Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent86
0.07 doesn't mean sober. If the police pull someone over who has been driving recklessly (and the police rarely pull random people over), they find out there is alcohol in their system, then maybe they shouldn't be on the road to start with and a 24 hour suspension can act as a wake up call.
|
What are you talking about? If someone is driving recklessly, drunk or not, that is against the law.
If they are being reckless and happen to be drunk then it is a double whammy.
This law punishes sober people who go thru a checkstop and get their car impounded even though they are stone cold sober. It gives the police too much discretion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city
I support this, it's been effective in BC on cutting down the deaths from drunk drivers.
|
I'm not even going to ask for evidence, there is absolutely no way to prove that.
Even if you had evidence it is correlation at best, no proof of causation.
As MarchHare has stated, we have a legal limit for a reason. Cops also have the ability to charge you with drunk driving even if you are under and are displaying signs of being intoxicated.
Why give them more power to unjustifiably impound your vehicle?
If you are drunk then you are drunk. We have sobriety tests. We have cops to police the roads and make sure you aren't driving recklessly. We have checkstops.
Why are new laws being introduced to punish sober people? What we need to do is go after the drunks.
This law, in no way, shape or form does that at all.