Driving under the legal limit? Doesn't matter, your vehicle is impounded anyway.

[jayswin]

Yeah, those numbers seem pretty high to me too, and I think everyone will agree with me that the only way to solve this issue is a CP drunkfest at Pete's, featuring HulkRogan as the Guinea Pig.

The evening will go as follows...

7:00 - Appetizers, drinks and small talk

8:00 - First round of shooters orderded, small talk turns to jovial shouting conversation

9:00 - Posters start calling eachother pussies for not drinking enough, more shots are ordered, along with another round of beers

10:00 - Everyone's drunk and slurring and having fun, which leads to us forgetting why we met up in the first place

11:00 - HulkRogan leaves, follwed by Locke in a moment of drunken clarity remembering why we came.

11:05 - Locke comes up with solution to the issue of not acomplishing what we came for; He calls 911 and reports Hulkrogan as a possible drunk driver

11:10 - Everyone jumps in their cars to race to where Hulkrogan has been pulled over. We expalin to the confused cop that we're all here to see what range he blows on the breathalizer

11:25 - A growing number of police arrive at the scene, administering breath tests to all CP members who came out to the meet

11:45 - All CP members avoid having their rights violated by the stupid .05 law, by blowing over .08. Yeah, we get lawyers and a fair trial!!

CP - 1, New drinking and driving law that violates rights - 0

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by ken0042

But to suggest that one can drink 7 beers in 90 minutes and still be under .08 is a very irresponsible statement IMO. Some people might take that into consideration when drinking. Maybe not off a message board, but have you mentioned that to friends and colleagues?

Wait wait wait... so people might see my statements regarding BAC, and might take that into consideration when driving, which could be dangerous.

BUT.... the online calculators are totally accurate and wouldn't be tailored to the highest possible BAC for any given situation for the same reason....


Hmmmm.........

Do you not consider it might be possible for one person to be 200lbs and metabolize alcohol differently than someone else who is 200lbs?

Do you think the people producing these charts and calculators would base their info off the person who metabolizes faster than the other? I bet not. Would they base it off the slowest alcohol metabolic rate that research has found? Probably.

I'm fairly certain the breathalyzer for the university study was police grade. My friend was trained how to use it for the sake of his fourth year project.

These are the same devices they'll use to decide if you are drunk or not at road side. If they are inaccurate as all of you scientists profess, then we are all screwed anyway, so who cares how many drinks you have, the machine will never be right.

[ken0042]

I think you are right. The online calculators err on the side of caution. I don't see a problem with that.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

If you are careful why would you even worry about being over .08? There's no brownie points for you blowing 0.085 compared to the guy that blew 0.14. Once you eclipse 0.08 on the breathalyzer at the station it's party over for both of you the same as it should be.

Not true. While there are minimum penalties in the DUI legislation that are designed to remove a lot of a Judge's ability to vary sentencing, leeway still exists. Your BAC, as well as other factors, can change the fine you eventually get. If you have 0.085 and are pulled over at a Checkstop, your sentence could be quite different than if you're 0.15 and pulled over because you're weaving in and out of your lane, and you threw up on the side of the road when pulled over. Also, if you're more than double the legal limit, the penalties go through the roof.

Originally Posted by Olao32

Maybe someone with a legal background can explain this to me.

If this new law imposed at the provincial level truly does bypass due process, can someone not challenge it under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the federal level?

You don't challenge provincial laws (or any laws, for that matter) at the "Federal level". What you're getting at is that the Constitution/Charter is the highest law in Canada and it supercedes provincial regulations. Legislation that violates the Charter will be amended/struck down/read down etc. The challenge is initiated at the Queen's Bench level (in Alberta), and could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

The problem with the law, as I understand it, is that it doesn't allow any legal review of the roadside suspensions. It cannot be heard in front of a Judge or go through any administrative review. Eventually, the Alberta law will be given its day in Court and probably have similar results to the BCSC decision mentioned in this post:

Originally Posted by VO #23

The B.C. laws have already been challenged, and the automatic roadside prohibitions for persons blowing over .08 was found by the court to be a Charter violation. The B.C. legislature has since adjusted those laws.

The same judge held that the .05-.079 bans were compliant with the Charter, as they were seen to be a reasonable limitation on Charter rights in the name of public safety.

It's important to remember that these decisions were made by the BC Supreme Court (equivalent AB court is the Court of Queen's Bench), not by an appellate court. Therefore the law is not binding on any other province, and probably would barely be regarded as persuasive. I think a really strong argument could be made that the .05 bans are an unreasonable limitation on Charter rights, and expect any jurisdiction with similar laws to have to consider this question in the courts.

Who challenged the law? A public interest group? There's probably a 100% chance that section 1 override gets appealed to the BCCA. With this legislation springing up all over Canada I wouldn't be surprised to see the SC weigh in on this eventually.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Wait wait wait... so people might see my statements regarding BAC, and might take that into consideration when driving, which could be dangerous.

BUT.... the online calculators are totally accurate and wouldn't be tailored to the highest possible BAC for any given situation for the same reason....


Hmmmm.........

Do you not consider it might be possible for one person to be 200lbs and metabolize alcohol differently than someone else who is 200lbs?

Do you think the people producing these charts and calculators would base their info off the person who metabolizes faster than the other? I bet not. Would they base it off the slowest alcohol metabolic rate that research has found? Probably.

I'm fairly certain the breathalyzer for the university study was police grade. My friend was trained how to use it for the sake of his fourth year project.

These are the same devices they'll use to decide if you are drunk or not at road side. If they are inaccurate as all of you scientists profess, then we are all screwed anyway, so who cares how many drinks you have, the machine will never be right.

Do you consider it? You keep repeating the results of your tests as some sort of proof that this law doesn't target people who have a couple of glasses of wine at dinner.

But please, carry on with your 'one time at band camp' level of analysis.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you consider it? You keep repeating the results of your tests as some sort of proof that this law doesn't target people who have a couple of glasses of wine at dinner.

But please, carry on with your 'one time at band camp' level of analysis.

No, what he's saying is that if you're the type of person who blows over .05 after a couple glasses of wine with dinner, you're drunk and proably shouldn't be driving anyway.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you consider it? You keep repeating the results of your tests as some sort of proof that this law doesn't target people who have a couple of glasses of wine at dinner.

But please, carry on with your 'one time at band camp' level of analysis.

As BBS said, and as the link I posted states, there are 90lb Asian women out there that may very well not be good to drive after a glass of wine, and will tell you they feel drunk.

Dad after 2 beers is never going to have an issue with 0.05 unless he's a serious anomaly.

My point is that if you use the online calculators, you are going to see conservative numbers, and you are going to think you are screwed having 2 or 3 beers with dinner, when likely this is not true at all. I think the onus is on you to either be super conservative and only have 1 drink if you don't know your limits, or get a hold of a breathalyzer and find out for yourself how you personally actually metabolize alcohol and how you feel at different BAC levels.

I know personally, that when I hit around 0.04 I feel like there is no way I should be driving a car. I'm not using that new found knowledge to drive past where I'm comfortable, I'm still not going to drive when I start to feel inebriated.

I really don't feel anyone is fit to argue with a 0.05 limit unless they have confirmed themselves how they feel and react at that point and how many drinks it is for them. My own anecdotal evidence, including a friend I play hockey with bringing out his breathalyzer to pass around for after-hockey beers, says that most people won't consider driving at 0.05, with the exception of people who I've heard the phrase "It's not that far and there won't be any cops" who I don't exactly believe have a healthy attitude to the whole issue to start with.

Get a breathalyzer, try it out, see if you still think 0.05 sucks. If my small sample group is wrong and lots of people hit 0.05 and feel completely fine, then ok, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry. Just going off of what I've seen and read about with ~15-20 people.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

I suspect if anyone drank 7 O'Doul's in an hour and half they would be fine too.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

As BBS said, and as the link I posted states, there are 90lb Asian women out there that may very well not be good to drive after a glass of wine, and will tell you they feel drunk.

Dad after 2 beers is never going to have an issue with 0.05 unless he's a serious anomaly.

My point is that if you use the online calculators, you are going to see conservative numbers, and you are going to think you are screwed having 2 or 3 beers with dinner, when likely this is not true at all. I think the onus is on you to either be super conservative and only have 1 drink if you don't know your limits, or get a hold of a breathalyzer and find out for yourself how you personally actually metabolize alcohol and how you feel at different BAC levels.

I know personally, that when I hit around 0.04 I feel like there is no way I should be driving a car. I'm not using that new found knowledge to drive past where I'm comfortable, I'm still not going to drive when I start to feel inebriated.

I really don't feel anyone is fit to argue with a 0.05 limit unless they have confirmed themselves how they feel and react at that point and how many drinks it is for them. My own anecdotal evidence, including a friend I play hockey with bringing out his breathalyzer to pass around for after-hockey beers, says that most people won't consider driving at 0.05, with the exception of people who I've heard the phrase "It's not that far and there won't be any cops" who I don't exactly believe have a healthy attitude to the whole issue to start with.

Get a breathalyzer, try it out, see if you still think 0.05 sucks. If my small sample group is wrong and lots of people hit 0.05 and feel completely fine, then ok, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry. Just going off of what I've seen and read about with ~15-20 people.

You keep going on about 0.05 being drunk. How many times do people have to say it's about having all of your legal rights taken away.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

As BBS said, and as the link I posted states, there are 90lb Asian women out there that may very well not be good to drive after a glass of wine, and will tell you they feel drunk.

Dad after 2 beers is never going to have an issue with 0.05 unless he's a serious anomaly.

My point is that if you use the online calculators, you are going to see conservative numbers, and you are going to think you are screwed having 2 or 3 beers with dinner, when likely this is not true at all. I think the onus is on you to either be super conservative and only have 1 drink if you don't know your limits, or get a hold of a breathalyzer and find out for yourself how you personally actually metabolize alcohol and how you feel at different BAC levels.

I know personally, that when I hit around 0.04 I feel like there is no way I should be driving a car. I'm not using that new found knowledge to drive past where I'm comfortable, I'm still not going to drive when I start to feel inebriated.

I really don't feel anyone is fit to argue with a 0.05 limit unless they have confirmed themselves how they feel and react at that point and how many drinks it is for them. My own anecdotal evidence, including a friend I play hockey with bringing out his breathalyzer to pass around for after-hockey beers, says that most people won't consider driving at 0.05, with the exception of people who I've heard the phrase "It's not that far and there won't be any cops" who I don't exactly believe have a healthy attitude to the whole issue to start with.

Get a breathalyzer, try it out, see if you still think 0.05 sucks. If my small sample group is wrong and lots of people hit 0.05 and feel completely fine, then ok, I'm wrong, and I'm sorry. Just going off of what I've seen and read about with ~15-20 people.

For about the, oh I don't know, 200th time, the issue isn't with the ability of someone to drive at 0.05, it's with the complete removal of basic legal rights.

If it's so unacceptable for people to drive at 0.05 make that the law. Hell, you should be pissed at the fact that people at 0.05 aren't getting as hefty of punishments as those at 0.08 as it seems you see them in the same light.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by valo403

For about the, oh I don't know, 200th time, the issue isn't with the ability of someone to drive at 0.05, it's with the complete removal of basic legal rights.

If it's so unacceptable for people to drive at 0.05 make that the law. Hell, you should be pissed at the fact that people at 0.05 aren't getting as hefty of punishments as those at 0.08 as it seems you see them in the same light.

And for the 200th time, this is nothing new. There have always been 24 hours suspensions within the same intoxication levels.

Its not a "removal" of the rights, they were already gone.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by valo403

For about the, oh I don't know, 200th time, the issue isn't with the ability of someone to drive at 0.05, it's with the complete removal of basic legal rights.

If it's so unacceptable for people to drive at 0.05 make that the law. Hell, you should be pissed at the fact that people at 0.05 aren't getting as hefty of punishments as those at 0.08 as it seems you see them in the same light.

I conceded quite a while ago to the point about not being able to afford due process.

There were several people in this thread making "glass of wine with dinner comments". I was refuting those.

If you weren't one of those people I don't get what we are debating anymore? I think just changing 0.08 to 0.05 would be fine, and I would like more severe penalties over some other arbitrary limit. I don't know what that limit should be, but I think at some point you are far enough beyond the grey areas of BAC's effects on different people that you can safely say any person at BAC of 0.XX is going to obviously know they are drunk with no doubt, and take those people off the road forever.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by jar_e

And for the 200th time, this is nothing new. There have always been 24 hours suspensions within the same intoxication levels.

Its not a "removal" of the rights, they were already gone.

The consequences have increased dramatically without any change in the ability to be afforded due process

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

Isn't that the same argument they used when they started banning cigarettes in restaurants?

That did hurt the restaurants but that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they implement a zero tolerance policy.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Who challenged the law? A public interest group? There's probably a 100% chance that section 1 override gets appealed to the BCCA. With this legislation springing up all over Canada I wouldn't be surprised to see the SC weigh in on this eventually.

I'm actually not sure who challenged it, but the case can be found here: http://canlii.ca/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011...1bcsc1639.html

There was no readily available 'Facts' section and to be honest I can't be bothered to root through this huge decision looking for it. It looks like the judge didn't even find that the .05-.079 laws even engaged s.8 at all, which is surprising. I bet this gets appealed.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Fire

That did hurt the restaurants but that would be nothing compared to what would happen if they implement a zero tolerance policy.

short term maybe but, people would adapt.Just means people would have to plan better.That being said I don't think they should go to a zero tolerance.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

short term maybe but, people would adapt.Just means people would have to plan better.That being said I don't think they should go to a zero tolerance.

What? Thats not going to work because it isnt worth it.

Having something to eat and a couple drinks after work or with dinner is nothing. Having to plan an entire exit strategy makes the whole thing more effort than its worth. Screw it then and just eat at home. Guess who loses?

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? Thats not going to work because it isnt worth it.

Having something to eat and a couple drinks after work or with dinner is nothing. Having to plan an entire exit strategy makes the whole thing more effort than its worth. Screw it then and just eat at home. Guess who loses?

Yep, that's how my thought process will go. Its cold outside, cabs are unreliable, and its a pain in the a$$ to get enough people all organized for a night out as it is. With the .5 rules, what's the point of even trying any more. Beers at my house, you can sleep it off and drive home in the morning.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by jar_e

And for the 200th time, this is nothing new. There have always been 24 hours suspensions within the same intoxication levels.

Its not a "removal" of the rights, they were already gone.

They are not gone at all. The 24 hour suspension can be appealed simply by following the officer to the police station and submitting to a proper test. If you do and blow under 0.08 then you get your license back and are on your merry way. I think the 24 hour suspension predates accurate mobile breathalyzers in every vehicle so if you were pulled over and the officer felt you were slightly impaired but couldn't tell he could issue a 24 hour suspension meaning you could either wait or prove your innocence.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

They are not gone at all. The 24 hour suspension can be appealed simply by following the officer to the police station and submitting to a proper test. If you do and blow under 0.08 then you get your license back and are on your merry way. I think the 24 hour suspension predates accurate mobile breathalyzers in every vehicle so if you were pulled over and the officer felt you were slightly impaired but couldn't tell he could issue a 24 hour suspension meaning you could either wait or prove your innocence.

No that's not how it works, you need to read more about the new law.

If you blow over 0.05 they take your license and impound your car. No reblowing at the cop shop, no appeal in court if you want.

Edit: This is in reply to you saying "they are not gone at all".