[getbak]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Does this increased cost outweigh the cost of drunk drivers getting into accidents and damaging property, maiming people and causing needless deaths? Our insurance rates go up, emergency services are tied up, hospitals, rehab clinics, etc. etc. There are plenty of increased costs because of impaired drivers as well.

Obviously until a study is done we do not know which cost is higher. Even if it ends up costing the justice system more to have this law in place, I will support it because it will decrease the number of drunks behind the wheel. There is no excuse for that idiocy.

There are 10 times more traffic fatalities in Alberta each year where the drivers had no alcohol in their system than ones where the drivers had "some" alcohol but not enough to fall into the impaired category (greater than 0.0 BAC, but less than 0.08 BAC).

I'm all for increasing penalties for dangerous impaired drivers, especially repeat offenders, and giving the police the resources to catch them, but tying up their resources by going after people who are not legally impaired is not the way to do it.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

I wouldn't go so far as to say our charter rights are being infringed. We know the law, that blowing .05 can get our licenses suspended or our vehicles impounded. I don't know about you but that hasn't changed my life one bit. I can with confidence say that I will never run afoul of this law. It's not rocket science, really. Would there be a better way to word this law, or a better way of going about implementing it? Probably, but in its current state it's good enough. Certainly, if I had voted PC in the past, this would not change my mind. Frankly the legal limit should be 0.00.

You're the type of person who should be most worried about this law. Someone who has had a couple of drinks who blows 0.07 will probably let out a huge sigh of relief and be thankful that he wasn't a little bit higher, and while the 72 hour suspension and impound fee will suck, he'll know he was very close to things being a lot worse.

However, let's say you were driving home from a party where you had nothing to drink and were the designated driver and got pulled into a Checkstop, or pulled over by a cop who saw you leaving a parking lot next to a bar late on a Saturday night. Since you were driving some drinkers home, the cop smelled alcohol in the vehicle and decided to give you a roadside breath test, then you blow 0.05 on because the device is faulty. You'd lose your licence for 3 days and have your car impounded and there would be nothing you could do about it because that's the law.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Also a quick comment on the 'judge/jury' remark - they already do that when they give out speeding tickets for instance, nobody seems to think that's violating our rights. What's the difference in this case? Again the simple solution here is don't speed.

You can go to court to plead not guilty to a speeding ticket and make your case to the judge. Hell, you can go to court to plead not guilty to Impaired driving with a BAC over 0.08 and make your case in front of a judge.

Originally Posted by dhc-2

As far as 'innocent' people being screwed by this law - yes, I'm sure the breathalyzer could be faulty. But really what are the chances - first of all you'd have to be doing something pretty fishy to get pulled over on the suspicion of impaired driving in the first place. Then the breathalyzer would have to be faulty, and then, if you really hadn't been drinking, I'm sure you could offer to take a blood test, take a field sobriety test, call your lawyer, whatever.

You don't have to do anything more suspicious than driving through a Checkstop. As I understand it, under the change to the law, the Police can impound your car and suspend your licence for 72 hours just for blowing between 0.05 and 0.08, and you don't really have any recourse because it's done on the spot.