Thread: Alcohol and driving a car, and getting caught Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030189
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, this happened recently: [Deputy Premier] Don McMorris behind wheel of government vehicle at time of impaired driving charge. This government minister was also responsible for road safety, regulating liquor, and various other things. He brought new "administrative penalties" which results in roadside suspension and impounding of the car for .04 blood alcohol. Though for an impaired driving charge, a criminal offence, the level is .08.

My initial questions are: what do you think of the penalties and prevention in your area? Should a charge like this end a politician's career (are there other examples you're aware of)? Should it be criminal?

I checked about travel to Canada. A conviction for drunk/drink driving within 10 years means you can't travel here, even if you are not going to drive here. I suspect the laws about this vary.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
In England we also have a 0.8 limit for criminal proceedings, though the Scottish Parliament has reduced it to 0.5 in line with most European countries. But there are big differences between countries as to the penalties imposed. In England a convicted drink driver gets a criminal record, a minimum ban of a year, and is rightly faced with punitive insurance costs afterwards. They can go to prison. By contrast, in Italy, where a friend of mine was convicted the year before last, he got a 3 month ban and no criminal record because it's treated as a driving conviction, not as a criminal conviction.

Nobody can condone drinking and driving. Some Scandinavian countries have a zero limit, though I don't know what penalties they impose for offenders. I just object when people propose lower limits to bring us in line with Europe without taking into consideration the much more punitive penalties we have. A politician or, for example a police officer who gets a conviction should have the book thrown at them. They are meant to be an example to us.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Here is a chart showing risk of accident as a function of blood alcohol content. To my eye, 0.08 is at the high end of a reasonable place to put a threshold given that plot; 0.05 is right on the low end of reasonable.

Not included in the plot is the fact that risk of accident also depends on conditions, and on the quality of the driver. It is far more dangerous to drive in busy traffic with lots of potential car-car interactions whilst moderately drunk than it is to drive along a lightly-used road at the same level of drunkenness. Someone who has a couple of beers and drives five minutes home on quiet roads is probably safer than his sober friend who drives home on busy streets.

If a skilled driver has a couple of beers, and his accident risk is now equal to that of an average sober driver, should he really be a criminal?

But there's a huge advantage to the law not paying attention to any of that, which is that the first thing that gets impaired in drunk people is the awareness of how impaired they are. If you tried to have a law that would tell someone he's OK to drive because he just lives down the street, he's going to decide that he's also OK after a couple more beers, and is going to kill someone when he tries to leave the car park.

In practice, there is an effective law that allows that - police cars do not routinely patrol quiet roads, and nobody sets up random sobriety checks on quiet streets.

So if you're just a little over the limit, and drive home five minutes on quiet roads, you are unlikely to attract anyone's attention.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
This plot suggests that a BAC of 0.05 is equivalent to having been awake 17 hours as far as impaired driving goes.

In other words, a 0.05 BAC is equivalent to a sober person popping out to get some milk from the supermarket last thing at night before bed. (Of course, people usually drink in the evenings, so I suppose the effects must sum.)

A 0.08 BAC is equivalent to having been awake for 21 hours. I've had a few days when things have happened at work and I've ended up driving home at 3 or 4 the following morning. And I knew very well that my driving was impaired, but I also knew that there's almost no traffic and no pedestrians at all on my route home at that time of day, so the actual risk was small. I wouldn't have driven home in rush hour like that.

[ 10. August 2016, 23:04: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
If a skilled driver has a couple of beers, and his accident risk is now equal to that of an average sober driver, should he really be a criminal?

Hell yes. That was the defence of the man who mowed me down with his van... I'm still occasionally in pain because of this, but was lucky, I was not disabled as some of the near road-kills in my ward were. Whether or not you are splatted by a highly skilled drunk or a less-skilled sober one makes no difference at all to your survival rate. There were more than 2000 fatalities on the roads of Britain last year and countless more appalling injuries.
 
Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :
 
22.087 severe injuries to be precise, and the death toll has been divided by 4 since the 1960s, the drop is precipitous after the tightening of the laws re. drink and drive.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I personally think there is absolutely no excuse which can be offered for knowingly taking charge of a vehicle whilst intoxicated. People can whinge and moan about the nanny state all they like but if you are going to propel a tonne of metal around at high speed then do it while sober. I feel much the same way about mobile phones and driving.

That said there is quite a difficult balance to tread between having penalties so draconian that, while acting as a deterrent, they damage the lives of otherwise law abiding people who made a mistake and having penalties that are lax enough that people don't consider it worth obeying.

A good compromise might be to write some discretion into the sentencing guidelines. If you are a little bit over and its a first offence maybe a stiff fine but no criminal record. If you are a repeat offender then jail time.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Should a charge like this end a politician's career (are there other examples you're aware of)?
Here's one that's apparently just happened.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Alcohol has been a factor in the majority of violent crime for which I see people in prison, so much so it makes me want to stop drinking completely.

On the other hand, the people I see in prison for drink-driving, frequently more than once (including one guy who did a seven-year stretch after killing a friend in the passenger seat following his refusal to stop at a police check, drunk and with no insurance or licence) almost systematically seem to go out and start drink-driving again.

[ 13. August 2016, 12:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Here's one that's apparently just happened.

I have mixed feelings about this.
This woman reports having two glasses of wine a few hours before driving, which is consistent with the 0.02% BAC that she was measured with.

From the plot I posted earlier, the risk of having an accident whilst driving with a 0.02% BAC is 3% higher than the risk whilst driving with 0% BAC. Not sure what the error on that measurement it, but to my mind it is unreasonable to set the threshold that low. A 3% change in risk is much smaller than the change in risk due to driving after having had a row with your spouse, driving home after a full day's work, or driving on an unfamiliar road.

I don't think you can defend any limit less than 0.05%.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Should a charge like this end a politician's career (are there other examples you're aware of)?
Here's one that's apparently just happened.
From the article:

quote:
A 0.5-limit would mean an average man can take take a small glass of beer or a large glass of wine
How strong is the beer (or how weak is the wine) in these countries??
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

If a skilled driver has a couple of beers, and his accident risk is now equal to that of an average sober driver, should he really be a criminal?
Except that is not how it works. It is not skill that avoids most accidents, but awareness. And, as alcohol reduces awareness and caution, it affects all skill levels equally.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Which is why in NSW at least, there are different strands of offences. The one most mentioned here is driving with more than the prescribed concentration of alcohol in your blood. Penalties vary depending which of 3 ranges of concentration of alcohol is detected. The lowest limit is 0.05. For drivers who have held a licence for less than 3 years, there is an absolute ban.

The second strand is driving under the influence of alcohol, rarely used since the prescribed content rules were introduced 45 years or more ago. As the name indicates, the offence is driving under the influence, and it's much more difficult of proof.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The laws for the OP, if convicted of .08, which is likely since he spoke publimcly about it, are 1-2 year suspension of licence, mandatory ignition breath sample interlock (car doesn't start without breath sample, and randomly goes off during the day) for 1 year, vehicle impounded for a month with a ~$500 fee plus towing costs (makes no allowance for ownership of car), fine of $2500, surcharge on driving licence of $1500, plus, criminal record.

.04 to .08, 1st offence is 3 day licence suspension, mandatory addictions and driving course, fine. 2nd is 30 day suspension, 3rd is 1 year.

Pretty harsh. My response to this is drink tea. And mostly bicycle.
 
Posted by Knopwood (# 11596) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My response to this is drink tea. And mostly bicycle.
Police here want to make drunk cycling illegal too!
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except that is not how it works. It is not skill that avoids most accidents, but awareness. And, as alcohol reduces awareness and caution, it affects all skill levels equally.
No, that is exactly how it works. A moderately skilled driver is half as likely to be involved in an accident as an average driver - because he has trained his awareness appropriately. A mildly reduced-awareness skilled driver still performs better than a sober bad driver.

I would rather be a passenger in the car of a skilled driver who has had a beer than a stone-cold sober new driver.

If the skilled driver has had two beers, I'd still rather be in his car.

Four beers? I'll take the bus.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I would rather be a passenger in the car of a skilled driver who has had a beer than a stone-cold sober new driver.

If the skilled driver has had two beers, I'd still rather be in his car.

Four beers? I'll take the bus.
An unthinking statement. Your two beer statement misses the obvious: do you want to be in another car, on a bicycle or a pedestrian in front of this driver? Do you want your child to be? As a passenger, you are protected by tons of steel.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
A moderately skilled driver is half as likely to be involved in an accident as an average driver [...]
That sounds like the kind of statement that might be supported by evidence - do you have a link?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The other part of the equation is insight. A sober rubbish driver thinks he/she is a rubbish driver and exercises caution. A drunk driver thinks he/she is a formula 1 ace with affectingly slurred speech and goes full throttle round the corners.

There's a (large pdf) summary of the observed risks here. It is striking that alcohol is overwhelmingly more important than age of driver, education or social background. Driving skill doesn't seem to be measured directly, but if age is a proxy for years of experience it seems unlikely that driving skill provides more than minimal resilience against the effects of alcohol.
 
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Police here want to make drunk cycling illegal too!
Being drunk in charge of a pedal cycle is already illegal in the UK; it earns points on one's driving licence and could, therefore, lead to a losing that licence. It wouldn't, I think, lead to a ban on cycling.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Further evidence that Randall Munroe of xkcd reads the Ship?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Driving skill doesn't seem to be measured directly, but if age is a proxy for years of experience it seems unlikely that driving skill provides more than minimal resilience against the effects of alcohol.
No, indeed. Look at the shape of the crash risk vs BAC curve I posted earlier. At BAC = 0.08%, the increased risk (relative to the same person sober) is something like 2.7. That's the UK, and US, legal limit. Above the limit, the slope of the curve increases rapidly. It is easy to see from that curve that changing the base-level risk by a factor of 2 (which is I think the range for a reasonably good driver to an average driver) is worth something like 0.02 in BAC for someone who is a bit over the limit. That's about half a pint - maybe a bit less.

It is also easy to see that if the reasonable driver is twice as safe as the average driver when sober, then he has to reach a BAC of 0.07 to increase his risk to the average sober driver. That's about a pint or a pint and a half, depending on your taste in beer.

(My claims of a factor of 2 between a reasonably good driver and an average one come from my memory of an analysis of scores measured on a driving simulator - I'll try to find a reference.)
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
An unthinking statement.
Not at all - it is a precisely thought out statement.

quote:

Your two beer statement misses the obvious: do you want to be in another car, on a bicycle or a pedestrian in front of this driver? Do you want your child to be? As a passenger, you are protected by tons of steel.
Yes, I would rather be a pedestrian, or a cyclist, on the road in the vicinity of the skilled driver after one or two beers than I would be a cyclist or pedestrian in the vicinity of a sober bad driver.

Equally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the car of someone who had had four beers.

[ 15. August 2016, 15:20: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My response to this is drink tea. And mostly bicycle.
Police here want to make drunk cycling illegal too!
In Ireland, it is a specific offence, and I have known of people cautioned by the Gardai for so doing. A velocopedic constable acquaintance of mine tells me that it is an offence in Ontario (in charge of a road vehicle) and she is longing for the chance to issue a summons for it--- Ottawa bike cops have breathalyzers in their little saddle bags.

As far as the OP goes, it is really not very hard to avoid driving if one has taken a drink. Indeed, one of the reasons ministers have drivers is so that they can go to functions and not worry about what they might have consumed. It's all about judgement, and respect for the law, and respect for other road-users and if he's failed in any of them and has been fool enough to drink and drive, then he has to take his medicine. If he's in a judicial portfolio, he will just have to fall on his political sword and either find another line of work, or wait until his constituents renew his mandate before he takes up a portfolio again.

I really don't know why he would think that there are any other options.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Except that is not how it works. It is not skill that avoids most accidents, but awareness. And, as alcohol reduces awareness and caution, it affects all skill levels equally.
No, that is exactly how it works. A moderately skilled driver is half as likely to be involved in an accident as an average driver - because he has trained his awareness appropriately. A mildly reduced-awareness skilled driver still performs better than a sober bad driver.
First, nice goal post move by citing inexperienced drivers.
A driver with good skills knows the performance parametres of her/his vehicle, knows their own abilities and knows and has practiced what to do in an emergency.
None of this means anything if the driver's awareness and reaction time are impaired.
Being aware of conditions, being alert to dangers and positioning oneself to reduce emergencies is far better than manoeuvring out of a tight situation.
Drink reduces awareness, alertness, caution and reaction time.
The attitude that one's "skills" can substitute for intelligent choice is why middle aged adults are more responsible for texting accidents than teens.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
(My claims of a factor of 2 between a reasonably good driver and an average one come from my memory of an analysis of scores measured on a driving simulator - I'll try to find a reference.)
Well that would be a much more dramatic difference than differences across the range of ages so we should see the reference. Also we are talking about road traffic accidents here rather than scores on a driving simulator. What counts as "twice as good" in scoring may not translate into twice the risk of a serious accident. The driving simulator might not be a good way of measuring the loss of insight, for instance.

By the way look at figure 18 - the differences between ages tend to disappear as you increase the blood alcohol level. It may be that getting drunk is an equalizer in terms of driving skill.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Police here want to make drunk cycling illegal too!
Being drunk in charge of a pedal cycle is already illegal in the UK; it earns points on one's driving licence and could, therefore, lead to a losing that licence. It wouldn't, I think, lead to a ban on cycling.
It is illegal, but I'm not aware it can result in points on one's licence; these can only be awarded for motoring offences, unless you have a link to the contrary. Slater Gordon at any rate say not http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/03/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/

[ 18. August 2016, 17:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've just learned that in the US you can - allegedly - be arrested on a charge of DUI for being in a car - not necessarily behind the wheel - with the keys out of the ignition, parked in your own driveway.

So for instance if you have had a row with your spouse while inebriated and you go out and lie down in the back seat of the car to sleep it off in peace and somebody calls the cops, you could be arrested for a DUI. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
According to Bike Hub, you can be fined up to £2500 for cycling dangerously, which is what the cyclist would be prosecuted under for cycling under the influence, and be banned from driving.
quote:
... according to Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 the courts have the power to disqualify a cyclist from driving a car for any offence: "The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence committed after 31st December 1997 may, instead of or in addition to dealing with him in any other way, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for holding or obtaining a driving licence."
It's a long way down that article.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Aside from the issues in aggravating domestics...
That sounds like it would act as a incentive to drink-drivers not to pull over/delay starting (if they had any doubts).

Of course by that time the crimes already started, so I can see why you wouldn't want to give a free pass, either. And even in the best cases, I can see why you wouldn't want someone with impaired judgement in a position to quickly act on a bad decision to 'just go to the shops'. But in the first case it's proving driving under influence (engine heat?) and in the second it's not DUI, it's something else, perhaps LWIintent?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm totally speculating on the logic, but I suspect that such a law would be there for the purpose of preventing real drunk drivers from hastily pulling into their driveways (or in front of their homes on the side of the road, where so many park), pulling the keys out, and claiming they hadn't been driving, no sirree. (I suspect a hot engine wouldn't be enough to get you a conviction--the driver could always claim someone else had been driving it a few minutes ago, and an offense like this is probably not going to jury anyway unless someone was actually hurt.)

It's just easier to cut the crap when all you have to do is show that the person was in the driver's seat with a blood alcohol level of whatever. A simple photo and alcohol test will establish that, without the "your word against mine" stuff.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've just learned that in the US you can - allegedly - be arrested on a charge of DUI for being in a car - not necessarily behind the wheel - with the keys out of the ignition, parked in your own driveway.
As I remember, the offence in the UK is "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle". It has to be in a "public place" but I think driveways qualify. If you are in the car with the keys, you are in charge of it, even if you're sleeping it off in the passenger seat.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I did hear a story (from the actual person) who was drunk and hit by a car while a pedestrian. Because he was drunk when hit, he was assessed as partly at fault for being hit, even though in a crosswalk (zebra crossing) and he paid both a fine and an insurance penalty offsetting the costs to the driver who hit him. Not sure the particulars except that he was told a sober person would not have stepped off into the roadway even though the ped had the right of way.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've just learned that in the US you can - allegedly - be arrested on a charge of DUI for being in a car - not necessarily behind the wheel - with the keys out of the ignition, parked in your own driveway.
A lawyer friend of mine had a client who found himself in that predicament: he was parked in a parking lot with the ignition off and his car was hit by a moving car. But because his blood alcohol tested over the limit, he was held responsible for the accident and was arrested -- even though his car was parked and not in motion! (He pleaded not guilty and my friend successfully defended him.)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I did hear a story (from the actual person) who was drunk and hit by a car while a pedestrian. Because he was drunk when hit, he was assessed as partly at fault for being hit, even though in a crosswalk (zebra crossing) and he paid both a fine and an insurance penalty offsetting the costs to the driver who hit him. Not sure the particulars except that he was told a sober person would not have stepped off into the roadway even though the ped had the right of way.
Not sure quite what you're saying, but there is the well known doctrine of contributory negligence - a negligent failure to take proper care for your own safety when you are injured by the negligence of someone else. A drunken pedestrian may well have any damages which would otherwise be awarded be reduced by a percentage amount assessed by the judge (or in former time the jury). But not necessarily: A very drunk person knocked down crossing a road in accordance with a traffic light will probably have no reduction.

Contributory negligence used be a complete defence, but the proportionality principles outlined above were introduced by legislation, In my state, that was in 1964 or 1965, so when I did Torts in 1966, we were lectured on both the complete defence and proportionality.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
You have clarified and labelled the issue. Thanks. This is a no-fault jurisdiction, so the assessment of fault means insurance claims some amount of benefits back I think.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Teekeey Misha:
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
Police here want to make drunk cycling illegal too!
Being drunk in charge of a pedal cycle is already illegal in the UK; it earns points on one's driving licence and could, therefore, lead to a losing that licence. It wouldn't, I think, lead to a ban on cycling.
It is illegal, but I'm not aware it can result in points on one's licence; these can only be awarded for motoring offences, unless you have a link to the contrary. Slater Gordon at any rate say not http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/03/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/
In Ontario, points will be deducted from your driving licence for bicycle offences unless the constable notes "bicycle offence" when he tickets you-- he is not obliged to do so but my cycling constable tells me that they will normally do so on request.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've just learned that in the US you can - allegedly - be arrested on a charge of DUI for being in a car - not necessarily behind the wheel - with the keys out of the ignition, parked in your own driveway.
As I remember, the offence in the UK is "drunk in charge of a motor vehicle". It has to be in a "public place" but I think driveways qualify. If you are in the car with the keys, you are in charge of it, even if you're sleeping it off in the passenger seat.
I suspect it might vary from state to state, but I was warned by a bartender that my plan to sit in my car and listen to the radio while waiting for the buzz to depart might get me police attention.
My visceral reaction was "That's bullshit. I'm gonna get arrested for trying to manage my buzz?" But maybe the logic is, under the influence I might decide I am un drink before that is an actual fact.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
If you are sitting in a car while buzzed you can be cited for public drunk at least. But if you are in the driver's seat they will prosecute as if you were driving. Listen to your bartender.

A small point. In the US all states say DUI is about a .08 for adults. .02 for anyone under 21. That said even if you are not at .08 but you are stopped, you can be cited for DWI (Driving While Impaired).
 
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


Equally, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the car of someone who had had four beers.
Were I to have had four beers, my keys would have been on the peg at home or I would have been walking home from the pub! We are blessed with two Irish-owned pubs within walking distance from our house.
 
Posted by Teekeey Misha (# 18604) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It is illegal, but I'm not aware it can result in points on one's licence; these can only be awarded for motoring offences, unless you have a link to the contrary. Slater Gordon at any rate say not http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2015/03/is-it-illegal-to-ride-a-bicycle-when-drunk/
Sorry - I hadn't noticed your post.

 That all according to the folk at Bike Hub.

So, I stand partially corrected; one can't receive points on one's driving licence for cycling offences but one can lose one's licence altogether.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Then there is this

http://www.local10.com/news/police-share-shocking-photos-of-family-on-heroin

Reading the full police report the driver had nearly hit a school bus discharging a bunch of kids.

The grandparents were charged with endangering a child as well as DUI (Driving while Impaired)

Driving while high on any drug is criminal.

While we are at it, driving while texting or playing Pokemon Go is also just as dangerous as any DUI.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Should a charge like this end a politician's career (are there other examples you're aware of)?
Here's one that's apparently just happened.
From the article:

quote:
A 0.5-limit would mean an average man can take take a small glass of beer or a large glass of wine
How strong is the beer (or how weak is the wine) in these countries??
"Glass" is not the same unit despite sharing a name. Small glass of beer 300ml, large glass of wine 250 ml (both approximate). I am using standard bar servings here a small glass of wine is 125 ml (a glass at the size 7.5% wine is the old unit measure, it is not what you normally buy in a pub today) and I am assuming a small glass of beer is the modern metrified half pint.

Jengie
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
Having worked in a hospital and seen the horrific injuries that road accidents can cause, I'm of the opinion that drivers should have zero alcohol in their systems. People seem to have such a problem in knowing how much they've had to drink that it would be better not to drink and drive at all.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
The man referenced in the OP had blood alcohol at about 0.2. which is quite a bit of alcohol; CBC reported it would be upwards of 14 drinks. His consequences are:
-lost licence for 1 year
-criminal record
-fine of $1800
-penalty to get driving licence back will be about $1000
-1 year after license restored must drive only in a car with a breath alcohol analysis machine which prevents it starting and forces periodic breath sample while driving
-has to attend a drunk driving course

There are calls for resignation, which is probably appropriate. He's been kicked out of the government where he as deputy premier (meaning second in command of the gov't).
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0