2 Roadies Dead near Pemberton

Stick to the trails kids.

Stick to the trails kids.

Part of the reason I quit long boarding was because of idiot drivers.
You'd have to be super hammered to run down a mountain biker on a trail in your car… Know what I'm saying?
That being said though, I don't think we should have to fear for our lives on the roads either just because our justice system decides to allow these types of idiots to continue to live as they do.
Get caught selling drugs and they will assign you a parole officer for a year and watch you like a hawk - why isn't it the same for drunk idiots who drive wasted…and if it is…how did the parole officer involved with this person end up missing the fact that he was still drunk and still driving?

speculation on my part 'coil , but i'd guess :

parole officer in squamish / drunk driver in mt currie . . . bit of a disconnect in the system .

Stick to the trails kids.

have to agree ,

after speaking with those who do ride the road, they state that it is too easy for them to put themselves in harms way when they get out on their roadbike .

https://www.facebook.com/whistlercyclingclub?fref=ts

Whistler Cycling Club
18 hrs ·
Thank you to all in the Whistler and global cycling community for your condolences and support. We are so grateful for your positive energy.
Last night we held a critical incident debrief attended by about 70 club members and interested community members as part of the process of healing from this grievous event. One of the aspects of our session was realizing that it is human nature to try to make sense of a traumatic situation that invokes deep emotions, a place we often have great difficulty dealing with. In this case there is one aspect that is becoming clearer with each passing day as more is known about the particulars of this incident, which has caused so much pain and disruption, and which can be summarized as follows:
A repeat offender of drunk driving convictions and punishments ignored the repercussions of their actions yet again, and caused the deaths of three people and their loss to all who loved them. That two of the people who died were on bicycles is inconsequential to the root cause of the problem.
This problem of repeat convicted impaired driving offenders hopping behind the wheel in whatever condition they are in is specific neither to Whistler, nor to cycling.
This problem is specific to the status quo proving unable to prevent and protect fully against repeat impaired offenders being able to drive a vehicle whenever they choose. The risks of such behavior are well understood, and those risks persist, so please, be vigilant whenever traveling roadways, whether by car, motorcycle, bicycle, or foot.
We did draw two key resolutions from our session. One is to build from the values and characters that Kelly and Ross contributed to our club and community. Another is to keep on riding as they would want us to. So, we are intent on getting back on the horse.
We welcome being part of the greater cycling community. Thank you again for your support and friendship as we ride forward.
Whistler Cycling Club

I'm for zero tolerance, personally. People think I'm nuts and get all mad when I say that. But you REALLY MUST DRIVE, MUST YOU REALLY DRINK? Can't you just deal with doing one or the other but not both? How hard is that? I don't really care that some drunk ruined it for everyone else. I'm comfortable knowing that if something did happen while I was driving, it wasn't because I my judgement or reaction was impaired. I'm no holier-than-thou type either, I belong to that class of those who "put down the drink - couldn't drink like a gentleman".

Yeah man, I still remember that time I had a beer at a party and then passed out at the wheel causing a head on with a tourbus and killed 40 people. If only I hadn't been out of my mind blitzed by having that one beer.
:lemon:

My wife knows the driver as she grew up in the same town /school (Lillooet).
The driver is native and came from a very f'd up family (child abuse /alcohol/ drug abuse etc) never really had a chance a decent life.
Not trying to excuse him just add a little background info.

Yeah man, I still remember that time I had a beer at a party and then passed out at the wheel causing a head on with a tourbus and killed 40 people. If only I hadn't been out of my mind blitzed by having that one beer.
:lemon:

So where do you draw the line? If someone told you that you were at 0.07 would you have second thoughts about maybe not driving your kids around? Why? Or why not?

And while you are at it, here is a list of valid excuses you can use for driving while distracted

http://www.cos-mag.com/Human-Resources/HR-Stories/Top-10-excuses-for-using-a-cell-phone-while-driving.html

So where do you draw the line? If someone told you that you were at 0.07 would you have second thoughts about maybe not driving your kids around? Why? Or why not?

And while you are at it, here is a list of valid excuses you can use for driving while distracted

http://www.cos-mag.com/Human-Resources/HR-Stories/Top-10-excuses-for-using-a-cell-phone-while-driving.html

Yeah, it's hard to know at what level the cut-off is but I don't think having 1 or 2 drinks at dinner and driving home after should be considered a criminal act. It beats the alternative (letting people drive blitzed) but there should be a reasonable limit.

My wife knows the driver as she grew up in the same town /school (Lillooet).
The driver is native and came from a very f'd up family (child abuse /alcohol/ drug abuse etc) never really had a chance a decent life.
Not trying to excuse him just add a little background info.

That sucks, and the systemic causes of such problem need to be dealt with as well as the outcomes (another discussion). But now those will likely be considered mitigating factors in sentencing which is going to cause public outrage, and I can't say I disagree with that.

yup GT , I think we all figured that out and have been respectful of that fact .

this comment not directed at anyone or FN in particular : but at what point do we keep accommodating these career criminals ? how much suffering is the rest of society supposed to absorb while our " justice " system slaps these guys on the wrist and hopes that they will somehow rehabilitate themselves ?

I can't speak for the passenger in the car who died , but the whistler community has now been robbed of two very productive members who were helping people to better their lives .

of course I hope that this episode is the turnaround point in the life of the guy responsible , but given his past , probably not likely .

^ This is one of those crimes where I just don't think stiffer penalties works when it comes to the habitual offender.

He spent a good chunk of time in jail, he had all kinds of driving prohibs- but the underlying issues or whatever mean that is unlikely he will be "deterred". Who knows, the knowledge he killed someone maybe will do it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

So where do you draw the line?

How about we start by drawing it at the 2nd or 3rd conviction for drunk driving. Or maybe after the second stint in prison for drunk driving. Maybe once we figure out a way to get those folks off the road, then we can start splitting hairs over how little is still too much?

I'm for zero tolerance, personally. People think I'm nuts and get all mad when I say that. But you REALLY MUST DRIVE, MUST YOU REALLY DRINK? Can't you just deal with doing one or the other but not both? How hard is that? I don't really care that some drunk ruined it for everyone else. I'm comfortable knowing that if something did happen while I was driving, it wasn't because I my judgement or reaction was impaired. I'm no holier-than-thou type either, I belong to that class of those who "put down the drink - couldn't drink like a gentleman".

I'm fine with zero tolerance, for drunk drivers. I'm not fine with zero tolerance, for any drink. I can't comment on where that line is though.

What I'm not cool with is an otherwise responsible member of society getting financially and reputationally kicked because he blows over 0.05 but under 0.08. It seems to me that all we're catching are the people who had one drink with dinner, are not impaired, but are over the line. Completely misses some jack ass that repeatedly drives liquored.

My mother in law was hit by a lady that had over 20 drunk driving citations, yet she was still able to get behind a wheel. Eventually that person will kill someone, or as in the case of my mother in law hurt they very badly.