DriveSmartBC - 45 Deaths That Didn't Occur

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Simnut

I think what he means is......that your chances of dying or killing someone else greatly increases when you drive impaired. But even in the face of those facts, people still drive drunk. So, the chance of death isn't even a deterrent to those that insist on driving drunk......why would these new "solutions" work?

So by this thinking, nothing should be done at all - no road checks, no ASDs, no fines, no suspensions, no jail time... just let everyone guzzle all they want before getting in the car, since nothing is going to deter them anyway.

Originally Posted by sebberry

And your solution is just to roll your eyes at the problem?

No... at you.

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by Soundy

So by this thinking, nothing should be done at all - no road checks, no ASDs, no fines, no suspensions, no jail time... just let everyone guzzle all they want before getting in the car, since nothing is going to deter them anyway.

NO, but I believe it was meant to say that for some "drunks", no matter what is put in place....they will still drive drunk.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

NO, but I believe it was meant to say that for some "drunks", no matter what is put in place....they will still drive drunk.

Thank you. Nice to know someone can still read between the lines.

[Soundy]

Which brings me back to my point: always with finding the problems, never with any solutions. You're incapable of coming up with anything CONSTRUCTIVE, all you can do is find fault.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Which brings me back to my point: always with finding the problems, never with any solutions. You're incapable of coming up with anything CONSTRUCTIVE, all you can do is find fault.

Sometimes finding fault is a good thing. If someone in the current provincial government bothered to look for flaws in the system, the government wouldn't be dealing with mess they're in.

Your "solution" would have people being charged for drunk-driving unnecessarily, just like the current government's "solution".

People tasked with the job of finding faults in a particular method or system keep other people alive. Those pesky food inspectors - all they ever do is find faults. Those pesky TSB guys, all they try to do is find faults with our boats and planes.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Sometimes finding fault is a good thing. If someone in the current provincial government bothered to look for flaws in the system, the government wouldn't be dealing with mess they're in.

Finding problems is meaningless unless you find solutions.

Your "solution" would have people being charged for drunk-driving unnecessarily, just like the current government's "solution".

Now where did I ever say that?

People tasked with the job of finding faults in a particular method or system keep other people alive. Those pesky food inspectors - all they ever do is find faults. Those pesky TSB guys, all they try to do is find faults with our boats and planes.

And again - those people also have to come up with SOLUTIONS. If all they do is sit back pointing at what's wrong, nothing would actually get fixed.

Plus, they're interacting with the issues directly - they're not sitting back webraging on a forum like little whiny bitches.

[Soundy]

The wheel turns:

Local News Story


RCMP: court ruling increased impaired driving

1/4/2012

Police suspect a recent court ruling, calling for changes to B.C.'s tougher restrictions, made some impaired drivers believe they could get away with it.
The latest counterattack campaign which took place from November first through January second saw numbers go up from 2010.
Close to 400 drivers were taken off Lower Mainland roads compared to slightly more than 300 during the same time period. RCMP superintendent Norm Gaumont says the November 30 ruling by a B.C. supreme court judge may have given some drivers the wrong impression about how much they're allowed to drink before getting behind the wheel. More than 60 people are also facing criminal charges for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer, up from less than 40 the previous year.

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by Soundy

The wheel turns:

Local News Story


RCMP: court ruling increased impaired driving

1/4/2012

I'm not quite too sure that the court ruling was the factor of this increased number of drivers taken off the road. I believe it is a higher police presence that is catching more of these drivers. Also, remember that the stats stated here are for the months of November and December (including the New Years event), but the court ruling was brought down Nov. 30th....so it would not have impacted the month of November's numbers if you follow that thinking.

More drunks on the road, and not stepped-up enforcement, are to blame for a “troubling” surge in impaired-driving charges in the province, says the B.C. Solicitor-General.

quoted from Hike in impaired-driving charges ‘alarming,' Solicitor-General says - The Globe and Mail


How does the government or police agencies know that drinking and driving is up? Do they send a letter to all BC citizens and ask what they did the night before...did they drink and drive........and then compile the numbers? Do they ask bars to keep track of the number of people leaving, getting into their cars and driving? No, these numbers are gathers by POLICE agencies WHEN "contacting" drinking drivers on the road through road blocks, accidents etc. , so it IS stepped-up enforcement!

Now, if these increased numbers of impaired drivers have increased while the police used the SAME schedule of roadblocks, same number of officers etc as the previous year...THEN these numbers may say that drinking and driving is increasing! But then, the new strict laws didn't do much, did they?

Also, we do not know if these increases happened more in November or December....again....statistics are developed improperly by throwing in variables.

RCMP superintendent Norm Gaumont says the November 30 ruling by a B.C. supreme court judge may have given some drivers the wrong impression about how much they're allowed to drink before getting behind the wheel.

The "limits" of BAC never changed with the new, stricter drinking and driving laws, just the penalties. It's always been .05 - .08 for a warn, and an impaired is over .08. Let's improve the court systems.....hire more police.....hire more judges....make more court time available....fix the existing drinking and driving laws to get the criminally impaired off the road!

Think about it......IF the penalty (criminal or financial) of what you do (drinking and driving) is the basis of your decision as to you should do it or not, would not a criminal record be a far greater deterrent than a financial one? A criminal record is far more debilitating than one of money, restricts your travel...possible job employment...etc.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Simnut

The "limits" of BAC never changed with the new, stricter drinking and driving laws, just the penalties. It's always been .05 - .08 for a warn, and an impaired is over .08.

Of course they haven't... and in fact, so far NOTHING HAS CHANGED as the gov't has been given several months to make changes.

The problem is the bolded part: "...the November 30 ruling by a B.C. supreme court judge may have given some drivers the wrong impression about how much they're allowed to drink before getting behind the wheel."

As in... people who never bothered to understand the different levels and charges in the first place, and have only heard from the media that "the courts struck down the harsh new drunk-driving laws", naturally assume that this now means that the laws don't apply anymore. Hell, look at the threads here on RS as soon as the ruling came down, going on as if the whole law is (or should now be) invalid, despite the ONLY part being addressed is ONE level OF PENALTIES.

I'd be willing to bet that same mindset is also partially responsible for this: "More than 60 people are also facing criminal charges for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer, up from less than 40 the previous year." - because obviously, if "the law has been struck down", that means they no longer have to submit, right?

YOU know that's not the case, *I* know that's not the case... but you know as well as I do, there are plenty of people stupid enough to think that way. Tell me you don't know anyone who's mind works that way.

[Bainne]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Which brings me back to my point: always with finding the problems, never with any solutions. You're incapable of coming up with anything CONSTRUCTIVE, all you can do is find fault.

Originally Posted by Soundy

Finding problems is meaningless unless you find solutions.

Last I checked, citizens weren't the ones collecting six figure incomes, all you can eat benefits and lifetime pensions to be the ones coming up with "solutions".

They are however, perfectly entitled to point out when the "solutions" that those who are paid to implement them, have issues and affect them negatively and unfairly as citizens.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

As in... people who never bothered to understand the different levels and charges in the first place, and have only heard from the media that "the courts struck down the harsh new drunk-driving laws", naturally assume that this now means that the laws don't apply anymore.

If they never understood the law in the first place, how can you accuse them of being responsible for the spike in drunk-diving charges?

To suggest that they went back to their old behaviours when the ruling came down would imply that they changed their behaviors when the new penalties were introduced, and have gone back to their old ways now that the penalties were ruled unconstitutional.

No. The drunks never changed their ways and were unphased by the new penalties.

The "spike" in drunks was attributable to more of them on the road, increased enforcement or both.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

If they never understood the law in the first place, how can you accuse them of being responsible for the spike in drunk-diving charges?

To suggest that they went back to their old behaviours when the ruling came down would imply that they changed their behaviors when the new penalties were introduced, and have gone back to their old ways now that the penalties were ruled unconstitutional.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

This isn't the "chronic drunks" we're talking about, this is the ignorant, self-absorbed segment who simply became far more careful about drinking and driving because all they knew was, they could lose their car if caught... now all they "know" is that the law was "struck down by the court" and thus figure they're free to go back to their old ways.

Just read the threads on RS about the laws and the recent decision - it's clear that few people actually understood the laws, had any clue what the limits were, or had any idea how much they actually COULD drink while being under the limits... but simply stopped drinking when they went out, or stuck with only one drink, for fear of being caught.

[zulutango]

:[The "spike" in drunks was attributable to more of them on the road, increased enforcement or both.[/QUOTE]


As they didn't hire a bunch more Cops there was no more "enforcement" The Cops there could process several impaireds in a single shift at roadside instead of 2 of them being gone for at least 3 hours to start processing just 1 impaired. I believe that had a major effect on things.

As far as the dangers of running your life or forming your opinions or choices based on media reports...ya gotta be brain-dead to do that....maybe some were? We'll never know as there are no stats to cover that. 'Scuse me mr DWI, did you decide to drive tonite because CKNW or CTV said you can drive drunk now?

[sebberry]

So there were no more man hours spent manning roadblocks this year than there were before the new penalties came into effect?

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by zulutango

:[The "spike" in drunks was attributable to more of them on the road, increased enforcement or both.

The Cops there could process several impaireds in a single shift at roadside instead of 2 of them being gone for at least 3 hours to start processing just 1 impaired. I believe that had a major effect on things.

In a way, that is saying the same thing? With that line of thinking, more "cop" hours on or at the roadside is similar to adding more police officers on the road, right? Now, that IS a bonus of the administrative sanctions...I agree. Like I said previously, the only reason we know the number of impaired drivers on the road is by police contact. These increased "cop" hours is also, I think, one of the major reasons that the deaths by impaired drivers has dropped. More contacted by police, more taken off the road.


I don't disagree that this works in CATCHING the impaired driver! But it is the process AFTER the contact of the impaired driver and the administrated prohibitions that I don't agree with....the use of the ASD that was designed for "screening" for instance, and a virtually non-existent "day in court" procedure.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Finding problems is meaningless unless you find solutions.

I think I'd modify it to say "Finding problems is meaningless unless your aim is to find solutions".

And with respect to Sebbery, it seems very much like your aim is to find fault for fault's sake rather than fault for a solution's sake.

Originally Posted by Bainne

Last I checked, citizens weren't the ones collecting six figure incomes, all you can eat benefits and lifetime pensions to be the ones coming up with "solutions".

This is a valid point, though one thing that I find annoying is that people get upset at the fact that those with employment benefits are "entitled self-absorbed individuals". I still don't understand why people don't aim to have "all-you-can-eat" benefits for everyone.

They are however, perfectly entitled to point out when the "solutions" that those who are paid to implement them, have issues and affect them negatively and unfairly as citizens.

This is very true, but as I said before when the aim in finding fault is simply to find fault...I don't entirely agree.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

I think I'd modify it to say "Finding problems is meaningless unless your aim is to find solutions".

Ah yes, well put.

And with respect to Sebbery, it seems very much like your aim is to find fault for fault's sake rather than fault for a solution's sake.

Exactly as I said.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Simnut

In a way, that is saying the same thing? With that line of thinking, more "cop" hours on or at the roadside is similar to adding more police officers on the road, right?

Kinda maybe yes/no/semantics? If I am a slow writer I write less speeding tickets than a fast writer in the same enforcement group at a designated location. Still 2 guys there for 3 hours...one guy writes 25 VTs, I write 4 ( I'm a really slow writer)...still only 2 Cops and no more enforcement, just faster processing and return to enforcement. End result is a more efficient use of manpower to achieve a designated task.


PS, please don't quote Norm to me...he has a great skill in ways of making numbers say things he wants them to say. Let's just say that I never attended any of his fan club meetings.

[sebberry]

The media is reporting today that disctracted driving deaths are down. Funny how you can achieve a reduction in collisions without the need for ADPs, lengthy impounds, etc...

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The media is reporting today that distracted driving deaths are down. Funny how you can achieve a reduction in collisions without the need for ADPs, lengthy impounds, etc...

Maybe the distracted drivers are just injuring and not killing as many people? It's difficult to prove that distracted driving is the cause of fatal crashes...lot easier to charge/convict with crim neg or dangerous causing death than to specifically prove that texting, rather than a wanton and careless disregard for safety was the causal factor.

Don't know about fatals but I'm seeing more people on cells and texting than ever before...and I spend hours in traffic every day.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The media is reporting today that disctracted driving deaths are down. Funny how you can achieve a reduction in collisions without the need for ADPs, lengthy impounds, etc...

So when numbers are down based on action, you question whether or not the numbers are true reflections of action or simply "extra nitpicking", yet when numbers are down and not as a direct result of action you claim that "people are naturally just smart enough".


This is again not constructive. What solutions are you suggesting?

[zulutango]

This otta be fun. Where's my deck chair?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

So when numbers are down based on action, you question whether or not the numbers are true reflections of action or simply "extra nitpicking", yet when numbers are down and not as a direct result of action you claim that "people are naturally just smart enough".

What do you mean by "numbers are down and not as a direct result of action?"

With the distracted drivers the action is the ticketing, is it not?

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What do you mean by "numbers are down and not as a direct result of action?"

With the distracted drivers the action is the ticketing, is it not?

Yep, my bad. I didn't read as clearly as I should have. Yet my statement stands: Where are your suggested solutions?


In prior threads, if I recall correctly, you have mentioned that you felt ticketing people for driving with electronic devices to be rather pointless as there already exists a ticket (Driving without due care and attention). You lambasted officers for spending their time on doing that rather than other duties which you feel could have been of more use.

So, what are your suggestions for solutions?

[zulutango]

A due care VT is worth 6 points and $368....the cell phone VT is $167. Which would you prefer?