大C姐

It's not as simple as that. It's always a case of trading between risk (think about others) and fr ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-17 15:09

    In that case every line is going to be arbitrary... of course they have some "statistical explanation" behind it.

I don't think it will impact restaurants/ bars in the long run, people will just get used to it and take public transit/ have designated drivers (or just keep breaking the law). Also there may be new taxi services and other arrangements coming from this, so it's hard to say this is going to necessarily worsen the economy. But what i'm saying is, we can't really accurately put safety and human lives in an equation... there will always be an argument on how to value life. Take the mother for example, she probably views this issue very differently from you.

BiscottiGelato

In that case every line is going to be arbitrary... of course they have some "statistical exp ...
大C姐 發表於 2010-9-17 16:10

I am saying it's arbitrary, because different people handle alcohol very differently. I'd say 0 tolerance, unless you have a doctor do an exam on you and measured how much alcohol you can consume before it's 'too dangerous to drive'. It should be an out of pocket expense to get this examination for those who want to be able to drink and drive. Then you get a different class license that permits you to drink, with your alcohol tolerance limit on the driving license.

On top of that, they should enforce resturants establishment to list out exactly how much alcohol is in each dish/each drink in mg, to make it easier for people to know how close you are getting to the limit. Bartender would need to be trained on more efficient ways in getting more precise with their shot measurements.

At least this is some thinking and some trying in coming up with a way where we can get people safe but also not over-restrict people's enjoyment on life. Contrasting with some people who blindly drink the cool aid dished out by our government, our legislative beaureacrats and our law enforcements (not talking about you C sis btw, just in general). I'd bet most of them don't really care about our safety. All they want is to score political points and gain ever more power and control over the citizens.

On the topic of valuing life, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's a trade between everything. We can't say the value of life is always the highest and everything else can be sacrificed. If that's the case then we can outlaw unimaginable number of things in the name of safety. Again, it's a trade off between various things, and various groups of people. Where the line is drawn can be up for debate, but at least make the trade-off a clever and efficient one (eg, you actually improve safety a lot by removing very little rights). As an example, banning alcohol prohibition style because 1 in a trillion drinks in the world might result in a fight probably isn't a very efficient trade in the name of safety. Banning sales of alcohol to people who chronically binge drinks probably is a more efficient trade in comparison.

fibbi

I guess the message is that you better get a designated driver if you drink!
Public transportation at night may not be that great. And the skytrain shuts at 1am? Which is a bit "early" for clubbing people?
Taxi is another choice.
Yes it's inconviniant, but it's safe for others. As for the alcohol sale, I don't think it will be affected at all. Just see they raise the price even though the tax is lowered...there are just "demand" out there.

Driving over 40km/h is quite a lot and I don't believe a person would not "FEEL" it. If a person don't pay attention to the speed and had no feeling of driving over 40, I don't think he/she should drive on the street at all.

BiscottiGelato

I guess the message is that you better get a designated driver if you drink!
Public transportation a ...
fibbi 發表於 2010-9-17 16:38

For clubbing involving plenty of drinks, DD/taxi is obvious. What the concern is, is casual drinking. 1 or 2 glasses of wine over dinner, 1 or 2 beer after golf, for someone that can handle alcohol reasonably well. What, you have to find a DD or take a cab before heading to the golf course? I think there'd be people that'd just rid the hassle, save the money and just dine at home, or head home straight from the golf course and skip the beer. Count me in as one of them. We can claim that it's worth it in the name of safety, but claiming that there'll be no impact to the restaurant/bar/pub industry is definately an understatement. In my opinion there are definately better ways to uphold both safety and personal freedom. The way things are I don't think policy makers gives a crap either way. As long as they score political points from being perceived as having done something, it's all good to them.

Driving 40 over during recess at a school zone 'FEELs' a lot different than 40 over 80 clicks on 91 4am at night, or 40 over 50 clicks on Granville south of 41st 4am at night... Very different in terms of potential danger created also. Yet.. the penalty is the same, with probable impounding of your vehicle.

大C姐

I am saying it's arbitrary, because different people handle alcohol very differently. I'd say 0 to ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-17 16:25

    你諗太多啦。駕車人士有責任去認識駕駛規則﹐唔係要其他人(waiter/ bartender)去幫你計你飲左幾多先叫超標(當然政府都有責任去做多D教育+宣傳)。唔好話唔同人個tolerance唔同啦﹐我自己有時都唔知自己飲幾多先上腦。我出名千杯不醉﹐但係有時唔夠訓﹐唔舒服或不在狀態可能一杯就搞惦我。所以其實set一個limit真係無可能100%準確。

我覺得罰得多定少都唔認該drink and drive。如果出去食飯真係要飲杯酒咪等兩個鐘散下步先渣車囉。

-- 酒霸大C姐

pkphilip

Just zero tolerance is easier to enforce!!

0.08 - how much is 0.08? a glass of wine is already more than that.

Philip

tofu

0 tolerance is impossible, if your food is cooked w/ alcohol, your test result is higher than zero already.  so 0.05 sounds like is for your food consumption.  i think they should punish drug drivers harder,  they are more dangerous, they don't even know what they are doing. on the other hands, even we can still handle the car after few drinks, but our response time was delay.  

40km over limit is easy, oak bridge is only allow 60km/h, so 40 goes over it is quite normal.  for highways, they should learn from us, cars should have higher limit than trucks, since car can stop faster than truck.  i will suggest increase the driving exam standard is even better, get all the unsuitable drivers off the road.  they are the one who cause most problems

spoonek4

你諗太多啦。駕車人士有責任去認識駕駛規則﹐唔係要其他人(waiter/ bartender)去幫你計你飲左幾多先 ...
大C姐 發表於 2010-9-17 18:25

好想俾個"LIKE"你呢個post hahahha.......

我好少出去飲，飲得多都會有人車或者叫車，好過俾人拉一拉或者炒左傷到人果D仲大獲。

超速多過40k果度，講真，好似Knight街80kph你行110kph都已經可以逢車過車架喇喎﹖係唔係真係需要渣咁快呀﹖特別係宜家愈來愈多車o係路面上面，又4圍都整路整到7彩。如果真係為左過癮而飛既，就預左俾人抄或者炒啦，真係飛既都唔會超40kph咁少野啦我諗﹖

BiscottiGelato

你諗太多啦。駕車人士有責任去認識駕駛規則﹐唔係要其他人(waiter/ bartender)去幫你計你飲左幾多先 ...
大C姐 發表於 2010-9-17 18:25

Drivers have to know the rules, that's beyond the point. I am talking about the rules are ridiculous, impractical, and inadequate in ensuring both safety and maximizing convinience for such given safety level.

I didn't call for bartender to calculate how much you drank. Read carefully before critiquing ideas. I call for menus to print out how much alcohol content is in the food and drink, similar to certain menus containing nutritional information these days. Bartender today already have the responsibility of controlling how much alcohol is in the drink. 1 shot should be 1 shot, double should be double. 1 glass of wine should be 1 glass of wine. It's part of bartender training. They shouldn't have been sloppy to begin with. On the flip side, there are so many times where one orders a glass of wine and it comes way less than 1 glass. If it's less than1/5th of a 750ml bottle they really should redo their training.

Everybody knows 大C姐. 錢多時間多. Drink a glass or 2, walk around for 2 hours before heading home? Are you serious?

All this means wining and dining out is going to go down. Good I don't depend on the restaurant scene to be vibrant to make a living. Can't say the same for many others.

BiscottiGelato

Just zero tolerance is easier to enforce!!

0.08 - how much is 0.08? a glass of wine is already more ...
pkphilip 發表於 2010-9-17 18:28

Zero tolerance is going to be a pain, as tofu suggested, but definatley easier to enforce.

However their aim is to pretend they are trying to strike a reasonable balance between allowing people to have a casual drink (wine and beer have been a staple of a regular meal since the ancient times), and minimizing risk. Yet they blurt out this useless 0.05/0.08, which is arbitrary, as explained above. Moreover, why can't they do a little more education on what is 0.05 and 0.08? So people who is drinking casually would know that they shouldn't really get screwed over, and people who over drank really have no excuse.

And, 1 glass of wine is much less than 0.08. A standard 'drink' have about 0.02 on a 100lb women. Unless you are a 50lb little girl I don't see how one drink would put you over the limit. Again, pushing for tougher penalty to act as if they did something in their political term, which is easy, but no education, no thorough thinking. That's why you'd have your mis-conception.

You can debate where to cut the freedom vs safety line (zero tolerance vs otherwise). But the real agenda that they are trying to push is politics, and power trips. Not recognizing this is plain ignorance.