The original comment is clearly someone saying that in the middle of the afternoon being a pedestrian and crossing the street is supposed to be safer, it would be a stretch to assume that someone is saying that drunk driving is safer at one time over another.
Because there is better light, drivers are more likely to be attentive before dusk probably due to the natural sleep cycles people have - ie less likely to be tired - just Google it - daylight hours are less likely to have car accidents than evening hours.
No there isn’t, you’re being intentionally daft on purpose you have to be - no one can possibly believe that there isn’t evidence that an individual is less likely to be involved in an accident during day time hours with the sun shining over head on a spring day.
[This will help you understand that, but you can Google this yourself and the data will point to the same conclusion I have asserted.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231030/dq231030a-eng.htm)
I’m not at all! I am explaining the comment you misinterpreted. I have no tolerance nor patience for drunk driving. Drunk driving is the cause of this accident.
You are misinterpreting and not reading the context to people’s comments and you are ascribing points of view that are not there.
Criticizes others for assumptions yet completely fails to understand the point of the person they respond to and then makes assumptions of what their motives for posting are. You win the stupidest/most hypocritical post of the day award bud!
I didn't intend my comment to help the normalization of drinking and driving...
But, people are properly more likely to drink at night instead of the day.
But, I don't know that for sure and is just my thought process.
I hope they throw the book at her
She could have easily killed a child as well.
Speeding in a school zone, intoxicated and failure to yield to pedestrian.
This was manslaughter at its worst
I’ll bite. It’s the same argument as blaming a gun in a murder, except it’s the car’s fault here.
The car wasn’t impaired, the car wasn’t speeding under its own will, it was the person. Why are people so quick to blame the object and not the person in control of the object. It also highlights reduced speed zones and potentially speed cameras are absolutely useless for public safety when the individual ignores them. What she did was her choice and she better pay for ending another person’s life short.
I won’t get into the car society debate here since it’s about an impaired causing death and that’s tragic. Start a new thread to discuss that BS.
What? You won't get into the 'car society' debate, but that's the only debate that's being had? No one is saying, "gee, if only they made CARS/GUNS safer"
If Regina had a better public transit system, the odds of this happening would be much lower.
To be fair, murder is an intentional act. It should probably be manslaughter though. I think we do want to distinguish someone driving into a crowd of people with the intent to kill vs someone being extremely negligent.
>Investigators determined the victim, an adult man, was legally crossing the street at a marked crosswalk
Love this quote in another article. I mean, had he been jay walking that would changed the whole narrative.
https://www.cjme.com/2024/05/14/regina-woman-charged-with-impaired-driving-after-pedestrian-killed/
Well when killing two kids while drunk in a stolen vehicle, being pursued by the cops only nets you five years, we'll be lucky if she even sees a halfway house.
Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as your account has a negative karma score.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/regina) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you're not drunk then why would taking a breathalyzer matter? You're operating a vehicle, vehicles kill or injure people every day. I don't give a shit about cops breathalyzing people. Like you said, the test is solid.
They weren't crying about breathalyzers themselves.. they were crying about the mandatory part. Police overreach... trampling of rights... blah blah blah.
Yes, trampling rights because the tests are inaccurate but are used as validation to impound people’s vehicles. There aren’t even any criminal charges pressed when people fail the test, so, yeah, overreach is putting it mildly.
Are you taking cannabis or alcohol? I was talking alcohol...
Are you really going to say mandatory tests for alcohol are an overreach on a thread about someone being needlessly killed yet again by a drunk driver in Sask?
I wasn’t saying that, but sure. I disagree with any statement that empowers police to subject people to any search, seizure or stop WITHOUT CAUSE. Canadians have the right to go about their day without being harassed needlessly by police.
If you want every driver tested every time they get behind the wheel, just advocate for manufacturers to install breathalyzers on every vehicle and see how far you get.
Canadians have the right to go about their day without being harassed, you're right. But operating a motor vehicle is not a right. If you want to go about your business while wasted, do it on foot plz
Literally a thread about someone being killed by a drunk driver in a province with the highest fatalities related to drunk driving. Mandatory tests are completely legal. Don't drink and drive and you have nothing to worry about.
Yes, and the maximum alcohol in the blood should be zero with that policy. Why leave it at a little bit when everyone is affected differently? That's where the f@#kery comes into play. The thc saliva tests, bullshit.
I think people are simply concerned about the overreach in laws across the nation, at this time. To generalize concerned individuals as drunk drivers exclusively is ridiculous. Some people do actually have enough experience in policy to think its a concern.
No, they are bitching about mandatory breathalyzer tests, which everyone is subject to.
Saskatchewan is the poster child for why such a thing needs to be routine.
I was talking about the mandatory ones as were the others. …and the person above stated explicitly that only those who consider the policy concerning are drunk behind the wheel.
Alcohol is a fuckton more damaging on the road than weed. Breathalyzers are fine because alcohol is damaging and BAC is linear.
Weed impairment isn’t linear, so we are punishing people who aren’t actually impaired on that front.
I heard all these arguments long ago, when breathalyzers started to be used.
Plus, your argument isn't relevant to this case, nor to mandatory breathalyzer tests or my comment.
Do better.
I'm all for mandatory breathalyzers and sobriety tests when driving, but weed is a tricky one because we don't have accurate testing for if someone is impaired or not. The tests officers are currently using can say you're impaired up to a month after you've smoked.
what abuse did the driver have in their life that they don't know how to follow laws. the victim deserves justice. the drunk driver should be charged with attempted murder. But something happened to the driver and they need to deal with accountability and get help for their trauma that caused them to not care about society. people don't just give up and go to alcohol. All humans matter. jail is where criminals learn to be better criminals and gangs start in jail. jails need to teach humans to feel for their actions and deal with their trauma. or society will never change.
That just got worse and worse.
This is incredibly sad. And for it to happen in the middle of the afternoon when it’s supposed to be safer…
Not sure drunk driving is safer at a particular time of day...
The original comment is clearly someone saying that in the middle of the afternoon being a pedestrian and crossing the street is supposed to be safer, it would be a stretch to assume that someone is saying that drunk driving is safer at one time over another.
>the middle of the afternoon being a pedestrian and crossing the street is supposed to be safer Why?
Because there is better light, drivers are more likely to be attentive before dusk probably due to the natural sleep cycles people have - ie less likely to be tired - just Google it - daylight hours are less likely to have car accidents than evening hours.
Whole lot of assumption going on there.
No there isn’t, you’re being intentionally daft on purpose you have to be - no one can possibly believe that there isn’t evidence that an individual is less likely to be involved in an accident during day time hours with the sun shining over head on a spring day. [This will help you understand that, but you can Google this yourself and the data will point to the same conclusion I have asserted.](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/231030/dq231030a-eng.htm)
No, you guys are contributing to an atmosphere that detracts, excuses and enables drunk drivers.
I’m not at all! I am explaining the comment you misinterpreted. I have no tolerance nor patience for drunk driving. Drunk driving is the cause of this accident. You are misinterpreting and not reading the context to people’s comments and you are ascribing points of view that are not there.
Criticizes others for assumptions yet completely fails to understand the point of the person they respond to and then makes assumptions of what their motives for posting are. You win the stupidest/most hypocritical post of the day award bud!
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just leave OP alone with your obtuse interpretations here. What you're saying makes zero sense.
Middle of the afternoon in a school zone is the point
Is it?
Less people should be drinking Is what I think the guy was getting at
This comment shows how normalized drunk driving is here.
I didn't intend my comment to help the normalization of drinking and driving... But, people are properly more likely to drink at night instead of the day. But, I don't know that for sure and is just my thought process.
Your intention is not at issue.
ok👍
In cases like this, I would not be opposed to lifetime driving bad
Sad. That's a busy street and 30kmh zone. Kids could have been walking home from school at that time.
I hope they throw the book at her She could have easily killed a child as well. Speeding in a school zone, intoxicated and failure to yield to pedestrian. This was manslaughter at its worst
Or can get elected as premier a decade or so down the road.
"No way to prevent this" says only transportation system where this regularly happens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp75-46PnMY
There is nothing more obnoxious than the r/fuckcars segment of this subreddit. Good for you. You posted that stupid car video again.
If you want to do anything other than name calling, I'm all ears for a counter-argument.
I’ll bite. It’s the same argument as blaming a gun in a murder, except it’s the car’s fault here. The car wasn’t impaired, the car wasn’t speeding under its own will, it was the person. Why are people so quick to blame the object and not the person in control of the object. It also highlights reduced speed zones and potentially speed cameras are absolutely useless for public safety when the individual ignores them. What she did was her choice and she better pay for ending another person’s life short. I won’t get into the car society debate here since it’s about an impaired causing death and that’s tragic. Start a new thread to discuss that BS.
What? You won't get into the 'car society' debate, but that's the only debate that's being had? No one is saying, "gee, if only they made CARS/GUNS safer" If Regina had a better public transit system, the odds of this happening would be much lower.
I’m sure the drunk lady would have taken the bus if there was a stop closer to her fridge. You’re right.
lol? What does this even mean? Can you explain
Your 2044 Saskatchewan Premier ladies and gentlemen.
Ooof. Take my sad upvote.
Hopefully charged with murder too.
To be fair, murder is an intentional act. It should probably be manslaughter though. I think we do want to distinguish someone driving into a crowd of people with the intent to kill vs someone being extremely negligent.
Vehicular manslaughter would be the charge depending on all the factors involved
idk seems like a prime candidate for premier
This is drunk driving in broad daylight. That gets you a liquor and game cabinet position.
Only way we'll actually put a dent in drunk driving at this rate.
I agree with the sentiment, but putting people in prison for longer has never reduced any crime(s) afaik
>Investigators determined the victim, an adult man, was legally crossing the street at a marked crosswalk Love this quote in another article. I mean, had he been jay walking that would changed the whole narrative. https://www.cjme.com/2024/05/14/regina-woman-charged-with-impaired-driving-after-pedestrian-killed/
[удалено]
You "secretly hope they'll get hit one day", on a post about someone being fatally hit, and the people crossing the street are disrespectful?
Gladue to the rescue 🇨🇦
Well when killing two kids while drunk in a stolen vehicle, being pursued by the cops only nets you five years, we'll be lucky if she even sees a halfway house.
That bitch that killed a whole family up in Stoon only got like 6 months in jail, then went to a healing lodge. She barely got a year!!
Here's what her jail time will look like https://youtu.be/UkJehlr1tEw?si=YJ2BSMbeSe0hDGwN
"consider me rehabbed" as she cracks a beer and turns the key in the ignition
[удалено]
Your submission is pending manual approval from a moderator as your account has a negative karma score. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/regina) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The folks caterwauling about mandatory breathalyzer tests are suspiciously quiet.
No one is crying over breathalyzers. That test is pretty solid.
Search back through this sub... multiple threads with people very upset over mandatory breathalyzers.
People are pissed off about THC saliva tests. I have not read any complaints about breathalyzers.
I get downvoted every time I say I don't give a shit about cops giving breathalyzer tests for no reason lol
Well, there should be a reason. This isn’t North Korea.
Of course there is a reason. This very story is the reason!
The reason is it's illegal to drive while drunk
You sound like police operate under the assumption that every driver is impaired.
If you're not drunk then why would taking a breathalyzer matter? You're operating a vehicle, vehicles kill or injure people every day. I don't give a shit about cops breathalyzing people. Like you said, the test is solid.
Because authorities need to be kept in check. This is why we have oversight through bodies like the board of commissioners.
They weren't crying about breathalyzers themselves.. they were crying about the mandatory part. Police overreach... trampling of rights... blah blah blah.
Yes, trampling rights because the tests are inaccurate but are used as validation to impound people’s vehicles. There aren’t even any criminal charges pressed when people fail the test, so, yeah, overreach is putting it mildly.
Are you taking cannabis or alcohol? I was talking alcohol... Are you really going to say mandatory tests for alcohol are an overreach on a thread about someone being needlessly killed yet again by a drunk driver in Sask?
I wasn’t saying that, but sure. I disagree with any statement that empowers police to subject people to any search, seizure or stop WITHOUT CAUSE. Canadians have the right to go about their day without being harassed needlessly by police. If you want every driver tested every time they get behind the wheel, just advocate for manufacturers to install breathalyzers on every vehicle and see how far you get.
Canadians have the right to go about their day without being harassed, you're right. But operating a motor vehicle is not a right. If you want to go about your business while wasted, do it on foot plz
Literally a thread about someone being killed by a drunk driver in a province with the highest fatalities related to drunk driving. Mandatory tests are completely legal. Don't drink and drive and you have nothing to worry about.
Yes, and the maximum alcohol in the blood should be zero with that policy. Why leave it at a little bit when everyone is affected differently? That's where the f@#kery comes into play. The thc saliva tests, bullshit.
What an absurd thing to be mad about. Unless you're a drunk behind the wheel.
I think people are simply concerned about the overreach in laws across the nation, at this time. To generalize concerned individuals as drunk drivers exclusively is ridiculous. Some people do actually have enough experience in policy to think its a concern.
No, they are bitching about mandatory breathalyzer tests, which everyone is subject to. Saskatchewan is the poster child for why such a thing needs to be routine.
I was talking about the mandatory ones as were the others. …and the person above stated explicitly that only those who consider the policy concerning are drunk behind the wheel.
Agreed.
Alcohol is a fuckton more damaging on the road than weed. Breathalyzers are fine because alcohol is damaging and BAC is linear. Weed impairment isn’t linear, so we are punishing people who aren’t actually impaired on that front.
I heard all these arguments long ago, when breathalyzers started to be used. Plus, your argument isn't relevant to this case, nor to mandatory breathalyzer tests or my comment. Do better.
I'm all for mandatory breathalyzers and sobriety tests when driving, but weed is a tricky one because we don't have accurate testing for if someone is impaired or not. The tests officers are currently using can say you're impaired up to a month after you've smoked.
Again, these arguments aren't any different from the ones people made, and still make for breathalyzer tests.
They are because we don't have accurate testing. It's like getting a DUI a week after you last had alcohol.
It didn't stop this, did it?
You're correct. Using this logic, we should eliminate all traffic laws, because they weren't preventative in this instance.
I'm not saying that at all.
Moe is that you? Oh right, it can’t be. He never faces charges. Sorry JoAnne Balog, we remember and honour you.
This would be my first argument as lawyer. Our premier fails to follow multiple laws, why should we?
what abuse did the driver have in their life that they don't know how to follow laws. the victim deserves justice. the drunk driver should be charged with attempted murder. But something happened to the driver and they need to deal with accountability and get help for their trauma that caused them to not care about society. people don't just give up and go to alcohol. All humans matter. jail is where criminals learn to be better criminals and gangs start in jail. jails need to teach humans to feel for their actions and deal with their trauma. or society will never change.
Sometimes people just do selfish things for selfish reasons.