It's quite shocking that a responsible Parliament would accept some of the provisions of the revised Breathalyser Bill, especially the "three strikes and you're out" rule.
According to the bill first time convictions carry a fine of $5,000 up from $2000 and it's double that - $10,000 from $4000 - for a second offence. The third conviction brings permanent disqualification.
But what about the disastrous effects of the actions of these drunk drivers? This is not a move to get tough on drunk drivers. It sounds more like somebody has found a way to fatten the treasury, considering that drunk driving is so common in Trinidad and Tobago.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the way our nation tolerates alcohol and that's where the government should be putting its energy. Drunk driving doesn't begin in the car. It starts somewhere else and the laws of the nation need to address this defect in our social behaviour.
Anybody in Trinidad and Tobago can walk into a grocery and buy any amount of alcohol. Even worse you can pick up your supplies at the gas station while filling up. We seem to take pride in driving around with a bottle in hand, as if that is some kind of macho symbol.
The fact is by allowing this kind of "freedom of choice" we are inviting people to become drunk drivers, hence the argument that increased fines will do more to add revenue to the state coffers than deal with the problem of drinking and driving.
If we are serious of tackling the problem head on and saving lives and limbs there is a much better route to take. Look at Canada where only government-run stores can sell alcohol. It is an offence in Canada to carry an opened bottle of alcohol in any public place. And the law is very clear on drinking and driving; you get disqualified on the spot and police seize your vehicle immediately.
And if you're saying that Canada still has drunk drivers you're right. But fewer people take the chance of getting behind the wheel if they've been drinking.
So let's get back to the Trinidad and Tobago drinking problem. Suppose we really get serious. Instead of giving a drunk driver two chances to mend his/her ways, let's go to stage three right away and also give the person a chance to deal with the drinking problem. Disqualification should be immediate. The moment a police officer determines that the person was driving under the influence, that officer should take away the person's right to drive a vehicle until such time that the person could go to court and prove that the officer was wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the driver was drunk.
If the summary suspension is upheld, it should be extended for at least one year in the first instance, leading to a permanent ban for a second similar offence. The point of the one-year ban is to give the person an opportunity to get off the road and seek rehabilitation. The law must demand treatment and certification that the person is unlikely to drive while drunk before he/she is allowed to drive again.
And if you really want to stop the mayhem on the roads caused by drunk drivers, let's get to the root problem. Let's stop glorifying drinking and start by regulating the use of alcohol. If we change our culture and make access to alcohol more difficult we might save many people from becoming drunk drivers.
It's good to see the government doing something to deal with a major national problem. It would be better to see something more effective. The present bill is weak and will not deal with the problem. It's time to get more radical and go after drunks in a meaningful way.
It would not hurt to try some draconian measures. Like Sprang says it his commercial, "try it, you go like it."
Jai Parasram | Toronto - July 5, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment