WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Alrighty then, let's carry on and let the pubs/bars profit and take no responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 That is exactly my point. As I mentioned above, let's keep an open mind and work together to reduce the number of victims due to impaired drivers. How does this reduce impaired driving? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 How does this reduce impaired driving? Read back about 10,000 threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Complete nonsense. Bars have both won and lost cases. It's mixed. Regardless, it doesn't mean it's right. Hey shady, its my job to know these things,. Your unqualified opinion is welcome,, even if it is dead wrong . Case law is complete nonsense? :lol: But hey, keep it up. Of course some lose, everyone sues after drunk drivers kill, and as I posted earlier, some tof the mitigating factors can suggest legal liability or not...as in MH's link w Beaver Bar. Edited May 2, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 They are given a wrist tag and if seen comsuming alcohol they get cut off and thrown out before they are impaired. Its not perfect for sure That is actually a great idea! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Alrighty then, let's carry on and let the pubs/bars profit and take no responsibility. I'm against Tim Horton's profiting off of stuffing donuts down the throats of their patrons. Don't they know that causes diabetes and obesity? People's lives are at risk. Not to mention higher healthcare costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 It doesn't? Why not say "Can I bring your bill now"? No, it doesn't. It most definitely does not. Why would they actively try and get you to leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 That is actually a great idea! I think that's a fairly good idea too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I'm against Tim Horton's profiting off of stuffing donuts down the throats of their patrons. Don't they know that causes diabetes and obesity? People's lives are at risk. Not to mention higher healthcare costs. You are missing the point Shady that drunk drivers kill innocent people, not themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Why are you limiting liability to just alcohol?Why are you introducing stupid thoughts about Tims and Good life in a thread labeled "Should Bars be held..." You can try and frame this some other way, but amusingly so you have no idea what you are talking about. The OBama Derangement thingy is over there ----------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I'm against Tim Horton's profiting off of stuffing donuts down the throats of their patrons. Don't they know that causes diabetes and obesity? People's lives are at risk. Not to mention higher healthcare costs.It does immediately does it? Wow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I do have a hard time taking Shady seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I do have a hard time taking Shady seriously. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 It does immediately does it? Wow! So now it's a time sensitive issue? If you poison people slowly it's ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 So now it's a time sensitive issue? If you poison people slowly it's ok? Impaired drivers kill innocent people. How does that compare to goodlife and tim horton's customers. Let's get real shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 You are missing the point Shady that drunk drivers kill innocent people, not themselves. No you're missing the point. Shouldn't all businesses be held accountable for the products they sell? Why limit it to bars? That's discrimination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 No you're missing the point. Shouldn't all businesses be held accountable for the products they sell? Why limit it to bars? That's discrimination. Innocent people are killed. Not sure what your point is here but it's not worth getting into with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I agree absolutely that drivers bear responsibility. I am suggesting that bars need to step up to the plate and take on more responsibility, in whatever capacity that may be. I really don't know the answer to that, but we need to keep an open mind and not take the position of knocking down this issue.I think the problem with this suggestion is coming up with a way that they reasonably could. There's many different things that go into impairment that the bar can't possibly know. The person's mental state, medications they're on, how much they've had to drink before the bar, etc. Also, how do they prevent the person from driving? Do they confiscate patrons' car keys when they order? Stopping the person from leaving would be illegal detainment. Drinking is a legal activity and people have mobility rights. In any case, there may be a number of unseen factors that play into a person's impairment that the bar itself might not be able to adequately judge. I just don't see any way that bars could reasonably police this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I think I'm over the legal limit after two pints of pale ale. I can walk out of a bar with no visible signs of the effects of alcohol after 6 pints.Another good example of a problem with enforcing this. People react differently to alcohol. Some people get sloppy, others don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I dunno. Silly response.It's not really a silly response. Shady's right. We need to think about the practical ways this could be enforced. You suggested the staff ask a person if they have a DD and find out how they're getting home. If someone lies to them, then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I think the problem with this suggestion is coming up with a way that they reasonably could. There's many different things that go into impairment that the bar can't possibly know. The person's mental state, medications they're on, how much they've had to drink before the bar, etc. Also, how do they prevent the person from driving? Do they confiscate patrons' car keys when they order? Stopping the person from leaving would be illegal detainment. Drinking is a legal activity and people have mobility rights. In any case, there may be a number of unseen factors that play into a person's impairment that the bar itself might not be able to adequately judge. I just don't see any way that bars could reasonably police this. I am only suggesting that bars need to step up to the plate and assume more responsibility. I don't have the answers, that is for sure. But there needs to be more communication between the police force, bar owners, patrons etc to prevent further accidents like this tragic one. As I have mentioned previously, a lot of these accidents happen after someone has left a neighbourhood bar/pub. The bartenders know their patrons. It's not rocket science to call a cab for a drunk customer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 No you're missing the point. Shouldn't all businesses be held accountable for the products they sell? Why limit it to bars? That's discrimination.Now this is a silly response. Why bars? Hmm.... I dunno, Shady. Why not think about that one for a second. There has got to be something qualitatively different about bars than Tim Hortons. I'm not sure what it is. I'll think about it too for a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) I am only suggesting that bars need to step up to the plate and assume more responsibility. I don't have the answers, that is for sure. But there needs to be more communication between the police force, bar owners, patrons etc to prevent further accidents like this tragic one. As I have mentioned previously, a lot of these accidents happen after someone has left a neighbourhood bar/pub. The bartenders know their patrons. It's not rocket science to call a cab for a drunk customer.Many of them do these things already. You're talking about regulating it and enforcing it. I'm saying there's a lot of hoops to jump through to do that. I'm not rejecting the idea outright, but I don't see how it would be possible. In any case, I think in Ontario at least the bars can be held liable anyway, homeowners too if I'm not mistaken. Edited May 2, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 You're talking about regulating it and enforcing it. I'm saying there's a lot of hoops to jump through to do that. I'm not rejecting the idea outright, but I don't see how it would be possible. In any case, I think in Ontario at least the bars can be held liable anyway, homeowners too if I'm not mistaken. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) A more logical remedy would be a breathalizer device in automobiles. I used to think so too until someone pointed out you could just as easily get your kid to blow into it to spoof the ignition. So even more logical would be automated hands free cars. The savings due to the elimination of all sorts of liability laws alone that we can look forward to should easily underwrite whatever the cost would be to automate driving virtually everywhere. If they ever do become available I'm ordering one that comes with a bar. 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. Edited May 2, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.