BiscottiGelato

a person had to be doing very well if over .08 and able to go 40 km above and not getting into accid ...
blowfish 發表於 2010-9-18 23:09

The new rule is not against drunk + 40km. They are serperate things...

BiscottiGelato

我都唔明...

我好耐之前都有試過飲左酒渣車(應該好多人都試過啦)，個感覺真係幾恐怖下，係知道自己真係慢 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-19 01:14

I know you 唔明...

The post is about the new law not being nearly effective nor efficient enough. They will rather slap huge penalty on the unintentional rather than providing real additional safety. Not trying to debate whether it's right or wrong to go 40km/hr (depends on the place IMO). and whether it's right or wrong the drink and drive.

Also note that the current legislature allows one to drink and dry, provided that they are with-in the so called 'limit'. My complaint is their inadequacy in the informational and educational department, while slapping a huge penalty on the other hand. The actual fact that they allows drinking, but without educating the public on what the limit really means, probably will cause more harm than good. Either provide education or do 0 tolerance. Where obviously I would vote for the former, but the government just simply doesn't care and is currently doing neither.

BiscottiGelato

超左速就係超左速，冇理由唔知自己觸犯法例卦﹖錯就認左佢。未錯果D朋友就真係唔好咁做，唔係鑄成大錯成黎後悔就太遲。spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-19 01:14

Sure, if they setup a radar trap and catches you doing 51 at a 50 zone, your statement can also apply, in fact that's what they are going to tell you if you argue otherwise. Is it fair? Is it reasonable? Is it a cash grab? Is it changing the legislation just for show? The statement doesn't answer any of these questions, doesn't make the legislation any more reasonable than otherwise, and doesn't make the current debate any less meaningless.

Besides, 犯法 is one thing, 錯 is another. One is a legal question, one is a moral question. Certain activities can be illegal but morally acceptable, certain activities can be legal but morally unacceptable. One needs to be able to distinguish between the two to put up any reasonable arguments.

BiscottiGelato

其實真係唔明點解出去食飯唔可以有其中一個friend唔飲酒，做driver？

就算喺夜深，可能覺得條路無車又直又 ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-9-18 23:29

Cuz not everybody car pools... DD is not always possible.

If everything is based on the worst case scenario (that some emergency will happen and you need the shortest stopping distance possible), then we can make every road/hwy/etc to have the lowest speed limit possible at all times. Afterall, who knows what can pop out 10 meters in front of your car at any time, right?

The reality is that there's much less traffic and pedestrain on a road like Knight St/Boundary near Marine Way/etc during the night than during the day time. The speed limit is simply opposite of what a driver will perceive in terms of a reasonable speed. With good traffic/road engineering, if they want to limit the speed there they should make the road windier/rougher/etc. Instead they put up a barriers in the median (for Boundary), make the road nice, wide, smooth and straight with steep downhill, and put up a 50km/hr sign. With a speed limit that's unrealistically low even for the day time, and a heavy slap when just 40km/hr above the limit at such roads, IMO it's total foul.

40k+ downhill at say Boundary near Marine Way when not a car's in sight, it's just a totally different to 40k above in a school zone. Yet, the penalty is the same. If that's not poor legislation, then at least it's a very poor speed limit?

I am all for toughening up on some of these penalties to deter reckless behaviors. Toughening up drinking and driving penalty is fine, but only if there's education to back it. Toughening up excessive speeding penalty is fine, but only if they fix some of the unrealistic speed limits out there.

BiscottiGelato

I am confused with the discussion....
The 0.08 is always the "illegal" boundary, right? So pushing  ...
布小熊 發表於 2010-9-20 16:33

I think the warning level have always been at 0.05. So there's no diff other than the penalty.

In terms of the discussion, I have always been aiming at that the policy change is merely a political play. The increase in penalty would not raise the level of safety, and is largely unfair because of unrealistic speed limit for certain road/road designs and arbitrary penalty at arbitrary speed/BAC levels.

Moreover the change in legislation places heavy dependance on the inaccurate breathlyzers and allows police to be both judge and jury when it comes to excessive speeding and DUI cases. In fact you can be charged these heavy penalty based on a balantly wrong breathlyzer result. (eg. a cop ask someone who didn't drink a drop to do the breathlyzer, if the breathalyzer results shows 0.05+, immediate impound + driver license revokation. Before you can get to a court you would've suffered through driver license revokation and vehicle impoundment).

What I am pushing is education, road design changes, and realistic speed limits that people will follow, for improvement in road safety. My argument is that the gov't only want to up penalty is because it's the easilet political move they can do. I am also disagreeing with the legislation change because police already have enough power for them to abuse already. We don't need to give them even more tools that allows them to go above the courts.

What I am not pushing is to drive after drinking any amount that will cause perceptable decrease in driving performance, whether this means it's 0.05 or not (I know people that's gone after 2 drinks, they shouldn't even drive after a single one, or after a alcohol heavy dish). Nor am I advocating driving at dangerous speeds (dangerous as per road conditions, does not always match the speed limit however).

All I am saying the law and penalty is poor for what people are actually encountering day to day, and upping the penalty makes it even more unfair. Unless everyone thinks the law is always fair and penalty is always fair, regardless of how the legislators spin it. Otherwise I think there's plenty of room for discussion.

BiscottiGelato

First, here is something to educate ourself on Blood Alcohol Content


Personally, I have never DUI. ...
chobit 發表於 2010-9-20 16:13

You can be charged DUI if you are over the limit and sitting in your car with ignition off, but with the key in a reachable location, regardless if there's intention to drive. This is the current law, very fair, isn't it?

BiscottiGelato

For the example of Marine Way near Boundary. Whether the speed limit is 50 (so driving 90 is consi ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-9-20 17:23

Posted speed limit is supposed to the the maximum. Aka. the max speed you are allowed to drive at in perfect condition. You are supposed to adjust your speed and lower it according to the road/weather condition. So the rainy weather, black ice have nth to do with the max limit.

For perfect conditions tho, posted speed limits are definately unrealistically slow, that people just tend to ignore it. I'd think the roads would be much safer, with less speed differential (main cause of speed related accidents), if the speed limits are actually realistics such that people will follow them.

BiscottiGelato

我其實覺得佢對drinking & driving 整唔整zero tolerance 都唔太大分別﹖0.1/0.08/0.05都好
，你飲左之後就 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-20 18:12

If posted speed limit is realistic, people might actually abide them. I don't agree that people will always drive +10/+20 on top of the speed limit. Heck, residential areas with unposted speed limit have a 50km/hr default. I don't see people being stupid and drive even close to 50km/hr.

Most people are reasonable drivers, I can't say the same for posted speed limits (that most posted speed limits are reasonable). Good for you if you find most speed limits reasonable and actually abides to them, but most people don't because they are set unrealistically.

BiscottiGelato

speed limit以我既角度黎睇，係綜合各種唔同路面情況(包括路邊有冇泊車，附近有冇民居)，天氣情況，唔同車 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-21 21:07

I have never been debating whether one should do certain things or not, or whether I want to DUI or speeding or not. Not doing certain things doesn't mean that having laws to curb that particular right can be justified. In fact, even for things that is considered immoral, doesn't mean that increasing penalty to unreasonable levels can be justified either.

According to your logic then, if one day they say theft should be sentenced to life in prison, and robbery should be sentenced with death penalty, you would be okay with it? Your response would be 'Just don't do it, then you don't have to worry about the penalties' and 'As long as you don't do it, why be so afraid of the penalties'? I personally think penalty should fit the crime, or the justice system will fail miserably.

The world doesn't work like that. If everybody is insensitive to things that does not directly apply to themselves, who would then in return, support causes that you would care about someday?

I think it's pretty clear where I stand. I am not telling people to be stupid, drink 10 shots and go out and drive 50k above the limit. I am saying the legislation change is imposing excessive penalty without really improving safety, for what really is purely a political cause in the name of safety. The penalty is probably justified for the crowd who intended to cause harm to others, but those probably will do it anyways regardless of the penalty. What the new legislation will do is penalizing people that have cause minimal, or no extra danger to the public at all:

- 40k over at some places is maybe just 10k above what the regular traffics does anyways. You might actually need that kind of speed for lane changes in some circumstances.
- People charged and essentially convicted on the spot via breathlyzer errors.
- Police now have absolute power in deciding whether one is guilty or not, based on the fact that they can now impose penalty at their discretion without going through the court. And we know there are a lot of bad apples in terms of policing in North America.

Higher penalty in the face of higher probability of wrongful convictions, along with unreasonable penalty on unreasonable speed limits (at least a lot of people would agree that many of the speed limits are completely unreasonable). I can't find any positives from this change in legislature at all.

BiscottiGelato

While on the topic of speed limits. Check out the following 2 very common articles as a starter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm

Do note that take government data with a grain of salt, because for most countries, the following applies and might lead to significant bias:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an organization wholly controlled by major insurance companies, generally advocates for lower speed limits and provides grants to police agencies to obtain speed enforcement equipment, such as radar and lidar guns. Skeptics believe that the IIHS's interest in promoting lower limits and the issuance of more traffic tickets arises out of the industry's interest in increasing motorists' insurance rates, leading to greater profits for its constituents."

So insurance companies pays funding to police (gov't), and the insurance companies likes higher insurance rates and more tickets. Go figure.