|
synftw posted:Maybe after 3 or 4 ban them from driving past 6pm so they can still work. The kind of alkie that gets 3 or 4 DUIs is usually also the kind that gets drunk well before 6pm, and it's not like everyone works 9 to 5 either. By the time you rack up 4 offences, I'm also not particularly fussed if you have to put in a bit of effort in terms of using transit, moving closer to your job, etc, in order to not have to drive to work any more.
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Or we should just install them in every car. It's not like they're expensive and easily circumventable by getting a sober person to start your car, or leaving your car running while you drink. Seriously, the only solution is to make it easier for people to drink without driving. Neighbourhood pubs, 24-hour transit, better taxi availability, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:If you're unable to eat out without consuming alcohol you've got a problem. If you're able to eat a meal at a good restaurant without thinking, "a great wine pairing would improve this meal," you have a problem, and that problem is called "being a moron." If I just want to throw something together, or have a pizza delivered, there's no need to drink with the meal. If I go out for dinner, it's going to be to a place of sufficient quality that the food will benefit from wine. This is an utter red herring when it comes to drunk driving, though. First of all, you can drink with dinner and then not drive! You have many options of how to get to and from the restaurant, including walking or taking public transit. The other option is you can limit your drinking. You can easily have two glasses of wine over the course of a leisurely dinner, have coffee and dessert afterward, and be under 0.05 (which is our new limit in Alberta). Still, the best way to prevent drunk driving is to make it easy for folks to avoid driving drunk. I never drive drunk (EDIT: or with any alcohol in my blood; on the odd occasion I drink somewhere and have to drive afterward, I'll wait two hours per standard drink before driving), and a large part of that is because I walk most places. If I'm going to somewhere further away, I either take transit, take a cab, or arrange to stay over (if I'm going to my parents' house for dinner, let's say). PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Are cops really harsh about PI in the States or something? I know a guy who's gotten a few here in Calgary, but that's because he gets really drunk and he tends to have a lovely attitude when drunk. I don't know anyone else that's ever received one here, and I know plenty of people that regularly walk home quite intoxicated (probably 0.15 or drunker). You basically have to be causing a scene of some sort before the cops will even consider giving you a ticket, and then you have to be a prick to them before they'll actually give you one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:It depends on where you live, honestly. In my college town, the cops cracked down on public intoxication because they knew a lot of people were underage and wanted that sweet citation revenue from giving the 1-2 combo of public intoxication with minor in possession/minor under the influence so you had to be careful about when you left and the route you took home. In Atlanta, the cops literally don't give a poo poo and would rather you be walking home than driving, and will leave you alone (and in many cases offer to give you a lift back to your place) as long as you're not being an obnoxious rear end in a top hat. They sure as hell will throw you in the drunk tank though if you're so drunk you're stumbling off the sidewalk and into traffic, I've seen that happen myself while going out with friends. My buddy nearly got a PI ticket for standing in the middle of the street while trying to hail a cab, but I managed to keep him from mouthing off to the cops, and I told the two cops I'd keep an eye on him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its so cute that you think that Calgary is anything like the US. I don't, hence the reason I was asking. At the same time, we're now a city of over a million people so it's not like some tiny, backward village. You can take your attitude and shove it up your rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Yes, its a city of over 1 million people and has things like trains and working bus systems and a well constructed mixed use central business district. These are things that much larger US cities do not have. Really? I always thought our transit system was basically on par with the States (and not the cities like New York where it's actually decent). And I always saw our CBD as "mixed use, but mainly for business" based on the fact that there's hardly anyone around after 6PM. If major cities in the States are even worse than Calgary, which is basically Canada's monument to lovely urban planning, then... okay, maybe y'all are hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Stuff was open for dinner downtown though - in many US cities restaurants in the CBD are not open for dinner. Jesus, I thought it was bad that most downtown restaurants close on weekends and shut by 9 on weekdays... Okay, I'm beginning to see the problem here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
I can only speak to our transit system, but although it's not particularly unsafe, it's definitely more likely to have weird/creepy/harassing/aggressive people on it at the time of night you're likely to be drunk. There are times I would've been pretty nervous if I weren't 6'2" and male. We too have a special police force for transit, but there aren't enough of them and they often seemed more concerned with fare evasion rather than the guy who's harassing people because he's drunk on Lysol.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The best thing MARTA has going for it is that you can get off the train directly at the airport terminal, which is pretty rare for American cities. For some reason, in Canada, this is extremely rare even in cities with decent transit systems. The LRT in Calgary runs almost along the airport boundary, but they didn't build a stop at the airport itself. Montreal has a great Metro, but, hey, no airport stop. My suspicion in both cases is that the taxi lobby threw an almighty bitch at any plans to connect the airport by train, and city councils are completely beholden to the wishes of taxi companies for Reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The argument for a strict policy also means that in theory basically 85% of the country would be banned from driving because really, almost everyone has driven drunk(at least the legal definition of drunk) once, a good deal of people have done it multiple times. I drink almost every single day, to a varying degree, and I've never driven drunk. Not even once. It's hardly impossible to avoid, even if you're a regular drinker. That being said, I think a super-strict policy is useless because it doesn't address the factors that motivate people to drive drunk in the first place, so it's not really going to address the problem effectively.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:And that's bad too I don't really see why prosecuting drunk driving and texting are a "pick one" scenario. It's not like the Judge only had enough budget to pick one. This threads just about drunk driving so that's what people are discussing. The difference is that, at least where I live, a DUI is a serious criminal offence that will result in license suspensions, astronomically high insurance, fines, and possible jail time, and texting while driving is treated less seriously than speeding less than 10 km/h over the limit (no points go onto your license). So, even though I don't do either one and I don't plan to start, I can see why people are pissed off about the huge disparity in penalties for two activities that are both extremely dangerous. It's pretty ridiculous when you get down to it, and there's people here arguing that the penalties for the one that's already most harshly penalized ought to be even harsher.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Actually, texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. It seems that taking your eyes and attention off of the road for an extended period of time is actually worse than driving while intoxicated. Probably not if you're severely intoxicated rather than just above 0.08. Just sayin' There's "reaction time is a bit slower" drunk and "goes the wrong way on the freeway" drunk.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah. You listed weather as something comparable to drunk driving. Your opinion means poo poo. Driving in bad weather is responsible for at least as many collisions as driving drunk. Look at the carnage in any city during/after a snowstorm. Hundreds of accidents in a span of hours sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
It's hardly impossible to drink in places where you can stay over or arrange a ride, even if you're poor and rural. I can't imagine anyone, especially in a rural area, not letting someone sleep it off on a couch or a soft bit of floor. I used to live in a rural area, and it was pretty standard to let people stay the night if they were drunk so they didn't end up driving off a cliff in the middle of the night (of course, there was also a lot of drunk driving even so). Or, if you lived close enough, you could walk home. This won't work in super-rural areas, admittedly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2014 17:27
|
|