On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 02:42, Robert Rolf wrote:
> I would have no problem with driving the posted speed limit rather
> that 15mph above, as most traffic does.
> I have no problem with NOT driving drunk. (I don't drink, period).
> 
> Zero tolerance for drunk driving seemed to work quite well in
> Venezuela (circa 1980). If you drove drunk, and cause an accident,
> the soldiers patrolling the streets executed you on the spot.
> There are NO repeat offenders, and first time DWI is nearly
> non existent. The severe deterrent seemed to work well enough there.
> 
> Zero tolerance for DWI (driving while intoxicated) with mandatory
> jail time would go a LONG way to reducing the current carnage.

Actually I think the best solution is simply to reduce the legal limit
to zero. Why we tolerate ANY level of alcohol in the blood simply
doesn't make sense to me.

Many people have NO CLUE how many drinks comprise the "legal limit",
which dramatically increases the number of drunk driving occurrences
because people simply "didn't know" they were over the limit. On top of
that the limit isn't even a constant, it depends on person, physical
activity, time, heck even genetics.

> An protester who pied our premier just got sentenced to
> 30 days in jail for assault. Earlier this month a woman
> who had a history of drunk driving killed someone by going
> the wrong way down a one way highway. She was sentenced to
> one year probation. e.g. NO JAIL TIME. Where is the justice in that?
> Where is the message that driving drunk will have severe consequences?

Yup, but then many sentences in Canada are a joke these days. Some
people consider the small amount of jail time they get "the cost of
doing business", what kind of deterrent is that?.



-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist