Legal Help DUI

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by flip

Yes, alcohol impairs judgment. No I am not immune. Those were some pretty stupid questions. I'm sure you'll try and twist them in some absurd and nonsensical way.

You are being intentionally obtuse and asking loaded questions though.

Do you really think I'm drunk when I have a single beer? Two beers? Three? Four? Five?

At what point am I drunk? What if I eat a meal when I have these 1-5 beers?


Do you believe that ANY amount of alcohol is too much? Do you really believe that anyone who has had any amount of alcohol has impaired judgment?

adding to that, many things affect your judgment, caffeine, lack of sleep... the law has determined that as long as you stay under 0.08 BAC you are okay to drive. You argue that no amount of alcohol is safe, can I also assume you never drink caffeine and always take a nap before driving home from a long day at work? wouldn't want any of that to impair your judgment. fact is 1 or 2 beers isnt enough to impair 99% of the population, at least no more impaired than everyone else on the road from various other sources.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Swarly

adding to that, many things affect your judgment, caffeine, lack of sleep... the law has determined that as long as you stay under 0.08 BAC you are okay to drive. You argue that no amount of alcohol is safe, can I also assume you never drink caffeine and always take a nap before driving home from a long day at work? wouldn't want any of that to impair your judgment. fact is 1 or 2 beers isnt enough to impair 99% of the population, at least no more impaired than everyone else on the road from various other sources.

Before someone else jumps all over your post and calls you out I'll clarify it for you.

As long as you stay under .08, and aren't visibly intoxicated even if under .08, you are okay to drive.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

The GDL is overly strict and stupid so no I don't care if the guy had a beer and broke the rules, just like I don't care when people speed.

So you only follow laws that you agree with?

Btw, I think is pretty funny that you think driving laws in this country are strict. I doubt half the people in our country could even pass a driving test in Europe.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So you only follow laws that you agree with?

For the most part.

I have no problem breaking laws that I think are useless.

Btw, I think is pretty funny that you think driving laws in this country are strict. I doubt half the people in our country could even pass a driving test in Europe.

I said the GDL rules are stupid and strict not all driving laws.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by moon

I said the GDL rules are stupid and strict not all driving laws.

Considering how bad young drivers are, they should be strict as hell. I consider myself a fairly decent driver, and a pretty straight arrow person, but I remember some of the sheer stupid stuff I did the first few years of driving just from the lack of experience and how many loud drunk friends i had packed in the car with me from the first moment on. I could barely drive sober in that situation, but I did.

You need to remember that driving is not a right, but a privilege. I don't give a crap how much kids drink, but if they are going to put my and my family's safety at risk, they need to be off the street. There is no excuse for drunk driving.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by flip

As long as you stay under .08, and aren't visibly intoxicated even if under .08, you are okay to drive.

Please add "...according to the law, as they need reasonable grounds before pursuing anything in relation to "operation while impaired".

The last part of your sentence still implies that others are ok to drive at 0.07 if they don't visibly show signs. (This may not be the case and it isn't B&W like you try to make it out to be).

In your example, driving with no visible intoxication is not reasonable grounds, however, it still doesn't necessarily make you 100% okay to drive.
To pull a phrase out of your book: I can't believe you don't know the difference.

If this is the way you feel, that's ok, but don't keep stating it as fact that anything under 0.08 with no visible signs of intoxication makes it "ok to drive".

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by flip

Yes, alcohol impairs judgment. No I am not immune. Those were some pretty stupid questions. I'm sure you'll try and twist them in some absurd and nonsensical way.

You are being intentionally obtuse and asking loaded questions though.

Do you really think I'm drunk when I have a single beer? Two beers? Three? Four? Five?

At what point am I drunk? What if I eat a meal when I have these 1-5 beers?

Do you believe that ANY amount of alcohol is too much? Do you really believe that anyone who has had any amount of alcohol has impaired judgment? Do you really think cops give DUIs for people who have had a single beer?

Do you really believe I'll kill someone if I drive after having 1 or 2 beers?

Do you honestly think there is no difference between these two statements:

"Alcohol has effects on a human being. Whether they have one drop or a whole keg doesn't matter, they are effected, even if only at the most miniscule of measurable levels."

"The consumption of alcohol, if in great enough quantities, can impair a persons driving"

I honestly don't think you know the difference.

It is like saying money changes people and then saying that a guy who wins a $2 lottery and a guy who wins a $20m lottery will both have their lives forever altered.

It just isn't the case. On some level, yes, they both won the lottery. But no they won't forever have their lives totally altered.

Your comparison with booze is the same.

One drop is not the same as amount x that impairs my driving. They just aren't the same. They never will be the same.

A lot of what you are saying is valid, I think it just came off a bit like drinking and driving is ok if you know what you are doing.

[Deegee]

I stopped posting in this thread because it bothers me that people can make excuses for drinking and then driving.

Really? If you have to justify driving impaired then there is something wrong, no matter how alcohol effects you.

Originally Posted by narbeZ

One way to get out of this if your being dumb in the future, is to NEVER admit to drinking ANYTHING. As soon as you admit to having something to drink, the cop WILL undoubtedly HAVE to test you.

Yes, please, lie to the police. That is definately the way to get out of being dumb.

[jolinar of malkshor]

24-hour disqualification re alcohol or drug
89(1) If a peace officer reasonably suspects that the driver of a motor vehicle has consumed alcohol or otherwise introduced into the driver’s body any alcohol, drug or other substance in such a quantity so as to affect the driver’s physical or mental ability, the peace officer may require the driver to surrender the driver’s operator’s licence to the peace officer.

One-month suspension re novice driver
90(2) If a peace officer reasonably suspects that the driver of a motor vehicle who is a novice driver, having consumed alcohol, drove the motor vehicle, the peace officer may require that the novice driver forthwith provide a breath sample into an approved screening device.

The PO does not require him to provide a breath sample but is authorized by law to demand one if the PO wants to either confirm or negate his suspicion.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/sta...000-c-t-6.html

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I stopped posting in this thread because it bothers me that people can make excuses for drinking and then driving.

Really? If you have to justify driving impaired then there is something wrong, no matter how alcohol effects you.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to what people are saying. It's not so black and white that people are either defending drunk driving or blasting it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Unfortunately I don't believe that the suspension will effect the OP's insurance.

But how stupid are you, when you get a GDL you know that one of the conditions are that its zero alcohol and you choose to flaut that and drive.

Good job by an alert ambulance crew (If I read right) for getting you to pull over and holding you for the police.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unfortunately I don't believe that the suspension will effect the OP's insurance.

But how stupid are you, when you get a GDL you know that one of the conditions are that its zero alcohol and you choose to flaut that and drive.

Good job by an alert ambulance crew (If I read right) for getting you to pull over and holding you for the police.

The insurance question has already been answered, and he's also already suffered the standard CP lashing.

[GGG]

Less people will die having people drive drunk then walk drunk. Per mile walked or driven walking has a far higher rate of Fatalities.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GGG

Less people will die having people drive drunk then walk drunk. Per mile walked or driven walking has a far higher rate of Fatalities.

Yeah but the whole uproar over drinking and driving is drunks killing OTHER people. I highly doubt more innocent victims die in drinking and walking accidents than drinking and driving accidents.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I stopped posting in this thread because it bothers me that people can make excuses for drinking and then driving.

Really? If you have to justify driving impaired then there is something wrong, no matter how alcohol effects you.



Yes, please, lie to the police. That is definately the way to get out of being dumb.

Maybe I am wrong but I dont think anyone was justifying impaired driving as far as alcohol is concerned. I think the main arguement was what constitutes being impaired.

As for the comment about lieing. Hockeycop already covered it by saying if you decide to lie you will have to reap what you sow. Maybe your lie will work and you don't get caught but if it doesn't work, expect to get no breaks and the book thrown at you.

True, if you tell the truth, it doesn't guarantee a break but it would increase your chances of getting one.

I will say this. In my line of work, people who tell me the truth make my job a lot easier. Those people get a lot more credit in my eyes than people who try to play games and think they are smarter than me by making up stories. If I know someone is jerking me around I will do everything in my power (within the mandate of my job) to ensure that they are punished under the law. I can always tell who the people are that have been in trouble with the law before, because they are usually the ones that won't admit to what they have done and make up stories. It makes my job harder but it is also what makes my job challenging and rewarding at the same time.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by GGG

Less people will die having people drive drunk then walk drunk. Per mile walked or driven walking has a far higher rate of Fatalities.

I wonder what the percentage of sober people killed by impaired walkers versus percentage of people killed by impaired drivers?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yeah but the whole uproar over drinking and driving is drunks killing OTHER people. I highly doubt more innocent victims die in drinking and walking accidents than drinking and driving accidents.

I know but it is sure a fun statistic.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by flip

Yes, alcohol impairs judgment. No I am not immune. Those were some pretty stupid questions. I'm sure you'll try and twist them in some absurd and nonsensical way.

You are being intentionally obtuse and asking loaded questions though.

Do you really think I'm drunk when I have a single beer? Two beers? Three? Four? Five?

At what point am I drunk? What if I eat a meal when I have these 1-5 beers?

Do you believe that ANY amount of alcohol is too much? Do you really believe that anyone who has had any amount of alcohol has impaired judgment? Do you really think cops give DUIs for people who have had a single beer?

Obviously I don't think you will kill anyone as a result of having a single beer. How you came to that conclusion is one of life's mysteries I guess.

But even you should be able to acknowledge that there is a difference between you (assuming you're not driving with a GDL) driving after a beer and the OP contravening the terms of his license by drinking the same single beer. It's not a huge leap to conclude that the OP was showing some signs of impairment, which is why the EMS narc'd on him.

I have to thank you for making my point for me, even though I don't think you intended to. You ask at what point would I think you were drunk?

After 1? I doubt it.

After 2? I doubt it, unless you gooned 2 back to back.

After 3? In a hour? I think you'd blow over the limit. Over 3 hours? Probably not.

After 5? Quite possibly. I acknowledge that food, time, weight, etc. all factor into the answer.

What I take issue with is that you seem to think that after say 5 beers, you seem to believe that you are still able to make an informed, unimpaired judgment about whether you are fit to drive.

I know you're a kid, but take my word that you'll eventually understand that is a fallacy.

If you'd like to make it interesting, I challenge you to prove your infallibility.

You seem to think you have a good feel for how your body metabolizes alcohol. What's your limit? What would you blow after drinking a six pack in 3 hours? How would that reading change if you ate pub food (wings and nachos) with your drinks? Where do you draw the line? 8 beers in 6 hours?

Do you believe you are still a safe driver with a BA of .07? .06? .05? .09? .10?

At what BA level do YOU believe your judgment about your ability to drive is impaired?

At what BA level do YOU believe your ability to drive is impaired?

As for my personal thoughts on drinking, then driving. I think current BA limits are reasonable, although it would be nicer if they were say .05, but that said, many responsible people/drinkers will make plans not to drive if they know they will be having any drinks. I'd encourage everyone to do the same, although I wouldn't legislate that.

[pylon]

All I can say is this. You deserved it, it is some sort of punishment for your signature or a teenage girl named "boxxy" making faces, annoying the absolute crap out of everyone on this board. I want to shake the officers hand.

And oh yeah, if your insurance finds out, as they likely will with a 30 day suspension, expect to pay about $6-7000 / year for the forseeable future. I see young guys in this predicament where their insurance is twice the cost of their car payment for DUI's

Had you removed your sig a few months back when everyone was on you for it, this would have never happened.

Hope you have a good job.

[FurnaceFace]

I think some of this is getting blown out of proportion...and again we need some context to really make a more informed decision.

I think we've all had a drink or two and got behind the wheel. I think though, most of us are pretty careful. For example tomorrow evening is the CP playoff draft. I'll have 2-3 pints over the course of 3 hours plus I'll have dinner. Even after that I would imagine I would have a BAC content over zero. However I don't believe the level in my system would cause me to make poor decisions. On the other hand, if I pounded back 3 beer in an hour and then hopped into the car, I could make a bad decision.

The theory with a new driver is the act of operating the vehicle is enough of a task load sober that the addition of even a moderate amount of alcohol makes for a more risky situation. I think new drivers are also limited to the number of passengers in the car are they not? Again, less people, less distractions. I would also imagine part of the reason for making it zero tolerance for new drivers is to try and start the habit of "no alcohol if driving".

I don't think the OP needs to be vilified, however I think it's a life lesson he should take to heart and use to avoid putting himself in the situation in the future.