nfitz
Superstar
You'd likely make the roads safer by banning things that we do know make a difference in driving.
Like car radios, map-books ... and toddlers.
|
|
|
R.I.D.E. Program
- Thread starter StIdes
- Start date
Like car radios, map-books ... and toddlers.
jn_12
Senior Member
oh no doubt. I never said my belief in this area was rational and I have no doubt that I'm scientifically wrong. It's based purely on emotion.
nfitz
Superstar
Fair enough!
Translude15
Frank the Tank
Drunk driving is not something to be condoned or defended as it is poses a serious threat to the well being of all persons involved.
That being said, there are numerous flaws with the contemporary crackdown on drunk driving. Contemporary methods intended to reduce impaired driving, (MADD advertisements, RIDE checks etc.) are little more than tools of propaganda and exploitation intended to garner public support for this "worthiest of all causes". The problem is, these tools are shrouded as methods of prevention, when in reality they are merely tools of exploitation. They fail to adequately solve a problem that has deeper origins than people are led to believe, and instead prolong it further. While the general public faults the perpetrator and praises the supreme authority, the root causes of this problem are left unsolved, and those truly at fault remain unscathed.
The rise of automobile culture and suburban growth has led to urban centres encompassing massive areas of land. Especially in the GTA, can it not be argued that automobile culture and suburbia have taken precedent within our governmental structures? Have alternative transportation needs not been ignored and severely hampered by partisan politics and political incompetence? Compare suburban GTA growth to the growth of the GTA's transportation network over the past 2-3 decades. Which is more inclined to support the use of the automobile? Is the automotive industry also not one of our provinces most important economic sectors? I think this link is far more than just coincidental.
Instead of adequately identifying the many root causes of impaired driving, the higher ups are simply exploiting its presence. Drunk Driving groups such as MADD will push for harsher sentences for repeat offenders, but governments of all levels realize that is is far costlier to throw somebody in jail for drinking and driving instead of laying down a fat monetary penalty. Also, is it not a Canadian-type sentiment to say that increased incarceration fails to reduce criminality? Our inferiority-complex with the US continually brings up that point. Additionally, it costs an offender $150 to reinstate a suspended license, on top of any other fine they may have incurred. What benefits the governments more? Evidently, exploiting the problem financially is a far more viable option than implementing more transportation options and reducing pro-automobile sentiments among citizens.
Sure, cracking down on drunk driving with things like RIDE checks is an inherently good thing, but the current system will not adequately curb impaired driving. It will only prolong its existence until more drastic changes are made.
That being said, there are numerous flaws with the contemporary crackdown on drunk driving. Contemporary methods intended to reduce impaired driving, (MADD advertisements, RIDE checks etc.) are little more than tools of propaganda and exploitation intended to garner public support for this "worthiest of all causes". The problem is, these tools are shrouded as methods of prevention, when in reality they are merely tools of exploitation. They fail to adequately solve a problem that has deeper origins than people are led to believe, and instead prolong it further. While the general public faults the perpetrator and praises the supreme authority, the root causes of this problem are left unsolved, and those truly at fault remain unscathed.
The rise of automobile culture and suburban growth has led to urban centres encompassing massive areas of land. Especially in the GTA, can it not be argued that automobile culture and suburbia have taken precedent within our governmental structures? Have alternative transportation needs not been ignored and severely hampered by partisan politics and political incompetence? Compare suburban GTA growth to the growth of the GTA's transportation network over the past 2-3 decades. Which is more inclined to support the use of the automobile? Is the automotive industry also not one of our provinces most important economic sectors? I think this link is far more than just coincidental.
Instead of adequately identifying the many root causes of impaired driving, the higher ups are simply exploiting its presence. Drunk Driving groups such as MADD will push for harsher sentences for repeat offenders, but governments of all levels realize that is is far costlier to throw somebody in jail for drinking and driving instead of laying down a fat monetary penalty. Also, is it not a Canadian-type sentiment to say that increased incarceration fails to reduce criminality? Our inferiority-complex with the US continually brings up that point. Additionally, it costs an offender $150 to reinstate a suspended license, on top of any other fine they may have incurred. What benefits the governments more? Evidently, exploiting the problem financially is a far more viable option than implementing more transportation options and reducing pro-automobile sentiments among citizens.
Sure, cracking down on drunk driving with things like RIDE checks is an inherently good thing, but the current system will not adequately curb impaired driving. It will only prolong its existence until more drastic changes are made.
Last edited:
Where I used to live, there were RIDE checks all year 'round. It was a small town with only a couple of main roads, so chances were if you were out, you'd get stopped. RIDE operated at 8 am and at 8 pm and every time in between. I don't even know how many times I went through the program over the years. If it kept just one driver off the road and potentially saved a life, then it worked. Minor inconvenience for drivers could equal one less tragedy. That works for me.
Because RIDE was so prevalent, it meant that people were very careful about drinking and driving, so it was a great deterrent. Teens in the area were awesome, taking turns being the DD or staying overnight. It really was a behaviour changer. Some of us parents learned from our teens too
Since moving to Toronto, I've been amazed at how seldom I've seen a RIDE program. I'd be quite happy to see more.
Because RIDE was so prevalent, it meant that people were very careful about drinking and driving, so it was a great deterrent. Teens in the area were awesome, taking turns being the DD or staying overnight. It really was a behaviour changer. Some of us parents learned from our teens too
Since moving to Toronto, I've been amazed at how seldom I've seen a RIDE program. I'd be quite happy to see more.
Towered
Senior Member
Honesty does not pay. When I go out on the town and I'm driving, I make sure I have at most 1 to 2 beers (if I have any alcohol at all), and wait a few hours after drinking them before I get behind the wheel. The last two times I went through a RIDE spot check (both times on King Street under the rail bridge at Liberty Village) I was completely honest with the officers that I'd had a beer several hours before, yet both times they immediately asked me to step out of the vehicle to do a breathalyzer test. One time the result was negligible, the other time it was actually zero. What a hassle. I'm a very responsible driver, yet experiences like that encourage me to lie because I know I'm nowhere near the allowed limit. From now on I'll probably confidently tell them I haven't had anything to drink.
Last edited:
StIdes
Active Member
This is exactly the problem. Citizens of a supposedly "free" country should NEVER be subjected to this type of crap. Police are over stepping their boundaries and it's only going to get worse. Gone are the days of police being to "to serve and protect" nowadays it's more like "to oppress and enslave". The worst part is even if you are not found guilty in a court of law you still have a manditory 3 month suspension for just being charged. This makes the police officer who on average has an IQ in the 90s your judge, jury and executioner. Think about it people. Being punished and not even getting a day in court? Are you really OK with that? Do you know what kind of can of worms that is opening?
nfitz
Superstar
I'm curious in which time period was the Toronto constabulary less corrupt than today?
MisterF
Senior Member
When I was in university I was a part of a study that tested reaction time sober and after one drink. There was a measurable reduction in reaction time after a single drink. I was pretty surprised at the CAA calculator too. You have to drink a lot to get up to 0.08 - to the point where I'd consider myself pretty drunk before I get to that point. Then again I'm a cheap drunk
0.05 isn't ridiculous, it's the standard limit around the world. Almost every developed country uses 0.05, some have limits that are even lower.
http://www.icap.org/PolicyTools/ICAPBlueBook/BlueBookModules/16BloodAlcoholConcentrationLimits/tabid/176/Default.aspx#2