[Gunnair]

Proculation Proculation:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Proculation Proculation:

Driving @ 200km/h is much more dangerous and it's not a crime.

Have you ever been to a court ? 75% of the causes are drunk driving. It takes almost 2 years to pass in court for other crimes. If drunk driving was not a crime, it would help A LOT to resolve the problem of time in courts.

What makes you think driving 200kph is not a crime or is inherently more dangerous than driving drunk?

Because it is not a crime... you only get a very big fine and loose your car.

Hit a car @ 200 km/h and hit a car while drunk but at a normal speed. Which one is more dangerous you think ?

Well that depends. 200 kph in a street race is certainly illegal.

$1:

249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

I think driving at 200 kph falls under that.

[Proculation]

Brenda Brenda:

Proculation Proculation:

If DUI is SUCH a big crime, most people with a car are criminals then. Personally, I don't know much people who never said "I don't have long to get to home", "I will drive slowly". I'm not talking about very drunk people but someone who took maybe 4 beers.

Here's one.
I DO NOT drive when I drank alcohol. EVER. Easier, I DO NOT drink when I have to drive home (or anywhere). EVER.

Well, good.

Still, I do not know a lot of people who never drove once knowing he was over 0.08. I don't consider them criminals. For me, DUI criminals are the ones getting out of the bar, 3 times over the limit and driving completly drunk.

[Gunnair]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Proculation Proculation:

If DUI is SUCH a big crime, most people with a car are criminals then. Personally, I don't know much people who never said "I don't have long to get to home", "I will drive slowly". I'm not talking about very drunk people but someone who took maybe 4 beers.

Here's one.
I DO NOT drive when I drank alcohol. EVER. Easier, I DO NOT drink when I have to drive home (or anywhere). EVER.

Well, good.

Still, I do not know a lot of people who never drove once knowing he was over 0.08. I don't consider them criminals. For me, DUI criminals are the ones getting out of the bar, 3 times over the limit and driving completly drunk.

I have a rule - two drinks tops, and that's it. So I can say I've never driven over .08.

Whether you .08 or .18, you're still a potential criminal.

[Brenda]

Proculation Proculation:

Brenda Brenda:

Proculation Proculation:

If DUI is SUCH a big crime, most people with a car are criminals then. Personally, I don't know much people who never said "I don't have long to get to home", "I will drive slowly". I'm not talking about very drunk people but someone who took maybe 4 beers.

Here's one.
I DO NOT drive when I drank alcohol. EVER. Easier, I DO NOT drink when I have to drive home (or anywhere). EVER.

Well, good.

Still, I do not know a lot of people who never drove once knowing he was over 0.08. I don't consider them criminals. For me, DUI criminals are the ones getting out of the bar, 3 times over the limit and driving completly drunk.

A shoplifter is also a criminal, regardless if it was a $500 gucci bag, or a $.20 candy.

[Dayseed]

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;

I think driving at 200 kph falls under that.

Alas, there WAS (and may still be) an Ontario Court of Justice case-law wherein the OPP arrested a fella doing mighty close to 180 km/h up the 400 I believe. They arrested him for dangerous operation but the Ontario Court ruled that because the driver turned out to be a professional race-car driver, HE was not operating the car in a dangerous manner; he was doing what he trained to do. The end result was that speed alone did not afford sufficient grounds for believing the public was in danger.

As I said, I believe this case-law was recently overturned but I don't know for sure.

[Bacardi4206]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Brenda Brenda:

Why? Because of your ego? I'll eat my ego if it saves my kid.

You're ok with a police state? I'd rather not have the police waste my time whenever they please. I'm ok with them doing their job based on their training.

Police State? When does putting forward preventive measures to better protect other drivers and kids make it a police state. Having random breathalyzers will help catch drunk drivers which in return will reduce the chances of car accidents or them hitting somebody, somebody like let's say some 9 year old kid recklessly crossing the street. People, probally like you will oppose this for selfish reasons. Since when has spending a couple minutes doing a breathalyzer to ensure public safety sound like a unreasonable thing? Is it that you drink and drive and just don't want to get caught or is it that you're valuable couple minutes is not worth helping preventing other drivers from being killed or kids or other pedestrians from being run over?

[RUEZ]

Bacardi4206 Bacardi4206:

Police State? When does putting forward preventive measures to better protect other drivers and kids make it a police state. Having random breathalyzers will help catch drunk drivers which in return will reduce the chances of car accidents or them hitting somebody, somebody like let's say some 9 year old kid recklessly crossing the street. People, probally like you will oppose this for selfish reasons. Since when has spending a couple minutes doing a breathalyzer to ensure public safety sound like a unreasonable thing? Is it that you drink and drive and just don't want to get caught or is it that you're valuable couple minutes is not worth helping preventing other drivers from being killed or kids or other pedestrians from being run over?

You see it as a minor inconvenience, I see it as a loss of liberties. Feel free to bend over and let the government and it's agencies do what they please, but I won't. To answer your question, no I do not drink and drive. It's pretty stupid that you would even try to use that as a reason I would be against this. I don't own guns either but I certainly wouldn't allow the police to enter my home any time they wanted to because I may own some and they could possibly be used in a crime. Aren't you in the military? Isn't this what you guys fight to prevent?

[Proculation]

[Public_Domain]

[ASLplease]

the right to not be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure is a serious issue. I think anyone that wants to give it up should move to russia.

[Proculation]

ASLplease ASLplease:

the right to not be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure is a serious issue. I think anyone that wants to give it up should move to russia.

right on

[ASLplease]

not only that, but I'd rather have police breathalysing drivers based on researched profiling and reasonable grounds such as weaving in traffic.

paying police to go out to do 'random' anything sounds like a big freakin waste of money.

[Bacardi4206]

How is it a breach of liberty? They aren't breaking into your homes doing random searches. That would be something to protest against. They are pulling over random drivers, drivers that may be suspect to be drunk and driving or just taking a chance. They aren't pulling you over, searching your entire car for drugs or illegal shit. They pull you over, make you do a breathalyzer. If you haven't been drinking that you are good to go. You get back in your car and drive. You wasted like what, 1-2 minutes and just get back on your day.

Pulling over drivers and trying to catch them by chance seem valid to me, that is if your interest is preventing drunk driving and having better safety. I also don't see any freedoms being crossed here. You don't have the freedom to drink and drive, so unless you are one of those people who do it. The only thing you are a victim of by this is police wasting a minute of your time and theirs. There aren't enough resources or cops on the streets every hour of the day to watch every car for signs of drunk driving. Catching drunk drivers is already by chance anyways most of the time. A cop driving by just as some guy starts swirving or going passed a red light, speeding etc. That's by chance. The only thing that's not by chance is when some drunk driver gets into a accident or runs somebody over. Than obviously the police know what they are dealing with already. This is just another method to catch drunk drivers by chance. Unless somebody develops a way for cops to gain a sixth sense to detect drunk drivers. Than really this is just another step to help catching and preventing drunk driving and the accidents that come with it. If you think this breaches your liberties or w/e than that's your buisness however I believe it doesn't and my only debate is if it's worth wasting 1-2 minutes of my time to get pulled over and do a breathalyzer to increase the chances of catching drunk drivers which I am willing to do.

[Public_Domain]

[digerdick]

preventive measures next people will say, kicking down someone's door because the police believe they may have drugs in their house........is okay to.....