If they are familiar names and have been dealt with before them take away the drivers privleges, if you take them off the road then your job will be easier, their gone unless they steal or borrow a vehicle. Do not keep letting them back on the road, no matter if they need to drive for work, too bad. You tourselves are endangering the everyday lives of the citizens of PG. You talk big but don't carry through with actions.

That's the whole problem Robin, these repeat offenders have been ordered by the court not to drive, or may be waiting for their day in court, but they ignore court orders and get behind the wheel even if they don't have a licence. Police can't be expected to babysit every person who has been convicted, at some point, the offender has to take some responsibility don't you think?

If they have been arrested before for impaired driving, then they are subject to an automatic 14 days in jail for a second offence. Is this happening, or is the first offence being ignored.

Remember that the stats are for people actually caught in a road block. I would suspect that the numbers would quadruple when you consider all those who are driving but avoided the road blocks.

This problem is like prostitution, it has been around for a long time, and it seems there is no absolute solution.

Banning liquor sales would be a start, so that people would have to seek out a boot legger to get booze, however that is not going to happen, because booze sales are a huge income for the Government, along with Gambling.

The suggestion of responsibile drinking is a thinly diquised myth. One or two good drinks puts you over .08 and therefore subject to charges.

We push social affairs that serve liquor, have liquor oulets all over town, our Government is the biggest seller of the product, and then we arrest those who consume it.

Rather interesting dont you think??

Contrary to popular opinion it is not a normal function for humans to consume alcohol. Alcohol is in fact a poison, and can kill you if to much is ingested. So we are in fact producing a product that is detrimental to our health, and selling it to our Citizens to make a dollar.

"Contrary to popular opinion it is not a normal function for humans to consume alcohol."

That is an interesting statement. You made it. Can you prove it?

Hint. Think back to the time when humans first started to drink alcohol. Then think back to the meaning of the word "normal".

Palopu, according to the story "for the most part, the numbers reflect drivers who were spotted by regular patrols", so it would seem the majority were NOT picked up in a road block. The story doesn't say repeat convictions..... so there is no way of knowing if these repeaters have gone to court for the secondary (or third or fourth) offence, or if they perhaps served time and couldn't wait to get out of jail to have a drink then drive again.

Like some have said, drinking and driving will never completely be gone. The only feasible solution as far as I can see is escalating mandatory sentencing for every conviction, starting at a probation and a fine, progressing to loss of license, and ending with increasing amounts of jail time.

From the above information, the rate of drivers caught "under the influence" during 5 days of intensive road blocks is greater than the rates for drivers caught by regular patrol.

Those "counter attacks" then have the effect of increasing the number of drivers caught under the influence.

It stands to reason then, that as the counter attacks increase, the perceived number of people driving under the influence will also increase. So, we should then see an increase in the number of drivers caught next year.

What we really do not know, is whether the number of people driving under the influence will increase, stay the same, or drop. In other words the number could be the same and the risk of getting injured could be the same.

So, how do we know that the program actually changes the number of drivers under the inluence who are on the road.

The only major improvementt will come wiht the use of the device which will not allow someone who blows more than 0.08 to start the car. Anything else is virtually only a make work project for the RCMP and an indicator that we really are not interested in solving he problem.

Does anyone know why there were only half as many 90-day Administrative Prohibitions given as impaired charges? I thought that the 90-day suspension was automatic, whether or not the person was found guilty of the impaired charge.

Gus. Alcohol travels through the blood stream, to the brain and kills brain cells. Are you aware of any other kind of food, or drink, that humans consume that does the same thing. I think not. Alcohol is a poison, pure and simple.

Your contention reminds me of an alcohol convention when a speaker poured a glass of whisky and dropped a worm in it. The worm immediatly died. He then dropped another worm in a glass of water, and it swam around. The speaker asked the audience What does this tell you??? A drunk in the back of the room stood up and stated, **It tells you if you drink alcohol you will not get worms**

The road blocks are a reasonable good sample of drivers on the road at the time. While there might be some bias thrown in based on time and location of the road blocks, nothing is perfect.

The rate of drivers caught per day or per hour is not really a meaninful rate. The most meaningful rate is the rate of drivers caught to the number of vehicles going through the road block.

We would thus get a rate of 1 per 100, or 5.4 per 1,000 or whatever.

That rate should then be comapred to the same methodology as done at other times in addition to noting whether those periods were during holiday season, long weekends, or middle of the week.

The fact is, if the information presented here is the most meaningful information the RCMP can provide us with, they really are not in a position to say that the problem of impaired driving in the city is getting worse. They have no objective statistical methodology to fall back on to state their case.

Palopu ..... I know all that.

You continue to fail to read for content and are blinded by your other views of alcohol use/misuse.

So stick to the point I made. You can read it again. I need not repeat it!

"Are you aware of any other kind of food, or drink, that humans consume that does the same thing."

Your statement is an illogical one. I do not need to be aware of other foods being poisonous for there to be other foods that are poisonous. Hopefully you can understand the logic of that.

That being said, while Alcohol is a poison technically, calling alcohol or alcoholic beverages poisons is deceptive because most substances are poisons in large enough dosages. Even water can be toxic if drunk in extra large quantities.

Here is one organization's view of what foods are toxic.

http://www.detox.net.au/What-is-a-toxic-food.htm

That list includes:
1.White flour products
2.Soft drink
3.Meat
4.Salt
5.Refined sugar
6.Cooked or fried oil
7.Pasteurised milk

There are many other such lists of foods considered to be poisonous.

read about water intoxication here:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm

What makes me sick is the drivers out there with multiple impaired driving offences, have the money to hire lawyers to get them off, drive while prohibited anyways, and get their driver's license back! WTF? One strike your out! And companies should be following the route and canning those idiots. They don't drive, they can't work. Maybe then these idiots would get a clue.

I am aware of several people who have had numerous impaired charges, lost their licences and still continue to get behind the wheel. These chronic impaired drivers just don't get it. They should be thrown in jail and participate in a detox program. Perhaps once they sober up they will finally get the message, of course, there will always be the ones that will never get the message and they should remain incarcerated. At least that would keep them off the roads, but unfortunately, the prision system is already maxed out, it is a vicious circle.

I think, Gus that one assumption you make regarding drunk driver sampling is off base. Given the amount of publicity around road checks i would assume that most folks know ones chances of being caught are elevated and would thus be more cautious about driving drunk.
Of course the real flaw is the fact that more folk are drinking around the holidays than other times of the year. I say more people, but not necessarily more drinking on an individual basis. This would also skew the numbers. I think the premise that we have no idea how many people are out there drunk driving is accurate. Increases and decreases in statistics would have to be expressed as drunks caught per unit effort. Given the complexity of human behaviour i doubt that reliable numbers could be obtained.
As for drinking being normal, well yes, it does depend on the definition of normal. Since virtually every culture has found one way or another to get wasted I would suggest that booze is the norm. It is also true that alcohol is a poison but that makes it stupid, not abnormal. It might interest some to know that animals other than humans also enjoy the sauce when it is available (naturally) so drinking alcohol is not only normal but it is even natural!
I have a little experience with folk who drive with suspended licenses. They play the odds. Seeing as how i have not been actually stopped on the road in over 5 years I can see their point.

"Are you aware of any other kind of food, or drink, that humans consume that does the same thing."

It is called tobacco, the only legally sold product in Canada that DOES cause harm when used as intended.

Alcohol in moderate amounts does no more damage than holding ones breath for 30 seconds. only when it is consumed in excess for extended periods does it do any measurable damage.

Your first rant could and has been used to support or encourage decriminalization of d9-THC.

to justice prevails you said-I am aware of several people who have had numerous impaired charges, lost their licences and still continue to get behind the wheel.

You should be reporting these people. If these people hurt or kill someone how will you feel? Maybe you could have prevented the potential incident. It will be the same as it you pulled the trigger.

Tobacco is the same as alcohol. It is not natural. Just because people have used these products for centuries, it does not make them normal or natural.

When was the last time you heard of a Mother breast feeding her child with Alcohol or Tobacco. I suggest to you the child is fed milk, which would be natural and normal.

We can make all sorts of arguments to justify our behaviour, however at the end of the the day it is usually nothing more than rationalizations, which allows us to continue with our very unhealthy lifestyles.

If the majority of the offenders are driving home from a drinking establishment, the best way to resolve the drinking and driving problem is to make it inconvenient for patrons to drive. There should be no way for me to access a pub by car. Now, realistically that is impossible so the simple solution is a mandatory requirement that keys are confiscated at the door. To get them back, you are subjected to the blow test. Also, Serving It Right certification requires establishments to prevent drunkenness. This is where it should be enforced. There seems to be no enforcement taking place with regards to servers. It is my understanding that establishments can confiscate your keys if they believe you are intoxicated.

Kind of a oxymoron statement: "At liquor establishments, make sure people don't get drunk."
That is the only reason patrons attend those establishments, to become intoxicated to the desired level.

.08 = 1 drink

The problem is not the alcohol, the vehicles, or the police. The problem is wingnuts that go drinking without an exit strategy. I do like the comment about establishments not being accessible by private vehicle. Until they deploy LRT and and adequate public transit that operates when people are drinking (during the PM), we will have impaired drivers.

Consider for a moment our geography and climate. Would you "walk" to the pub in January? I think not.

All the prevention policies in the world (making bars inaccessible to vehicles, blah blah blah) are a lot of nanny state hooey! We ought to put all the bars on the top of mount robson so only lunatics can buy any and then they wont be able to get down. We cant sell booze at the arena because people will drive drunk. What a bunch of nonsense. Do you folks have so little faith in people other than yourselves that you feel they need to be protected from their own stupidity? Probably. Do you also believe you can actually achieve such protection? I can't see how you could. Give me one example where it works. Give me one good reason why everyone ought to be put out in order to prevent some morons from breaking the law?
Bars dont drive drunk, people do. Try holding people responsible for their own actions instead of making excuses for them. Punish them, HARD for screwing up. True, some people will never learn, but if so, why even consider them? Harsh punishments and a good chance of being caught will result in less people taking the chance. There will always be fools who still drink and drive, just like there will be fools who drink and make passes at the boss's wife. What should we do, ban office parties? Maybe make the boss's wife stay home ( I mean really, its got to be entrapment or something, having booze and her at the same site....).

Alcohol impairs judgement so it would be reasonable to appoint babysitters for personal and public safety.

Most impaireds think they are perfectly fine. So we can not leave it to the individual to determine their level of intoxication. There is no reason why an establishment could not have a shuttle service for the safety of their patrons. It would similar to the designated driver program.

One third of traffic accidents and fatalities in BC are caused by impaired drivers. The other two thirds are caused by unforseen circumstances, and driver error. Which we like to call **accidents**.

There is no specific law against stupid drivers, nor is there a huge stigma attached to speeders, or dangerous drivers, or incompetent drivers etc; etc; etc;.

So, once you solve the problem of the impaired driver, then you can turn you attention to the other two thirds that are also dangerous, and killing people, and solve that problem.

stepping over dollars to pick up dimes.
Is that what you said palopu?

The obvious solution is to mandate breath sample interlocks on all motorized vehicles. Trucks, cars, buses, maybe even boats, certainly airplanes. Having to blow alcohol free breath into a tube in your car for it to start would filter out a lot of the impaired drivers. The ones who can figure out how to bypass an interlock are smart enough (I hope) to plan ahead when going to consume the joy juice.
The technology has been around for some years. I never like to see more rules and laws and limits placed on the innocent to protect us from the guilty, but the impaired driving problem is not going away.
metalman.

link to breathalyzer ignition interlocks
www.acs-corp.com
metalman.