Is Public Safety just a way to generate revenue?

[guyser]

In this thread we talked about DD tolerance and you want to talk about ratios.

If you could explain what any of that has to do with anything we have discussed, then please do. (obviously you didnt/couldnt)

Not fed yet, dinner is coming soon though

[GostHacked]

It really does make people wonder what the purpose of law enforcement is really for.

There is a difference between a peace officer and a law enforcement officer.

[Black Dog]

You can't Jam cellphone use in a car. There is bluetooth technology that makes it safer, many use their phones as their GPS, and passengers shouldn't be barred from using their phone.

Bluetooth and hands free isn't safer. It's just as distracting.

As for the cash cow business, well, there's real measures that can be taken to increase public safety with respect to traffic. You'd like them a lot less than speeding tickets, though.

[overthere]

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.

Nope, apparently the cost is NOT a factor since so many continue to not be dissuaded by the well known penalties. Your points support the case for harsher measures.

So lets make cost a factor.

Seize the vehicle and sell it. Every time. No exceptions.

We can give the money raised to victims of drunk drivers.

I also like the approach used in Finland and elsewhere whereby fines are means tested, related to income. A rich guy pays a massive fine, middle class a whopper, poor folk not so much. The pain is relative and everybody gets hurt when they screw up big time.

[guyser]

Nope, apparently the cost is NOT a factor since so many continue to not be dissuaded by the well known penalties. Your points support the case for harsher measures.

Cost is a factor to most, not all. So no my post does not support your case.

There are some who will always drive drunk, we cannot get rid of all crime/criminal activity so there is no sense in ramping things up to the ridiculous.

So lets make cost a factor.

It is already.

Seize the vehicle and sell it. Every time. No exceptions.

And if you were driving but dont own the car? Leased it ?(thus not owned)Borrowed it?

Not to mention some impaireds are sketchy and not worth using a hammer when the laws we have now are sufficient.

We can give the money raised to victims of drunk drivers.

You do know the Govt has millions in victim fees they havent paid out? If you do know that, why give those idiots any more money?

I also like the approach used in Finland and elsewhere whereby fines are means tested, related to income. A rich guy pays a massive fine, middle class a whopper, poor folk not so much. The pain is relative and everybody gets hurt when they screw up big time.

ON the surface I am not against this idea

Edited April 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[overthere]

If cost was an issue, why do so many people get caught drinking and driving?

The money is not a deterrent, clearly.

Leased vehicles ahve exactly the same financial implications as an owned vehicle. Obviously.

If you're stupid enough to lend your car to a drunk, tough luck. It likely wouldn't be insured anyway with a drunk behind the wheel.

Seizure of vehicle would absolutely be a deterrent for the majority of drinkign drivers.

[guyser]

If cost was an issue, why do so many people get caught drinking and driving?

The money is not a deterrent, clearly.

Repeat offenders I guess. Almost no amount of hardship will deter them so lets not set law based on them.

Leased vehicles ahve exactly the same financial implications as an owned vehicle. Obviously.

Sorry to say but obviously they do no not ! A leased vehicle compounded and sold injures an innocent party.

If you're stupid enough to lend your car to a drunk, tough luck. It likely wouldn't be insured anyway with a drunk behind the wheel.

I guess if someone is stupid enough to lend a car to a drunk....

But you didnt, you lent it to someone who was sober then got drunk. Now what? I know one thing....when it happens to you the whining will be loud and clear.

If it was insured in the first place, it is insured now. Being drunk does not automatically cancel insurance on a vehicle. It can amend the coverage, but coverage remains in place

Seizure of vehicle would absolutely be a deterrent for the majority of drinkign drivers.

Probably but what good does that do to innocent parties ?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Guyser2

[overthere]

Sorry to say but obviously they do no not ! A leased vehicle compounded and sold injures an innocent party.

??? if you lease a vehicle and it gets seized you still have to pay for it. There is no difference whatsover between leased and owned in terms of owner liability for paying for the vehicle.

Repeat offenders I guess. Almost no amount of hardship will deter them so lets not set law based on them.

For the third time, I agree it will not deter chronic offenders. Nothing will. It will deter many.many causal drunk drivers.

Probably but what good does that do to innocent parties ?

The innocent parties I have sympathy for are the victims of drunks on the road.

Are there other innocent parties?

[guyser]

??? if you lease a vehicle and it gets seized you still have to pay for it. There is no difference whatsover between leased and owned in terms of owner liability for paying for the vehicle.

There are actually big differences but the point is not lost

For the third time, I agree it will not deter chronic offenders. Nothing will. It will deter many.many causal drunk drivers.

Thats the problem, why base a law on the few and least grievous offenders?

The innocent parties I have sympathy for are the victims of drunks on the road.

Are there other innocent parties?

Sure there are other innocent parties. We can worry about all of them if you wish

Maybe you ire should be placed on the govt who has all the monies from Victim fine surcharges but are slow to dole out the cash?

[overthere]

Thats the problem, why base a law on the few and least grievous offenders?

You are deterring the much, much larger group of occasional drunk driving offenders by seizing vehicles. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

Maybe you ire should be placed on the govt who has all the monies from Victim fine surcharges but are slow to dole out the cash?

Need a translation of that one.

If you don't want to give the money to victims of drunk drivers, burn it. Throw it away. General revenues. Pay for the rehab of Senator Brazeau. It doesn't matter. What matters is that a serious penalty for drunk driving will produce the desired result: keeping the casual offender from committting what can be a horrific mistake, because the consequences are real and large and inevitable.

When do you get your license back?

[guyser]

You are deterring the much, much larger group of occasional drunk driving offenders by seizing vehicles. Why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

Pretend what?

What you propose doesnt make a whole lot of sense from many angles. The way the laws are now are fairly good, if anything they promotoe fairness. They are expensive if one gets caught when one looks at the long term outlook. Loss of licence, loss of car from a short term,long term insurance costs, lawyers fees, criminal fines,social pariah status for many, loss of job for some.

Of course you may drive a $500 crapbox, the next person may roll up in a half mill $ Bentley.

Hey thats fair, take them both, fair is fair. Didnt really think this one thru did you?

Need a translation of that one.

In ONtario there exists a victim fund. All tickets carry a victim surcharge and the Prov has been collecting it for years, however I understand they are reticent to dole it out.

That you didnt know about explains the ardor of all your other angles.

And with the victims fund existing and you not knowing about it ..., why you'll probably say something silly...oops

If you don't want to give the money to victims of drunk drivers, burn it. Throw it away. General revenues. Pay for the rehab of Senator Brazeau.

When do you get your license back?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

For the record I do not ever recall even being given a breathalyzer , let alone be charged with impaired. My professional licence overseers would not be happy witha criminal record, especially for drinking and driving.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Guyser2

[overthere]

Hey thats fair, take them both, fair is fair. Didnt really think this one thru did you?

It hurts both car owners about equally, doesn't i?. Rich people drive fat cars, poor people drive junkers. Seems very fair to me to deny both of them the opportunity to kill my kids with their vehicle. You agreed with means tested fines previously, this is exactly the same.

And here's the problemwith your complacency a with the efficacy of drunk driving laws: they are not working, or not working well enough:http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/01/20130110-102902.html If they did, drunk driving would drop dramatically, and road crashes- many involving impaired drivers, would not be a leading cause of death for young people.

You may be content with the results, but I'm not. Not good enough. Change is required, something that will make people stop before they drive because getting caught will hurt.

In ONtario there exists a victim fund.

who cares?

Do whatever you want with the fines or proceeds of crime, it won't affect real or potential recipients replace their dead friends and relatives.

But seizing a drunks car, every time, will defintiely keep a lot of them from doing it in the first place.

[guyser]

It hurts both car owners about equally, doesn't i?. Rich people drive fat cars, poor people drive junkers. Seems very fair to me to deny both of them the opportunity to kill my kids with their vehicle. You agreed with means tested fines previously, this is exactly the same.

I believe I said I would look at that.

Its not the same thing tho, and rich drunks will getr beaters to drive.

I just dont think it will make any headway/

And here's the problemwith your complacency a with the efficacy of drunk driving laws: they are not working, or not working well enough:http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/01/20130110-102902.html If they did, drunk driving would drop dramatically, and road crashes- many involving impaired drivers, would not be a leading cause of death for young people.

Im happy that impaired driving charges are down over half since 1986 when ( a bit earlier actually, around mid to loate 70's) we decided to get tough.

Cut in half....pretty damn good but still a way to go.

who cares?

You do.

Apparently now you want to change your mind, now you dont care for the victims.

Ok let me know when you flip flop again.

But seizing a drunks car, every time, will defintiely keep a lot of them from doing it in the first place.

DO we take the cars of impaired drivers too or just a drunks car?

And do we do this after the trial or what?