majority) is to have mandatory seizure and sale of the vehicle involved. First offence, secodn offence, whatever, no exceptions. If you're over the limit, you lose your vehicle. And your licence for a while too.

No penalty short of incarceration will ever stop the extreme chronic offenders- the guys who have 15 DD convictions sort of thing.

But losing your car will slow down the guys thinking about driving home after a couple too many.

Goes back to my first posts, seizure of car or license on a low bar is a non-starter as the short term affect on the overall economy cannot be stomached by the politicians and business......ticketing is the largest cajones they have.

[Boges]

But losing your car will slow down the guys thinking about driving home after a couple too many.

The penalty is already a nightmare that forever changes your life. No need to increase the first offense the penalty, because as you say, people who commit multiple DUI's just don't care.

What I guess people here are talking about is lowering the DD bar so more people get ensnared in that net. It's this MADD neo-prohibitionist view that no alcohol can be consumed along with driving.

Apparently the 0.05 penalty is, again, just a revenue generator as you have to get your car impounded and pay a fine but there's no criminal offense and no one tells your insurance company. (they can find out if they pull your abstract though, similar to a speeding ticket though)

If blowing anything more than 0.00 became an offense the government should just make a law that bars must ensure the person driving is established and that they haven't had a drink and an accurate breathalyzer should be made available at any establishment serving alcohol. That would be a whole lot easier way to eliminate drunk driving then catching people once they've already committed the "offense", and forever changing their lives.

And it doesn't generate any revenue.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Boges

[guyser]

Great let's make criminals of people who have a wine or beer with dinner. That won't embolden cops even more to get into the lives of people.

It takes any guesswork, it takes any medication mixes, it takes any guessing out of the equation

We already have zero tolerance for some drivers in Ontario now, not really a hardship for them is it?

0.08 is the high limit for countries the world over, many of them are at .05 or lower.

ETA-Czech Republic, highest consumption of beer on the planet.....0.00 tolerance for DD.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Guyser2

[Bob Macadoo]

.ETA-Czech Republic, highest consumption of beer on the planet.....0.00 tolerance for DD.

What's the ratio of drivers in Czech vs. Canada.......less consequence to country.

[guyser]

What's the ratio of drivers in Czech vs. Canada.......less consequence to country.

Ratio? Consequence?

Pop density is like almost 5 times what we are.

Pop is 10M for CR and 33m for Can

[Bob Macadoo]

Ratio? Consequence?Pop density is like almost 5 times what we are.Pop is 10M for CR and 33m for Can

Ratio of active drivers to population.......consequences are easy if there is no aggregate impact.

[overthere]

The penalty is already a nightmare that forever changes your life. No need to increase the first offense the penalty, because as you say, people who commit multiple DUI's just don't care.

Don't agree with either sentence.

The fine is no biggie for the middle class. The suspension can be worked around unless you drive for a living. The criminal record is a nuisance, but it won't mean much for your future. I sperak from personal experience.

But losing your vehicle gets peoples attention in a major way that nothing else will do. It takes the vast majority of the casual, furtive drunks off the road. And that group is the one that needs to be targeted, becauise they are the largest bunch of offenders. It also stops people from giving their keys to somebody marginally less drunk.

Your second sentence makes no sense. No penalty stops the chronic offenders, so why not target a larger group that will be greatly influenced by an eye opening consequnce?

[guyser]

Ratio of active drivers to population.......consequences are easy if there is no aggregate impact.

I imagine the same as canada.

Not sure what point youre trying to make

[guyser]

Don't agree with either sentence.

The fine is no biggie for the middle class.

Lets see...

ALDS for 90 days, storage fees for at least a week.

Upon conviction 6 mths or more suspension

Install breathalyzer at your cost

Insurance costs x's 6 years-good luck with that one.

Taxi or mooching rides

Huge cost considering $50 and a cabbie solves the problem.Middle class or not.

[Bob Macadoo]

I imagine the same as canada.Not sure what point youre trying to make

4.4 million vehicles in 10 million Czech pop. Vs. 21.8 million vehicles in 34.9 million. 44% vs. 63% = more aggregate risk to economy if these vehicles/drivers are off the road. Add to that the increased % trade by rail/sea in Czech Rep.

[guyser]

4.4 million vehicles in 10 million Czech pop. Vs. 21.8 million vehicles in 34.9 million. 44% vs. 63% = more aggregate risk to economy if these vehicles/drivers are off the road. Add to that the increased % trade by rail/sea in Czech Rep.

And ?

[Bob Macadoo]

Finished. Consider yourself fed.