Should Bars Be Held Responsible for Drunk Drivers

[Big Guy]

In Ontario we have a “Smart Serve” training course that every person serving alcohol has to take and pass. While it is not the final solution it does guarantee that those who serve alcohol have at least a minimal understanding of their responsibility. In the past, a server would and could not be assigned blame because they “did not know”. Now they do know. If they choose to ignore what they have been taught then they become liable for the condition of their customer.

Info can be found at:

https://www.smartserve.ca/

Edited May 2, 2014 by Big Guy

[cybercoma]

I don't think I mentioned regulating or enforcing it. I was merely opening up discussions to help reduce the number of victims killed by impaired drivers.

Anyway, bars already do this then. Most bars won't let patrons drive drunk. They'll usually stop serving people if they get too out of hand as well. At least the bars that I go to do.

[Guest]

eyeball, on 01 May 2014 - 6:48 PM, said:

Unfortunately I don't expect the moral panic and fear over being driven around by a computer will pass in my lifetime or I somehow outlive the boomers.

It's not moral panic. It's just out and out panic. I can't get the vision of that French airshow airbus out of my mind.

[WestCoastRunner]

Anyway, bars already do this then. Most bars won't let patrons drive drunk. They'll usually stop serving people if they get too out of hand as well. At least the bars that I go to do.

I don't agree that this is happening across the board.

[cybercoma]

If all you're saying is that bars should be more mindful of drunk drivers, then this isn't really an argument. I don't think anyone in their right mind would disagree with that.

[cybercoma]

(Note: Not everyone on this forum is in their right mind)

[eyeball]

It's not moral panic. It's just out and out panic. I can't get the vision of that French airshow airbus out of my mind.

You do realize just how many thousands upon thousands of people have been killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents since that fear gripped you?

Fear is the mind killer.

[Guest]

You do realize just how many thousands upon thousands of people have been killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents since that fear gripped you?

Fear is the mind killer.

I never said it was rational.

[eyeball]

I think a robo-car with a bar would soon quench your paranoia. I'd lay off the joint until you're safely home though.

[eyeball]

You do realize just how many thousands upon thousands of people have been killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents since that fear gripped you?

Fear is the mind killer.

Speaking of which...the savings in medical bills would also be astronomical...

And just imagine all the lawyers and insurance agents we could consign to the unemployment rolls.

[Guest]

Speaking of which...the savings in medical bills would also be astronomical...

And just imagine all the lawyers and insurance agents we could consign to the unemployment rolls.

Roving, ragged bands of doctors, lawyers and insurance agents snipping wires and placing illicit magnets on street corners. I can't wait.

[Bryan]

In Manitoba at least, the bars already are expected to take far too much responsibility. They are a legal business selling a legal product.

The responsibility for consuming it, and what happens after that, should be entirely on the consumer. It's completely ridiculous to expect the bar staff to be responsible for someone else's actions, and it's offensive that people are so ready to deflect personal responsibility onto someone else.

[eyeball]

it's offensive that people are so ready to deflect personal responsibility onto someone else.

You figure drug dealers are getting the dirty end of the stick too do you?

[eyeball]

One thing we could do now is come up with a comprehensive Substance Use Act that amongst other things deals with the issue(s) of impairing people, being made impaired, impairing yourself etc etc.

Edited May 2, 2014 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

You figure drug dealers are getting the dirty end of the stick too do you?

It's going to be tough to square that peg. Unless Bryan is a legal absolutist, which is going to make a lot of other pegs tough to square. For instance, Nazi laws were legal, but individuals carrying them out were still prosecuted.

[Bryan]

You figure drug dealers are getting the dirty end of the stick too do you?

Doesn't relate to my statement or position in anyway, but hey, thanks for the feeble attempt at moving the goal posts -- it's cute.

[eyeball]

Yep, I pounded them in deeper. Hardly took any effort at all and I bet you couldn't pull them out if you tried with all your might.

You're the only one who can't relate. That only takes a little effort too but still....

[Bryan]

Yep, I pounded them in deeper. Hardly took any effort at all and I bet you couldn't pull them out if you tried with all your might.

You're the only one who can't relate. That only takes a little effort too but still....

Relate to what? Your nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said?

[gunrutz]

Yes it is ridiculous to expect bars to prevent drunk driving, so long as alcohol is legal, and i dont care what idiot judge thinks otherwise, it is impressive though that some people believe things must be a certain way because a judge said so, as if they aren't people, and are never wrong. In any case there have to be dozens of different scenarios in which a bar owner or servers could not possibly be expected to control someones drinking, or driving, it is completely and utterly ridiculous to imagine they could.

I have 5 drinks before arriving at a bar, im legally drunk, but appear to be realatively sober, i have one more drink, i run someone over, bars fault? And yes, the legal limit is relatively low, .08 isn't off your ass drunk for most people.

I drink at bar, i am over .08, i appear 'tipsy', bar owner insists i don't drive, i give bar owner the finger and drive anyway, i am over .08 and kill someone, bar owners fault?

I drink at bar, am a bit over the limit, bar owner insists i don't drive, i say no, im walking tonight, i walk two blocks, get in my car and kill someone, bar owners fault? Should they be forced to tail me?

It goes on and on.

This idea like many others from nanny statists simply dont work, and never will, not until we all have every single aspect of our lives controlled and monitored by the state will some of you be happy, in a free society people do bad things and others get hurt, that is a price we pay for being able to make some choices for ourselves. A bar selling a legal substance should not ever be asked to be responsible for that substances consumption simply because it is in reality impossible for them to be responsible, o, and then there is those dirty words called personal responsibility. Hey if an employer pays people to perform shift work and those people drive home tired, and scientifically as impaired as a person who is legally drunk, should the employer pay to shuttle those people to and from work? When grandma cant react fast enough at a cross walk and a kid jumps out in front of her do we blame the kid's parents for not teaching them well enough, do we blame gandma for not being quite fast enough, or do we go after the government for allowing her to drive, or not somehow making the roads safer for older drivers, where does this lunacy end?

We make individuals responsible for their actions, thats all. You can not prevent every bad action, not without complete control.

[dre]

You are serious aren't you. Comparing people killed by drunk drivers to the above?

Yeah... takes a while to believe it, but hes serious LOL.

He does raise a point about logistics though. In most bars I have been in the staff doesnt know whos driving, and who isnt. And they dont keep track of how many drinks each one of the potentially many hundreds of patrons they have in an evening. In a busy bar or club it would take a half dozen full time workers to do that.

Encouraging bars to help make sure less people drive drunk is a good idea... But civil or criminal liability is an extremely stupid idea.

[eyeball]

Relate to what? Your nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said?

It's not my fault you can't make sense of how what I'm talking about relates to the heart of what's being discussed here. The fact, as cybercoma puts it, is that you can't or won't square the peg. Why is the thing that's difficult to relate to but it probably explains why trying to get anything across to seems like a wasted effort.

[Bryan]

It's not my fault you can't make sense of how what I'm talking about relates to the heart of what's being discussed here. The fact, as cybercoma puts it, is that you can't or won't square the peg. Why is the thing that's difficult to relate to but it probably explains why trying to get anything across to seems like a wasted effort.

There's no peg to square, you brought up a different completely unrelated topic, AND projected an answer to that which I also never said.

[eyeball]

The last I looked everyone was talking about substance use and responsibility. What don't you get?

[Bryan]

You looked wrong. The scope is significantly narrower than that, and in a very specific context.

[eyeball]

This idea like many others from nanny statists simply dont work, and never will, not until we all have every single aspect of our lives controlled and monitored by the state will some of you be happy, in a free society people do bad things and others get hurt, that is a price we pay for being able to make some choices for ourselves.

The reason so many always turn back to statism is that they can't consistently apply the principles they use to justify turning away from it in the first place. There's always someone who can't relate for example. So Nanny never dies, and like rust, she never sleeps.