NITEALB

Whats more dangerous??? i was having this debate today with a police officer (also my patient). It started off with us talking about the current street racing laws and how they are being challenged and called unconstitutional. i suggested that alcohol consumption was worse for driving than actual speeding. she insisted that if she's had a couple of beers over lunch that she at less risk of causing an accident in her suv than i am driving at 160km/h on the highway sober. The point i'm trying to make (if anyone cares) is that if i drive at 160 i lose my license and all that crap and if u have a couple of drinks (albeit under the limit) its ok. I dont care what anyone says but any amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive and that is surely more significant than 50 over the limit when dealing with car crashes. why is it that we can legally impair our physical ability to drive (alcohol, medications etc) but are not allowed to drive at 100mph in cars designed specifically to do at least that. please enlighten me...

pongobaz

I agree with you. Sounds like that officer is drinking the Fantino Koolaid.

Torontoworker

She needs to do a little more reading I would say! 10 minutes on google and she would have her answer.

Maybe she meant drunk driving at 160kph??

Zookie

wow!!! she said that?

AllanJ

...'cause two beers won't do much.

However, at 50km/h over (from her perspective - 50km/h faster than other cars), the speed differential would be too high for many drivers. Idiots who don't use their mirrors, turn signals, etc will do that in front of a car going 50 km/h faster than them and you'll have a nifty high speed accident for your local medical professionals to deal with.

JimV8

The two beers thing require clarification. If it was a two hour lunch with a couple of short ones spaced an hour apart I'd say she was right. On the other hand if it was a short grab for a liquid lunch with two large in a half hour I'd say she was drunk. Also if she was petit she would be wrecked. On the other hand driving at 160 kms in the Porsche would be quite safe as long as it wasn't on the QEW on a Sunday afternoon driving into the sun. The Q on Sunday afternoons is a mess with inattentive drivers mixed in with volumes of folk who only drive on Sunday. That road is unsafe at 100. The devil, as they say is in the details.

Zookie

on Mythbusters, they tested consuming "Beer" VS "Beer & Alcahol"... They came to a conclusion that you are more drunk with just "Beer"

jumper5836

Alcohol effects people differently. In my case I can drink over the limit and I do not suffer adverse effects that impair my driving. In fact, 2 drinks improve my driving when driving at very high speeds at the edge because I relax more.
Now add 4 more beers and reaction times slightly reduce but If you record my reactions times and compare that to the Norm. You'll find I am still above the reaction times of the norm.
The current limit is set to a very low limit and they are basing all their research from average to lower then average people among all ages.

pongobaz

I'm a lightweight in the drinking dept! 2 beers within an hour and I can barely speak coherently, never mind drive!

jumper5836

Yes exactly my point. Now I am sure you knew a couple 100 lbs ladies in your past that could drink most of the guys under the table as well.
Every body has a different reaction to alcohol and our rules are based off the the lowest common denominator. They shouldn't apply them to all but they do.
It the same reason why the speed limits are set so low. The majority of people drive above the speed limit and drive at the speed that their comfortable with. While you got the scared or disabled drivers out there driving at the speed limit.

Torontoworker

Then there is the old guy on multi groups of drugs with gosh knows what interactions, less then 20/20 eyesight and a reaction time of a four year old and he's out there on the 401 at 8:00AM on a Friday... Factor him in with a kid in his slammed 1985 Civic going in and out of lanes at 20-40k over the limit.

Thats why I have an issue with MADD Canada. There are MORE people killed on our roads from *other* issues then JUST drinking and driving. Yet if you buy into their 'mantra' all will be well if we could have 100% protection from drunks. Simple BS and they know it. Squeaky wheel and all that funding and pay checks an all that...

If we could just get people to wear seatbelts that would reduce death's by half and lower the type of trama that we see when people don't wear a belt and hit solid stuff or get flung out of the car.

Inattention is the single greatest enemy of all drivers. More people get killed in 50km and under zones on city streets then any other 400 series highway in the Province. The OPP and Fantino fixate on speed yet on every long weekend in the Province this past year there were more death's from shootings and crashes in intersections then anything else. In fact for the five long weekends in 2009 we have had more people die from boating incidents and drownings then crashes on the 400 series from "highspeed".

It has everything to do with funding the OPP and creating an 'image' that things are 'out of control' on the highways - when they are not.

Zookie

speaking of lightweight, anyone seen these? http://www.worldcarfans.com/10911232...tarter-battery

NITEALB

so we all agree, all speed limits should be abolished on 400 series highways and its mandatory to have at least one drink before driving and if its sunday - smoke a joint!

JimV8

Works for me.

Jake Ok

Bottom line....drive responsibly with moderation on consumption and speed.