FiReSTaRT wrote:

Hands-free is almost as unsafe.

Just a small but significant quibble, FiReSTaRT: hands-free is just as unsafe as hand-held, and is quite possibly more so.

There's a good roundup of the scientific studies on this in a New York lawyer's summary post from Feb. 09 at http://tiny.cc/8pZFY , and one of the recent studies (by psychologists at Dalhousie University) is in the Journal of Safety Research vol. 40 (2), abstract available online since 9 April ( http://tiny.cc/kKBcJ ). The study in JSB concludes: "Our review shows that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance especially in detecting and identifying events. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than when using a handheld phone. Some studies found that drivers compensate for the deleterious effects of cell phone use when using a handheld phone but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone."

The science is clear, repeatable, and unequivocal. Both sorts of cell phone use are dangerous, and to ban only one while continuing to allow the other would be just plain silly, particularly if it turns out that the more dangerous of the two is condoned.

Our legislators wouldn't be that stupid (or that venal), would they? Would they?

I did some reading on this topic because, believe it or not, I am seriously opposed to drunk driving. My figures weren't pulled out of my behind. They came from Alcohol and Caffeine - A Study of Their Psychological Effects By Harvey Nash which presented study results that indicated that a statistically significant impairment only came at 100mg levels.

From my personal experience.. I will feel the effect of 4 drinks but they'll be nowhere near driving on 5 hours of sleep, which is fairly common in these parts. I also test my decision making abilities and awareness of traffic around me when riding as a front seat passenger. Generally I'd be concerned about my driving only after having 7-8 drinks. With that being said, when I know I'm gonna drive, I don't have more than 2 (3 if I am spending several hours in one spot) and no more than a single drink when I ride.

the limits for warn are probably in place to encompass the majority of the population. It would be impossible to have a limit for each person.

When I was a drinking test subject on my course, I drank as much as I could in the time limit. We then had to go down a hall, elevator another hall and into the classroom. I was quite enebriated. I remember bumping the wall at least once. My result was in the "warn" range and I was not even over 80mgs yet.

A lot of factors play into it. sex of the person, weight, the body's ability to cope with alcohol, how often does a person consume? the more often the person consumes, the longer it will take to affect the body as the body has become immune to the drug (alcohol).

Bear, the way the test was run suggests that not enough alcohol got metabolized to get into your lungs to blow a more realistic reading, which would make the test highly unrealistic.

The warn limit was just a figure pulled from where the Sun don't shine. 0.08 was the limit placed to encompass the majority of the population and as I said, I fully agree with it.

Sex, age and muscle mass just affect how quickly your blood alcohol content goes up and down. While it may take 4-5 drinks to get me over 0.05, a 100lb girl may only need 2.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Bear, the way the test was run suggests that not enough alcohol got metabolized to get into your lungs to blow a more realistic reading, which would make the test highly unrealistic..

sorry, think you misunderstood....it was just not one test....we had multiple tests over 3 hrs after we stopped consuming.

So the same thing happened again today... I went out for lunch with some coworkers and on the way to the restaurant we were pulled over. This is Renforth drive in Etobicoke and there is something like 6 schools on this road, and as such the speed limit is 40KM. My coworker who was driving his piece of *EDIT* Suzuki turned onto Renforth and was doing somewhere from 50KM to 52KM, I was watching his digital speedometer as I know this is a famous radar trap. Any ways the cop pulled us over and walked up to the side of the car and told him he was caught doing 58KM in a 50 but would lower it to 50KM in a 40KM, no points, just a fine of 40 bucks or something. Then the cop asked for his license and blah blah ... my coworker argued a little but then let it go...

This reduction on the spot means that this lowly educated traffic officer is the Judge Jury and Executor... it all depends on the mood of the cop and who the cop is. Its not across the board the same. And the cop led with the reduction, before gathering his info?

I asked him what he is going to do with the ticket and he told me just pay, it's not worth the hassel. I bet you 95% of the population would do the same thing, hence cash cow

Nothing but a cash cow tax grab!!