Probably.

I think to many people are being killed by drunk drivers, and it is all because laws are not being put into affect by officers and the law. I think if drunk drivers knew that if they were caught driving drunk they would never get to drive again, it would probably change there mind about driving.

I guess it depends on which jurisdiction you live in. Here in British Columbia, where incidentally we call it "drunk" driving, they have all kinds of programs in place, I don't think they could really upgrade it much more without going a little over board.

In Ontario we probobly have much the same things in place as they do in BC. Drunk Driving might be a federal ofence in Canada. I'm not quite shere.

Yes and speeding too!

Anyone caught driving when drunk receives an automatic 10 year ban and 1 month in prison.

Anyone caught speeding twice in 1 year receives a 5 year ban and 2 weeks in prison.

There, I bet you don't drive as fast now!!

yes. it really pisses me off when i see people driving a martini down the middle of the road. who do they think they are anyway?

Nah.

Not a question for me.

'Drink driving'? If someone had to play on a video driving simulator with an iris scan ID every two hours to prove their ability to drive, we wouldn't have anyone tweaked on the road. Cars have computer diagrahms for the seat belt system. A response calibration ignition system seems pretty basic.

Yes, but I have no suggestions right now.

My understanding is that Brits say "drink driving" while Yanks says "drunk driving". Can any Brits confirm this? What about Canada?

Honestly, I dont view it as that big of a problem. I think people are way too paranoid about personal safety.

This discussion came up here a little while ago... there was a big argument about the meaning of the phrase, and while I can't remember what "drunk driving" means I assume it means just what it describes - driving when drunk. Which is not what drink driving means - it means driving having imbibed alcohol, but not necessarily being drunk. Certainly in Australia "drink driving" is a standard (and very often used) phrase.

"Drunk" in the phrase "drunk driving" doesn't actually mean you have to be sloshed, either. It means that your blood alcohol content is over a certain (fairly small) percent, which is considered to impair your ability to drive. In typical American puritan fashion, this is deemed "drunk." While "drunk driving" is a common term, "Don't drink and drive" is a popular slogan as well.

Hmmm... ok, it possibly means much the same thing then. Though I've always thought "drink driving" could be *any* amount of alcohol, not necessarily over the legal limit as the explanation text above says. The popular slogan, as used in the TAC advertising campaign, here was always "If you drink then drive, you're a bloody idiot". I've always liked the double entendre of that slogan, though I don't know whether or not it was intentional.

You know, I never noticed the double entendre in that until you pointed it out....

Drunk driving in the US practically means drink driving. Two beers will put you at the legal limit.
As for it being a problem, Years ago I worked at a drive through restaurant, and we all agreed, by 1am 9 out of ten 10 drive through customers were sloshed.

Drink driving?!? It's druuuuunk driving isn't it?

Drunk Drivers are every bit as dangerous to us as serial killers, and should be treated the same.

that's absurd

oh, well that's quite different. Though, I have to say that I think "drink driving" is a pretty useless phrase in that case. If I have a sip of wine and drive home, I'm "drink driving" - but who cares? While if I drink a bottle of Vodka and drive home I'm also "drink driving", but it's very different.
Of course, Americans (not sure about Canada) do spend a lot of time quibbling over the definition of "drunk".

I don't think it's a useless phrase - someone who has two or three drinks and then drives is not going to be plastered, but their driving ability is going to be worsened, and so we have a phrase for it. People drinking a whole bottle of vodka and driving are hopefully few enough in number that we can use much more descriptive phrases like "that fudgeer who drank himself into a stupor and got behind the wheel" And though I said 'any' I shouldn't have really When I think about it it's not *any* amount when I've heard it used (or use it myself) - it's any amount that could cause an impairment of driving. So one sip wouldn't count, but in some cases one glass might. My point was that you don't have to be over the legal limit, but I guess it does have to have taken an effect on you... and it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a phrase that describes something negative without providing a degree.

what more can really be done? are they going to put breathalizers in the cars so they won't start unless you have a clean level?

They were seriously considering that 2 decades ago. and I've heard it is an available option, used by some to keep their driving privelages..

KR: that would lead to an interesting prank... set up a trap that dumps a beer on the driver's seat when they open the door, and they can't leave until it airs out.

Ooo... if they put them in police cars you could use it to simplify your getaway after a robbery.

If they can't see a beer rigged to the top of their car, they still shouldn't be driving. And cops don't drive with the windows open. If I were making a premeditated escape I would have a pinpoint laser to puncture a tire, halon to stop the pursuants combustion, or a uhf transmitter to detonate their air-bag. I have to be careful talking like this. Once I told our stores asst. mgr. how to program the registers for embezzling (similarly joking) and found out years later that he got caught having done it over a three year period.

Run them off the road! On the road, it's survival of the quickest!! >

you need to read you National Highway report for where ever your at. Speed DOES NOT kill nor cause accidents.

I see a very early death in your future.

I will maintain that at a blood alcohol level of .10, the typical person can operate a vehicle safely (although obviously not as safely as they could with a .0, but who cares?). It is no more dangerous to drive with a .10 than it is to drive in the rain.

As a matter of fact, I can even contend that states in which a BAL of .08 is enforced, more accidents are caused.

Joe is at the bar at 1:00 a.m. He has had 2 drinks and is over the limit of .08 (normally he wouldnt give a crap, but he got arrested for dui 2 years ago, and is now paranoid.)

Situation 1: He calls his wife at home, who is sleeping, to come pick him up. His wife (who is tired, and just woke up), walks out to the car, yawns a few times, and puts the key in the ignition. She drives down to the bar to pick joe up, then back home. The next morning, joes car is parked in front of the bar still (hopefully), so she must drive joe down to his car, and then back home. TOTAL trips to or from bar: 5. 2 of which were taken by a very tired driver.

Situation 2: Joe and his 2 beers worth of alcohol decide to drive home. Joe arrives home without incident. Total trips to and from bar: 1 (made by a driver with a .08).

Situation 3: Joe decides to drive home, gets stopped at a dui checkpoint. 3 court dates later his license is suspended. Now his wife must drive him everywhere. Total car trips over next 6 months: twice as many as usual. (wife must drive to and from to and from joes work, joe would only need to drive to work, then from work).

Essentially, it is my belief that most people could pass the drivers license test with a bal of .08. So why not let them drive with bal .08 (if they can drive well enough to get a license at that level)? In fact, I believe that many people could pass the driving test at the .20 range.

Wouldnt that be a good study: "10 out of 11 "drunks" pass drivers license test". OR "Drivers licenses being issued to people who cannot drive as well as the average drunk! (data set 1: average drunk scores 96%, average 16 year old who is given license scores 92%)"

ok. That was about the stupidest defense of drinking a driving I've ever heard. You need to spend some time reading stats and studies. For instance, well over 50% of ALL motor accidents involve someone that has been drinking. That is ANY amount of alcohol. I don't know why ANY responsible driver would drink any amount considering those risks. Second, in case you haven't, you need to read up on psychology and learn what exactly is the impairing effect of alcohol. Reaction time is hardly the most impaired thing that one suffers from. Size and shape constance are the most severely impaired, which is why "public drunkeness" is a crime in most areas. In this state, they are a danger to themselves and anyone or anything around them. Serious disturbance of this perception is realized at only .15% BAC. At .2 BAC, most people have serious problems standing in one place, let alone operating a car!!

What rubbish!!

Are you saying speeding cars is not a reason for accidents!!?

Look at Princess Diana!!

The actual statistic is that 38.2% of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. Around a third of which include drunk pedestrians getting hit by cars. (The reason being that car on car impacts are unlikely to yield a fatality). There are obvious a and b is a result of c proofs for such things as typically driving conditions of drunks other than alcohol (It is usually night/really early morning, compared to the general population they are more likely to be tired, male, poor, high, suicidal, wreckless drivers even when not drunk, etc.)... Independent, non biased STUDIES, have determined that driving ability is not significantly impaired at a bal of .8. Most accident involving "Drunk" drivers include either A) a driver with a BAL so low as to have no physical effect on him. He is rather a "hungover" driver, who gets in an accident the next morning. B) A BAL over .15, a driver who is durnk, and driving with no paritcular destination, jkust being fast, rowdy, and stupid.