[dhc-2]

Thought it might be appropriate to continue this thread of the discussion here, rather than in the election thread. And apologies in advance, I have not read the majority of this thread, so forgive me if I am just repeating what's already been said.

Your speeding ticket comparison is not valid, as one has the opportunity to challenge the offense in a court of law. In the case of this new law, the state is able to put punitive measures on an individual (in the form of suspension and impound fees) without one being able to defend themselves in a court of law, as is our right.

If I had not had any drinks that night, in the highly unlikely event the breathalyzer still says .05, I will ask for a 2nd breathalyzer (they surely will have more than 1 at a checkstop for instance), I will offer a blood test, and I will call a lawyer immediately. I will agree with you that it's not right that you don't have a similar recourse as with a speeding ticket, where you could challenge it in court, but the likelihood of someone being falsely accused of a .05 blood alcohol level is pretty low. Again, knowing the law, I will not be getting behind the wheel if I have so much as a shred of doubt that I may be .05 or higher.

And no law is perfect. People have spent decades in jail for murders they didn't commit only to be exonerated. This is life, some people will be falsely accused and have to deal with the consequences (and they had the benefit of a trial too). Can we ever eliminate that completely? Probably not. In the case of this law, there is definite room for improvement, but in the end no matter what we do, sometimes innocent people will get screwed.

My cost benefit response had to do with the statistics (found in the thread on this topic) that show the segment targetted by this legislation is the lowest cause of death and injury by a gigantic margin.

Apologies, I have not seen these statistics. This group may be the lowest cause of death/injury, but they are not blameless in this regard either. Any law that gets even some of the drunks off our roads is a law worth having, in my opinion. Yes, they may be targeting the wrong segment, but I don't see the problem in having a zero-tolerance policy (0.00 BAL) down the line. Inconvenient? Perhaps sometimes, I mean I enjoy a beer here or there, but I would not be against it. We all found seatbelts inconvenient at first, didn't we, but they've saved lives. A zero-tolerance policy with stiff penalties would save lives too.

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.

For the fatalities in which the driver had no alcohol in their system - were they impaired by other things? Drugs? Fatigue? (perhaps a seperate discussion altogether...)

Legally they may not be impaired, but in practical terms, any amount of alcohol from .00-.05 will impair you. I've driven after a glass of wine, for instance, and while I was not near .05, you can feel the effect it has on you. There is a degree of impairment, however slight. That translates to reduced reaction times, and sometimes a fraction of a second is all the difference. At .05, while you can say that legally you are not impaired, I would argue that in practical terms you most definitely are. Perhaps not to the degree where you're weaving in and out of lanes doing 50 over the limit but reaction times and decision-making will be affected. I think the issue here should be more about practical, real impairment as opposed to the legal definition of same.

I will, however, agree there are better ways to go about this, as you suggested. There must be some sort of recourse. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer couldn't do anything for you in a case like this, even after the fact.