溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 嚴打醉駕超速新例下周生效 [打印本頁]

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-17 07:45 標題: 嚴打醉駕超速新例下周生效

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 10:14

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-17 10:20 編輯

Might as well institute 0 tolerance then. Heck, might as well just out law selling alcohol to anyone that possess a drivings license (given the lack of transportation other than driving to commute inter-municple in the lower mainland). What exactly is 0.05 or 0.08 anyways? 1 drink? 2 drinks? How about a double shot? How about different types of alcohol? To a point that the allowance, which is so that people can have 1 casual drink, became not so casual any more because the possible penalty is ridicuolous. Just put in 0 tolerance, the so called 'allowance' is really just to lure people into a very tough position.

Not to mention the ridiculousness that they can charge you exactly the same even if you sleep in your car drunk, and have not moved the vehicle a single inch. So if you don't plan to sleep on the street, might as well drive the damn thing home then cuz the risk is all the same.

The speeding thing is even more ridiculous. Most speed limits are already set at an insensible low speed, which are arguably arbitary and optimized for revenue collection in the name of safety to begin with. Now they put this ridiculously big hammer on people doing rather ordinary things like speeding. I'll admit that I personally drive around 10-20 over all the time, and that is pretty much what most people are driving at without being excessively slow and cause plenty of speed differential in the traffic. It's hard to imagine that another 10-20 (which is nth) will put you in the crosshair of all these excessive penalties. Not to mention how many people tailgate and pass the heck out of me when I'm driving only 10-20 over the speed limit, esp on hwys like Hwy 1 and 91...

Is this the prohibition era for driving or what?

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-9-17 10:26

I do agree zero tolerance for alcohol. Different people reacts different to alcohol. Someone takes a sip and already can impair judgement, while others may be 2 glasses no problem. But to be on the safe side, I do agree no drinking at all.

Back to the speed issue. Yes I found the speed limit is ridiculous. Who drive 50 on the street? It's concenses to drive 10 above the speed limit but that's not the right way. But for excessive speeding, it's 40km over the legal speed which I do find that's reasonable. Driving 90 on a street is fast. Driving 130+ on hwy 99 may not feel too fast but it could make other cars difficult to merge in. We can just blame the design of merge lane...

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 10:36

回復 3# fibbi

With how transportation is in most of North America. I think it's basically don't even bother drinking unless you are in your own home... See how restaurants and bars will like that and see how much tax revenue the Province will lose because of this. Not until then nth sensible will come out of this.

What I think is much more reasonable is, in order for one to drink and drive, they need a special exam to be done via a doctor, at their own cost of course, to determine how much he/she can drink and still drive. Then if they want to drive, then they should test for their blood alcohol content and see if it's above or below the limit. 0.05/0.08 across the board is kind of pointless. I know people who can't function after the first shot. I know people that can probably ace the GMAT after 10 drinks... Not to mention there are people who should be off the road anyways, even if they haven't drank anything...

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-9-17 10:43

本帖最後由 fibbi 於 2010-9-17 10:47 編輯

回復 fibbi

See how restaurants and bars will like that and see how much tax revenue the Province will lose because of this. Not until then nth sensible will come out of this.
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-17 10:36

Well...I don't see that problem....I would just think that the taxi company would be more happy. Since people should just call a cab or get someone who didn't drink to give them a ride...

某程度上，我覺得這是一種姿態，就是政府對醉酒駕駛採取更嚴厲的態度，是有多些阻嚇作用。

作者: 布小熊 時間: 2010-9-17 10:49

回復 fibbi

With how transportation is in most of North America. I think it's basically don't even ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-17 10:36 AM

It doesn't have to be so complicated. Just get a DD for every dinner and rotate among friends. If not, take public transit. (loving the new CanadaLine.

I was walking tipsy home last nite) Parking in DT is so expensive anyway, I just give up driving there now.
Taxi is sure another safe option. Or public transit + taxi.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 11:14

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-17 11:26 編輯

It doesn't have to be so complicated. Just get a DD for every dinner and rotate among friends. If n ...
布小熊發表於 2010-9-17 10:49

Not everybody lives in Richmond/Vancouver. Given real estate prices these days, people are going to live further and further apart from each other. DD doesn't work for me personally.

More-over... it used to be DD for clubbing. Now it' gonna be DD for dinners? Heck it sounds like not only will alcohol sales drop dramatically, dining will take a hit too. Must be good times for our economy...

Not to mention the immediate impound just for a 'warning', based only on the portable breathalyzer that's often regarded as 'inaccurate', allows the cop to dish out irreversible penalties before hitting the court. Unchecked and unbalanced power for the power tripping cops, ought to be better for everyone, right?

Not to mention a taxi bill to any suburb location will be $50 CAD+. With all these people buying in Abbortsford these days, it's going to be closer to $100CAD just to have a dinner with wine for them. LOL.

作者: news 時間: 2010-9-17 12:16

is it so hard not to drink and drive?..if you are going to drink..then dont drive...yes it may be inconvenient to YOU..but pls think about the others

作者: Prelude 時間: 2010-9-17 12:30

I smell this is another legit attempt to increase ICBC revenue.

No discount + 320元 extra for caught driving 40 over speed limit, for 3 years.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-9-17 13:09

回復 9# Prelude

Sounds like a good idea.
But how about incentive?
I haven't been getting ticket for almost 20 years

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-17 14:12

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-9-17 14:14

回復 11# mukmuk2

I dunno, I'm paying under $1200 a year

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-17 14:15

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-9-17 14:19

回復 13# mukmuk2

Are you one of them?

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-17 14:28

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-9-17 14:28

回復 15# mukmuk2

Good for you

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-9-17 14:50

I have mixed feelings on this issue.....

I am a casual drinker (I like my wines and occasional cocktails) and I am very aware of my drinking when I drive. My point is, if you WANT a nightlife, you can either live in downtown so you can walk home (walking drunk is dangerous too but at least it's LESS dangerous to other people on the street), or you can arrange a taxi. Drinking is NOT a neccessity at the end of the day, and too many people live in the suburbs and go out for drinks in downtown/ richmond, driving 45min under influence (even a SMALL influence) imposes huge risks.

I don't agree with BiscottiGelato's comment on the possible loss in tax revenue. At the end of the day, drinking and driving DO increase number of accidents on the roads - that can not be measured by $$. But I do think the speed limits on many streets are ridiculous.... 50 in residential area is okay, but on graville? w georgia overpass? come on.....

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2010-9-17 14:53

回復 17# 大C姐

Well, you probably driving a Farrerri or Cayenne

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 15:09

is it so hard not to drink and drive?..if you are going to drink..then dont drive...yes it may be in ...
news 發表於 2010-9-17 12:16

It's not as simple as that. It's always a case of trading between risk (think about others) and freedom (inconvinience). You always have to draw a line. The point is where do you draw a line and whether that line is drawn so that it's the most efficient trade possible between risk and freedom.

Some places draw the line where if you drink, don't drive, which is what you suggested but that's not our law anyways.

BC we are drawing this arbitary line of if you drink over 0.05, don't drive.

You can always make the world a safer place by stripping more rights. How about banning motorcycles because the ratio of death to accident ratio is high? How about banning Facebook since people are going viral with child porno rape photos? How about stripping the rights to drive at all since so many people die from just plain driving in general, and not to mention the air pollution might end the earth one day? I can just as easily extend what you said to 'if you are going to head out, then take the bus...yes it may be inconvenient to YOU.. but pls think about the others'. We can keep on stripping more and more rights from everyone becasue of the danger caused by a small number of people, and make the world a safer and safer place, but then what's the point in living at all then? Where do you end? The key is whether it's a fair trade of freedom and risk, and whether it's an efficient trade.

My argument is that 0.05 is arbitary, meaningless, and makes it very easy for people to unintentionally cross the line. If the intention is to allow people to drink a little bit, but prevent people that excessively drinks to drive, then I think the current regulation is very poor in achieving this. It strips more freedom from the ordinary people than necassary, but doesn't necassarily prevent the wreckless drink and drivers from driving, as they don't give a sh_t regardless, and it doesn't bar out people who can't handle even 0.05 from driving either. At the same time it intimidates people who intends to stay under the limit anyways, especially when portable breathalyzers are known to be inaccurate and there have been cases of conviction without even doing a breathlyzer sample at all. Raising the penalty is going to reduce excessive drinking and driving by a little bit, but increase conviction massively. All it's going to do is allow the police to be much more intrusive, and much easier to power trip the ordinary citizens (even the ones who didn't even drink!), and tie up the court system even more. All these new regulation is just trying penalize ordinary people doing ordinary things.

If the real intention of all these is to improve safety, there are a lot more that they can do than just slap on a bigger penalty. Obviously those are going to require thinking and efforts. It's much easier to tighten up the laws and act as if the government have done something. At the very end of the day, it's all just politics and all just for show.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 15:17

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-17 15:41 編輯

I have mixed feelings on this issue.....

I am a casual drinker (I like my wines and occasional cock ...
大C姐發表於 2010-9-17 14:50

It's not just tax revenue. It's also alcohol sales revenue. Some might not even want to dine out because of this. I probably rather stay home more now to wine and dine when possible instead of risking it all driving out, having a drink, and have the breathlyzer fail on me saying i drank a lot more than I actually did. So what if our restaruant and bar industry start closing down and laying off? Who are we to blame now?

As I said in the long post, it's always a trade. Enjoyment, Convinience, Risk factor, Economy, etc and whether the trade is any efficient. To people that don't even touch the decanter at all obviously they'd say 'screw you'. What if you work as a sommiler? Which group of people do you favor more? There's no black and white and it's always a trade-off.

And yes, 50 clicks on Granville during the day time when there's cars going all directions and pedetrain all over the place, if you somehow manage 40 over that you should get a spanking for it. 50 clicks on Granville at night when you can barely find a car there? Assuming driving at 10/20 above the limit, it's not hard to unintentionally get to 40 above if you don't pay close attention to the speedo on downhill sections. And you get your car impounded for that?

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-9-17 16:10

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 16:25

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-17 16:43 編輯

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.

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-9-17 16:38

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 16:54

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-17 17:02 編輯

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.

作者: 大C姐 時間: 2010-9-17 18:25

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

作者: pkphilip 時間: 2010-9-17 18:28

Just zero tolerance is easier to enforce!!

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

Philip

作者: tofu 時間: 2010-9-17 18:38

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

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-17 20:28

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﹖

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 22:46

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 22:53

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.

作者: sheep 時間: 2010-9-17 22:54

maybe more than 40% discount?
mukmuk2 發表於 2010-9-17 14:12

43% max

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-17 23:21

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 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-17 20:28

You don't drink much, obviously you don't give a crap, but can't say you are very considerate to others that do drink, which in most DT restaurants almost everyone drinks a glass of wine or beer, etc at one point in their meal. Perhaps some education on how much is okay and how much is not will go a long way. On the CBC forum some says 3 drinks is below 0.05, some like pkphillip thinks even 1 drink is over 0.08. They like to change the rules of the game all the time, but doesn't even bother educating people so they won't go over the limit. I call BS.

Knight St is 80kph? Knight St bridge is, not Knight St. Check your facts before judging. Where people are screaming foul is the southbound downhill southern 3 lane each side section of the Knight St, just before getting onto the Knight St bridge. You don't even need to step on the throttle to reach 40 click over the limit there, and you won't even know you hit it if it's 4am at night with not even a soul in sight (other than the cop whose trying to nail you of course).

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q& ... de=&q=knight+st,+vancouver&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=50.157795,68.466797&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Knight+St,+Vancouver,+British+Columbia,+Canada&ll=49.213467,-123.077085&spn=0,0.002089&z=19&layer=c&cbll=49.213321,-123.07709&panoid=-j7GU7UXxHBBnaaJC04D-A&cbp=12,127.25,,0,16.09

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-18 16:46

You don't drink much, obviously you don't give a crap, but can't say you are very considerate to o ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-17 23:21

師兄我諗你需要冷靜少少！宜家唔係世界末日........

作者: mukmuk2 時間: 2010-9-18 19:58

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: blowfish 時間: 2010-9-18 23:09

a person had to be doing very well if over .08 and able to go 40 km above and not getting into accident.
usually folks after a few drinks would be under speed and weaving all over, can spot them miles away, very slow reaction anyways.

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-9-18 23:29

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闊無問題，但係唔會覺得停都要耐啲嘅咩？有咩突發事故都難停啲啦，都無咁多reaction time啦，係唔係？

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-19 01:14

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，係知道自己真係慢左好多好多。之後我都唔敢喇，我唔可以冇左個牌，更加唔想自己或者人地部車/人有事。

之前澳洲有一單野話個女人俾人告醉駕唔記得有冇出意外，佢用黎打官師既理由係冇公車去到佢屋企，好似俾佢打甩左。咁都得！咁大個人莫非唔知自己出去食飯會飲酒同飲幾多﹖之前撞死細路女個司機又話部車有事﹖呢個世界真係D人賴得就賴.....

唔理你飲幾多，飲左酒渣車就係飲左酒渣車，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。

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-20 15:37

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...

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-20 15:46

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.

作者: chobit 時間: 2010-9-20 15:48

You ride a motorcycle, and die, that's your own business, you DUI, that can means hurting others life, not not only your own.

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

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-20 15:57

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.

作者: chobit 時間: 2010-9-20 16:13

First, here is something to educate ourself on Blood Alcohol Content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content

Personally, I have never DUI. The max amount of alcohol I drive per dinner is never more than 1 glass of beer or wine, and that's usually for a long sitting dinner which last well over 2 hours, and 99% of the time, my wife would be the driver. That was one time I was at a party in downtown, and I had 2 drinks at the party with all my co-workers, since it's more than 1 drink, I decided to stayed in my cars for another 2hrs.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-20 16:24

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.

作者: 布小熊 時間: 2010-9-20 16:33

本帖最後由布小熊於 2010-9-20 16:34 編輯

I am confused with the discussion....
The 0.08 is always the "illegal" boundary, right? So pushing it to 0.05 is so bad now?
Or you are supportive to the Zero tolerance? That I have no problem with but it puts drunken chicken out of the menu then.

Personally, illegal is illegal and tougher penalty or not, I still don't want to be illegal.

作者: fibbi 時間: 2010-9-20 17:23

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

If everything is based on the worst cas ...
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-20 16:24

For the example of Marine Way near Boundary. Whether the speed limit is 50 (so driving 90 is considered excessive), or the legal speed is 70 so 90km doesn't make it excessive, either way to me, driving 90km there is too fast. Think about rainy winter, it's a curvy (not totally straight) road. What if braking cause a slip? Driving 90 is harder to handle emergency situation than 60 for sure. Emergency situation may not be only a person jumping out of the road, could be black ice, could be just some oil patch. Just never know. Also, there are older cars out there with poorer handling, it's better to be slower than faster IMO.

The other point is that the harm caused by speeding 40km/h in a school zone vs speeding over 40km/h on an empty road is greater yet penalty is the same. In your opinion it's not fair. That I would agree. So I guess in addition to excessive speeding, the person may have additional charge of dangerous driving and others. So the penalty won't be just excessive speeding alone.

I do agree the speeding limit currently needs to be updated. 99% people won't drive 50km so it's rather a concensus to drive 60km without problem. 65? I guess it's ok. 70? barely...80? I don't know, some road design may not work with higher speed. (e.g. merge lane, red light etc.)

Just my 0.0000002 cent.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-20 18:12

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
，你飲左之後就算隔左幾耐你俾人叫吹波仔都有咁既機會賴野﹖我之前收左工都會同同事o係公司吹水飲啤酒，但宜家真係唔會了，罰則高左的確係其中一個理由，對我係有阻嚇作用，但係我都唔想累人，特別係個細路女俾人車死同睇左HK幾單醉駕撞死人既case之後。

對於speeding，我相信好多人都知我鐘意渣快車。但係我對佢響你講果D 地方設既speed limit，我覺得唔過份。boundary落marine 50kph你想幾快呀﹖講真果段落斜的確係幾攞命，行50kph唔過份，同埋斜路底間唔中都捉車架啦，自己控制速度好應該。宜家好多人50k都行60+，咁如果佢set speed limit去
70kph，D人咪行成80-90﹖marine 行50/knight bridge行80 之類亦都唔過份，早多三五年或者仲可以話離譜既﹖不過呢一兩年我成日渣車4圍走，覺得無論日頭夜晚都多左好多車，就唔覺得真係咁差，反正都快唔得去邊架啦！﹖

出街或者返工預鬆D時間，就唔使渣咁快啦！萬一真係真係有D咩天塌落黎人命關天既急事，渣快左，俾人捉都冇辦法，鬼叫真係emergency﹖

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-21 11:21

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-21 11:33 編輯

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-21 11:22

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-21 11:35 編輯

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?

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-21 11:26

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-21 11:28

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.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-21 21:07

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.
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-21 11:26

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，唔同車種而定。當然，天氣同路面情況十分之壞既情況下行得比speed limit慢，呢一個係common sense，但唔知你有冇留意到就係宜家有一個愈來愈大既問題係D人渣車唔理咩種族都好，都愈來愈冇common sense。你都識講most people are reasonable drivers，但問題係好多時都係一小撮冇common sense既不負責任駕駛者o係出面害人害己。好似robbery/sex assault果D咁，有良知/common sense既人都知唔應該做，但硬係有班人走去做架喎﹖

你部車既condition好D，你自己技術好D，當然有時會覺得點解D speed limit set得咁低，就算有突發事件你都避到，但唔係人人/人人部車都可以，意外就係咁黎。speed limit/法例係做俾你去遵守，HK同呢度都有呢D咁既反酒後駕駛/反超速/反非法賽車既罰則同宣傳架﹖但係人地o係度一味宣傳/同罰人一件事，出面D人有冇吸收到/得到教訓呢﹖好多時冇囉！我聽news1130有D 人依然都仲話佢地會飲酒渣車，HK好多人俾人捉完街飛拖完去驗車釘埋牌轉個頭都仲係出去飛到甩轆既，你可以點﹖要住o係度但又唔滿意既話可以唔跟架冇人阻你，睇你負唔負擔得起個後果囉(呢句野對於男人黎講好多方面都apply到LOL)。

大佬，某D野人地叫你唔好，你係都要做，人地冇可能唔捉你唔罰你架喎。你守法，人地想罰你黎搶你荷包D錢都都唔成功啦。政治方面攞唔攞著數，有咩所謂姐度度都係咁架啦﹖都係果句，你冇做錯驚咩先﹖

真係好簡單，唔好諗到咁複雜。

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-22 12:17

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-22 12:25 編輯

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.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-22 12:52

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.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-22 19:52

本帖最後由 spoonek4 於 2010-9-22 20:07 編輯

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'?
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-22 12:17

你再咀嚼一下我既論點先.......anyway唔好將D野諗得咁複雜囉真係！我諗我俾人叫吹波波但係遇著部機壞既機會仲細過中649 既.....唔好講頭獎，二/三獎﹖我做份工成日要渣車4圍去，個license對於我黎講算緊要喇卦﹖冇左個牌我都好大獲，但係我真係唔擔心喎LOL！....

點解俾我諗到個不知情既情況下衰十一既case...頂LOL!

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-22 22:23

本帖最後由 BiscottiGelato 於 2010-9-22 22:25 編輯

你再咀嚼一下我既論點先.......anyway唔好將D野諗得咁複雜囉真係！我諗我俾人叫吹波波但係遇著部機壞既機 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-22 19:52

The machines are very crappy ga... Obviously it doesn't actually detect alcohol as in the ethanol directly. The detection is indirect, so it can mistake a lot of other things as ethanol. How they used to go around it is to do remeasurement with a more accurate, but less mobile machine at the police station before putting you under serious hurt. Or for the most accurate method, a blood test. With the new legislation, I don't think they need to do that anymore. To make matter worse, it's much easier to have an artificial high reading than an artificial low one. That's why it used to be very easy to fight a DUI charge unless they do a blood test on you right after. Now the cops can go above the court... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer#Common_sources_of_error

Saw an interesting link on speed trap on MSN front page (yes I left the IE front page and never changed it).

Worst cities to get nabbed for speeding
http://autos.ca.msn.com/editors- ... tid=25669147&page=2

Cited Boundary near Marine as one of them, and captioned
"Boundary Rd. has a 10 per cent grade at the south end of the drive. Cops hide and operate laser near the bus stop at the bottom of the hill near S.E. Marine Dr. To maintain a speed of 50 km/h (30 mph) continuous braking and/or lower gearing is required. Engine braking is prohibited. This is an unfair trap. Shame on the Vancouver cops for this trap."

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-22 23:16

落果條大斜你會唔會踩多兩腳brake/拖波丫咁﹖佢地主要係驚D 貨櫃車嘈住民居囉我覺得，但我未見過人o係果度俾人捉用engine brake LOL。明知果度成日捉車既你又會唔會渣快先﹖除非你真係sunday driver得咁緊要就真係幫你唔到！

作者: cremedelacreme 時間: 2010-9-23 00:01

From now on, when I go out dinner with my hubby, either he drinks, and I drive home. Or we both don't drink! Although, it sounds very inconvenient, but then it is for the sake of everyone's safety.

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-23 11:25

落果條大斜你會唔會踩多兩腳brake/拖波丫咁﹖佢地主要係驚D 貨櫃車嘈住民居囉我覺得，但我未見過人o係果度 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-22 23:16

為捉車而慢 vs 為 safety 而慢, 兩回事. 事實係 the limit is too low, hence they always set trap there to cash grab. In fact, I think it's so dangerous to set a speed trap on that particularly down hill section consider how they like to jump in front of traffic, causing a lot of panic brakes. Even if they don't jump out of traffic, people will do sudden slow down when they spot the cops. You know very well that 90% of the people there dont' drive 50km/hr, the speed differential causes a lot more danger than what used to be a uniform 7/80 down the hill that everybody does.

Anyways, if you really like to drive 50km/hr there every time, good for you. I applaud you if you follows the law to the dot and is happy the way things are. I personally is a lot more opinionated in regards to legislations and policy, and I believe that's what a democratic system is about.

With that many posts, I think any people who put in a good effort to understand my viewpoint would've understood my point already. Whether they agree with it or not, due to valid reasons or just 為反對而反對 it's up to the individual and I have no more to add. Out~

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-23 14:19

touch wood....以好似我咁飛仔既人渣咁耐車仲要成日o係條路上面一張speeding ticket都未收過.......

作者: BiscottiGelato 時間: 2010-9-23 23:16

touch wood....以好似我咁飛仔既人渣咁耐車仲要成日o係條路上面一張speeding ticket都未收過....... ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-23 14:19

Same thing. I never robbed anyone, nor do i encourage it, in fact i despise it. Doesn't mean that I'll support them if they decide to impose death penalty for robbery convictions.

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2010-9-23 23:23

Doesn't mean that I'll support them if they decide to impose death penalty for robbery convictions.
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-23 23:16

hahahahha.......

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)