So just how many deaths ARE acceptable??

Moderators: admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Reflections, Decatur, bend

User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

So just how many deaths ARE acceptable??

by: Bookm on
Wed May 20, 2009 10:55 am

Simple Question (not)...

What is an acceptable number of deaths each year on Ontario roads?

The topic on Legal Briefs the other night was the .05-.08 administrative suspension issue. I believe the holier-than-thou woman from OCCID stated that 6 fatalities were caused by drivers registering these breathalyzer readings. I suppose we must assume these wrecks would NOT have happened if they were at 0.00%. But whatever...

What I would really like to know is what is an acceptable death rate that we, as a society, agree is an acceptable number, then raise or lower our laws based on this agreed-upon death rate. If we all celebrate the fact that death rates are down 3 from last year based on some new law, someone will come along soon with ANOTHER new law to get it down another 3 or 4. But when do we stop and say, "Yah, that'll do".

After watching that show, it became pretty clear to me that we ARE living in a police state. When the police (and their somewhat calibrated gizmo's) have so much control over our financial well being, we no longer live in a free society. That women waved off the 3-day suspension like it was no big deal. I'm guessing she's never had a REAL job her entire life. I'll bet she simply can't fathom the thought that many folks rely heavily on their drivers license for their livelihood (especially truckers). So she suggests they should just never have a beer at all. Even though they aren't impaired at all, they just now, because she says so, should never socialize in a manner that would include a nice cold beer on a hot summer day.

I just hope she never looks at stats that show the proportion of women who have accidents, or Asians, or redheads, etc. They'll all be on the chopping block next! Eventually, we'll will have such a clean society, it would make Hitler envious.

So, perhaps Mr. Fantino could jot down a number (of deaths) that we can all nod our heads and say, "Yeh, that sounds 'bout right", then pass and enforce laws that will assure that number is realized. But if that number is ZERO, God help us all.

NOTE: My work hours are about to get crazy (again) and the first thing that has to go is Forum participation. I'll still poke around, but won't be contributing much 'till after summer. Take care folks, and get the heck out of my way, LOL!!!


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Wed May 20, 2009 12:03 pm

There's no numerical answer, particularly since our population is growing. Ontario has the lowest fatality rate per vehicle-kilometre in North America. We had this before bill 203, before the change to the drunk-driving laws, etc. Our injury and collision rates are high thanks to the GTA, but most of that is because of idiotic driving.

The 12-hour licence suspension was to get the driver to sober up, which makes a lot of sense. I never had any problem with it. The increased roadside suspension for .05 BAC seems more of a punishment-without-trial than a safety thing. I guess the intent was greater deterrence, but we already had the lowest drunk-driving rate in NA. Unless we turn the province into a Kafkaesque nightmare, we can't get it down to zero. I still think that the best way of reducing traffic fatalities is making it harder to get a licence and putting people through much more driver training, stuff that teaches you how to survive and be safe on the roads, before we let them onto our roads. Tougher penalties, banning things, etc., have reached the point of diminishing returns, in my view. If we made it much harder to earn a licence, I think it would make people much less likely to do stupid things, including drink and drive.
Bookm wrote:I believe the holier-than-thou woman from OCCID stated that 6 fatalities were caused by drivers registering these breathalyzer readings.
There isn't enough information. How long after the crash was the breathalyzer administered? (Example might be driver goes off the road, passenger is killed, and crash scene is found 2 hours later by a passerby.) Was it administered a couple of hours later because the crash victims had to be rushed to the hospital?
Last edited by Radar Identified on Wed May 20, 2009 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Moderator

by: hwybear on
Wed May 20, 2009 12:04 pm

A person is driving and has a medical issue that kills them and then has a crash is the ONLY death we should accept on our roads. Everything else was preventable in some way, shape or form.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


User avatar
Slyk
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 4:59 pm
Location: South Western Ontario

by: Slyk on
Wed May 20, 2009 2:29 pm

hwybear wrote:A person is driving and has a medical issue that kills them and then has a crash is the ONLY death we should accept on our roads. Everything else was preventable in some way, shape or form.
Not necessarily by more policing and harsher laws and punishments. Whatever happened to proper driver training and BETTER not MORE laws.
SLYK
-------------
"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." - Edmund Burke"

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal" - MLK Jr.


User avatar
FiReSTaRT
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:01 pm
Location: GTA

by: FiReSTaRT on
Wed May 20, 2009 7:04 pm

3) Now they're introducing harsh penalties for people that are perfectly capable of driving (at least when it comes to the blood alcohol content).

I had to be a "test subject" when I took the breath course. I was in the "warn" range at 65mgs.....I could not walk straight and I felt like taking a big ole nap.

The penalties are far from harsh!
Pretty simple to alternate/take turns at being a DD with friends. I would rather pay a $30 cab than take someone's life as my reaction time has been compensated.

Just got home....615am....we did just over 2 hours of RIDE last night, about 300 vehicles...not one........NOT ONE test conducted. There were several DD's and a couple cabs go thru. That to me is a good night!
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.


User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Wed May 20, 2009 7:51 pm

I've tried to understand where this burgeoning nanny-state mentality is coming from. Then I read this article in the Toronto Star.

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/article/631582

Could this whole phenomenon/mentality of "helicopter parenting," where parents obsessively hover over everything their kids do, have been a contributing factor to the demands for a nanny state, and some of the laws like we have now? Now that the "helicopter parents" have had to let their kids go off to university and become adults, are they still trying to obsessively babysit their children by way of an overprotective government?

Thoughts?


User avatar
ticketcombat
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

by: ticketcombat on
Wed May 20, 2009 9:50 pm

Remember when the news reported something outrageous or stupid, people would react with the old saying "There outta be a law against that!" Now that same group can start online petitions, blogs or posts, send well placed emails and through the electronic marvel that is the internet, swamp an MPP with a "grass roots" movement for legislative change. They can even take over (former) reputable advocacy groups like MADD.

The grass roots lobbyist can achieve with a keyboard what drug companies pay millions for - clout. And the formula they use is:

children + safety = good laws.

The approach is benevolent prevention. Dissent cannot be tolerated. After all we're talking about the safety of our children! Are you against children? No of course not, therefore we can count on your support, right?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I use to laugh at Americans who forgot Ben Franklin's words. How could they let the last 8 years happen? Were they sleeping? I don't laugh anymore. I live in Ontario.
Fight Your Ticket!


User avatar
Reflections
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1490
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: somewhere in traffic

Moderator

by: Reflections on
Wed May 20, 2009 10:28 pm

Boy, and you wonder why so many people come here to fight tickets.....all the new laws will have officers flipping through a digital copy on the in-cruiser laptop....."I know this guy is guilty of something, hhmmmm, there it is, chewing gum while rubbing his stomach and breathing while driving, let see, 1 plus wow, carry the 7 and fine = university tuition for five years, that'll fix that him".
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests