[cruzin4u]

I was just thinking the same thing, while clearly drinking 31 drinks in 3 hours is quite a bit, my response was that they(the drinkers) knew what they were doing and should be held responsible for their own actions. Its sad that 3 people are now dead, but had they thought more about their own actions, and the likely repercussions, they might still be here. You cannot legislate to cover everyone with a warm cuddly safety blanket, when a small minority are going to ignore the existing laws re drinking and driving in the first instance (as was the case here).

Maybe the lesson that needs to be learnt is that all of us young and old, need to stop and think about what we do and the effect on ourselves and others would be, until then, there will be more incidents like this.

Nicely said!

You'd think, after so many drinks, one of them would say, "hey... we are totally hammered, lets find a hotel for the night" or something along those lines. I've been totally smashed before and so have my friends, but we'd never allow each other to get behind the wheel of a car.

There was mention that there is no transit system in Muskoka, fair enough - but are there no taxis? Surely if one can afford $60K membership for such a club, they can afford to pay for a taxi to take them to a hotel/motel safely.

I think a lot of it has to do with ego. You give a kid an Audi S4, he is not going to trade that in for a taxi, even if he is totally smashed out of his mind. And you know damn well he was speeding on those roads. May be the parents should be held accountable and charged for spoiling their kids rotten.

Does anyone talk about the dangers that these individuals posed to people on the roads? What if they crashed into another vehicle and killed those occupants?

As was mentioned, no one is responsible nowadays. Everyone is out to put the blame on someone else. It's a tragic incident without a doubt. Mr. Mulcahy should accept the fact his son, along with his friends made a poor decision that day.

 

[Joe24pack]

How are they 'safer'? It impairs the ability of other drivers to see you and where your attention is directed. B) and C) are irrelevant.

I agree with afransen.
Also if you can't identify someone at
the wheel in court you have a major
problem. With tinted windows ID is
a problem. A guy ran into the back
of my bus when I was parked, he
was charged with careless driving.
He came down from Ottawa 4 times
because it kept getting remanded,
the police officer that investigated was
injured on the job and could not attend
court. It was determined the officer may
never appear so the trial began. It was
short, I was asked if I could identify the
driver at the time of the collison, I said
I got out of the bus walked down the
right side and the driver came around
the front of my bus to the front door,
I assume he walked up the road side
of my bus. The lawyer turned to the
judge and said perma evidence your
honor, he can not identify the driver
at the time of the accident. The
case was dismissed.
The most upsetting case I recall was
two teens who could not identify the
driver of a fatal accident in Niagara
some years ago. They were with the
victim at the time of the collision.
That driver was aquitted.

As soon as you get behind the wheel of
something big on the road they don't
need ID in court, that loophole won't
wash in court, it only works with cars.

Maybe that problem with ID and drivers
is changed now if it isn't it is overdue.