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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its not punishment, its a matter of public safety.

Sure it's punishment, complete with fines. What would your view be if they could toss you in jail for the night because you seemed like you might pick a fight? A matter of public safety?

It kind of boggles my mind that the Charter can protect the right of a bunch of jacktards to camp in a park but can't protect the rights of citizens to not have their personal property taken and their liberty restrained without any semblance of due process.

[CaptainCrunch]

As a further, I get it.

But come on.

1 beer in an hour to a 160 pound man is .02
2 beers in a hour to a 160 pound man will take you to .05

So at this point unless your an ethiopian refugee, or a double amputee or a midget, we're not talking a beer after work.

[transplant99]

Yeah this proposed law makes absolutely no difference to how many truly impaired drivers will hit the streets, therefor i would consider this punitive to society as a whole as those who arent impaired can be punished for absolutely no reason.

people who drink and drive over the limit are going to drink and drive over the limit...lowering that limit or putting in a punitive measure for a lower limit wont change that.

No one will ever ever convince me that a glass of wine or a bottle of beer with dinnner somehow impairs judgement to the point you become an unsafe driver...it simply defies logic.

I think I want to start a counter lobby group called DAMM

Drivers Against Mad Mothers.

[djwazzy]

Another issue here is does anyone know exactly how many drinks it takes them to reach 0.05 or 0.08? Sure we've all heard the general rules, but I suspect very few people know how many or how few drinks it takes them to reach a certain alcohol level.

Perhaps that's a good thing, makes people more cautious you'd hope.

[Puppet Guy]

something else that was mentioned in the Herald article that hasn't been mentioned yet:

Under Alberta's proposed legislation, a first-time offender in the .05-.08 zone will face an automatic three-day suspension, escalating to 15 and 30 days on second and third offences. Unlike B.C., there would be no administrative fine. However, as with other provinces, drivers will face a licence reinstatement fee, which in Alberta is $200, as well as impound and towing charges which vary by location. These charges could easily be $500 or more for someone who is not criminally convicted of anything

anyone else thinking "cash-grab" over "public safety"? Especially with the deficit being so much higher than expected?

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Question to those of you who support this: do you think people should be allowed to drive after having only one glass of wine or beer with their meal at a restaurant?

The outcome of this law, as was seen in BC, is that small businesses are severely hurt because people are too afraid to have even one drink before driving.

the problem isnt the people who have 1 glass and drive. the problem is that there a FAR too many people who think:

1) they can have 4 or 5 and a coffee and they are ok if it was over "x" hours
2) the law only applies IF they get caught. as long as they avoid the cops, they are a-ok!

i am sick of people not respecting me, my family and the others who are on the road just so they can enjoy a few drinks.

i dont mind drinking and i have been known to drink too much more then a few times. however, when i am the driver, i dont drink. period. and guess what? i still have a good time.

if people would use designated drivers who were responsible or taxi's, these lobby groups wouldnt need to push so hard.

i support MADD and in fact i support a .00 BAC limit because frankly i dont think people get it, still.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Sure it's punishment, complete with fines. What would your view be if they could toss you in jail for the night because you seemed like you might pick a fight? A matter of public safety?

It kind of boggles my mind that the Charter can protect the right of a bunch of jacktards to camp in a park but can't protect the rights of citizens to not have their personal property taken and their liberty restrained without any semblance of due process.

If I pick up a bottle at a bar and smash it and threaten someone, then chances are I'm going to jail.

If I take a gun and put a bullet it in and walk towards my neighbours kids, I'm going to jail.

Right now there is no fine for the 24 hour suspension that I can see.

Now are we debating the new law coming in its entirety, or are we talking about a police officer issueing a 24 hour suspension? Because I think the're currently two different things.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As a further, I get it.

But come on.

1 beer in an hour to a 160 pound man is .02
2 beers in a hour to a 160 pound man will take you to .05

So at this point unless your an ethiopian refugee, or a double amputee or a midget, we're not talking a beer after work.

But this proposal is talking exactly that CC...and to make it even worse its at the discretion of the cop. A cop who is only human and could be having a bad day and therefore just punishes others because he/she feels like it.

The whole thing is nonsensical, punitive in its measures, and again completely defies logic when you consider what it is supposed to accomplish....public safety.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Question to those of you who support this: do you think people should be allowed to drive after having only one glass of wine or beer with their meal at a restaurant?

The outcome of this law, as was seen in BC, is that small businesses are severely hurt because people are too afraid to have even one drink before driving.

Unless you weigh 90 pounds, its not one glass of beer or wine its multiples, and in a fairly short period of time.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by djwazzy

Another issue here is does anyone know exactly how many drinks it takes them to reach 0.05 or 0.08? Sure we've all heard the general rules, but I suspect very few people know how many or how few drinks it takes them to reach a certain alcohol level.

Perhaps that's a good thing, makes people more cautious you'd hope.

...with the unintended consequence that this law has the practical effect of becoming a zero-tolerance policy. People don't know exactly how many drinks over a certain period of time will put them at 0.05, so instead of having one glass of wine with their meal, they just don't drink at all. As the BC example has shown us, this has severe negative consequences for the small businesses of the restaurant industry.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...aths-down.html

Deaths from impaired driving in B.C. have been cut in half since new drinking-driving regulations took effect last fall, says provincial Attorney General Barry Penner.

Penner said 22 people have been killed since the law was changed in September, while the five-year average for that period had been 45 deaths.

He said there's also been a drop during that period of between 75 and 80 per cent in the number of drinking and driving criminal charges laid.
The attorney general called it, "a pretty dramatic shift in public behaviour."



Deaths aside (which sounds a bit callous) I'd imagine that it's also lowered other shenanigans like injuries due to (partially?) drunk driving, property damage, insurance rates, legal costs/fees, etc.

Since September? Sounds like they need to wait a little longer to ensure this isn't a statistical anomaly. If it is proven that this amendment is actually decreasing accidents and saving lives, then the argument over and done with as far as I'm concerned. You really would have to be crazy to argue after that. My initial expectation would be that the drivers way over the legal limit are the problem, but we'll see.

I have long had the personal rule that I can drive if I have had 2 beers in a time period of an hour or more (and never more than 2). If 0.05 is the new standard, I will simply change that to 1 drink. This is easy for me as I never drink to get drunk and very rarely have more than 2 if I am not the driver anyways.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Two Fivenagame

.05? What the hell is that? A tablespoon of cough syrup?

For the average guy it's probably a beer, depends on how long between that and driving. Really, if you want to have a drink or two with a normally paced dinner, you'd probably be okay, not so if more. I am all for the idea of having a reliable breathalyzer in every car - no guesswork.

I haven't seen the draft legislation. However, you can be cited for impaired driving with zero alcohol in your system - i.e. if you're taking medication which impairs your driving ability. There is already an avenue for the police to use discretion in removing people from the road who aren't in a condition to be on it, and I'm okay with that. As a result, this concept seems unnecessary.

What they ought to do is decide whether the legal limit should be .08 or .05. I am fine with either. Hell, I'd be okay with a trace limit (i.e. if you're over by more than the margin of error on the device). But whatever the rules are, they need to be made clear and straightforward. Saying "the legal limit is .08 but .05 is still punishable in the following ways" is not clear.

Also, something like this without a right to appeal or judicial oversight of any kind strikes me as unconstitutional, there must be some avenue in there or this is all a waste of time. Can't imagine something like that holding up at first instance once challenged.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I pick up a bottle at a bar and smash it and threaten someone, then chances are I'm going to jail.

If I take a gun and put a bullet it in and walk towards my neighbours kids, I'm going to jail.

Right now there is no fine for the 24 hour suspension that I can see.

Now are we debating the new law coming in its entirety, or are we talking about a police officer issueing a 24 hour suspension? Because I think the're currently two different things.

And guess what? Those first two things are criminal offenses (although the second is debatable) and would allow you to have your day in court. This isn't, and allows you no due process.

Look above for the fine, although they do a nice job of pretending it's not a fine by just using the license reinstatement fee.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless you weigh 90 pounds, its not one glass of beer or wine its multiples, and in a fairly short period of time.

From one of the links I posted in the OP:

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says the law will do little to prevent or punish drunk driving, but will have a severe impact on small business. The group says similar laws in B.C. created public confusion about whether it is permissible to even have a glass of wine before driving, leading to losses of between 10 and 50 per cent at some establishments.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

i support MADD and in fact i support a .00 BAC limit because frankly i dont think people get it, still.

This is fine - and you can lobby for a 0.00 BAC limit.

But what is being proposed is NOT fine. You should not be charged for doing something 100% legal.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

the problem isnt the people who have 1 glass and drive. the problem is that there a FAR too many people who think:

1) they can have 4 or 5 and a coffee and they are ok if it was over "x" hours
2) the law only applies IF they get caught. as long as they avoid the cops, they are a-ok!

i am sick of people not respecting me, my family and the others who are on the road just so they can enjoy a few drinks.

i dont mind drinking and i have been known to drink too much more then a few times. however, when i am the driver, i dont drink. period. and guess what? i still have a good time.

if people would use designated drivers who were responsible or taxi's, these lobby groups wouldnt need to push so hard.

i support MADD and in fact i support a .00 BAC limit because frankly i dont think people get it, still.

Classic. What about the rights of the driver unfairly accused? Do you not care about respecting that? There is no recourse for them...this isnt only draconian its part of a police state. It's effin remarkable that those who wax on poetically about human rights and misdoings in other parts of the world, have no problem denying rights in their own country's constitution to their fellow countrymen.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Classic. What about the rights of the driver unfairly accused? Do you not care about respecting that? There is no recourse for them...this isnt only draconian its part of a police state. It's effin remarkable that those who wax on poetically about human rights and misdoings in other parts of the world, have no problem denying rights in their own country's constitution to their fellow countrymen.

well i guess thats an entirely different issue, but doesnt change my opinion that too many people drink and drive still.

[GFG4Life]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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.

If someone blows a .05, they are not at all "stone cold sober".

I went through a check stop not too long after they implied this law in Vancouver. I blew a 0.523 or something close to that. Immediately i was like "Oh god, i'm ****ed". As soon as I got that thought in my head, the officer said "alright, you're free to go". He went on to say if it had been a few weeks earlier he might have impounded my car and suspended my license, but apparently they increased the "warning" limit to .06. And off i drove. (when i made the initial decision to driveI knew I was under the legal limit, but didn't think i was close to .05. I had 3 pints, and not much to eat that evening)

But to be totally honest, that scared the #### out of me. Since then i've been much more stern on myself, capping it to 2 drinks if i'm driving, or making the decision to not drive at all if i'm worried in the slightest. So in my instance, the warning has served its purpose, even though i wasn't impounded or fined.

I do not mind the new change at all, and if it hurts a few restaurants because of people having a few less beers to make the roads a little safer, i support it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

well i guess thats an entirely different issue, but doesnt change my opinion that too many people drink and drive still.

I don't think anyone is arguing that point, or even arguing against a change in the legal limit. What people are arguing against is the imposition of what amount to criminal penalties for an act that isn't criminal. Add in the complete absence of due process and this is completely unacceptable in a free nation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

From one of the links I posted in the OP:

And I read that link, now we're getting into a debate about public safety and rule of law versus business survivability?

That doesn't seem right to me.

And if you look at the BAC tables, unless you weigh under 140 a glass of wine will take you to .02.

2 at that weight will take you to .04.

so in essence your talking 3 glasses of wine at dinner which is a short period of time, at that point shouldn't discretion supercede valor.

I don't want to be the bad guy here.

Do I have a problem with reducing the legal limit to .05 from .08 maybe, possibliy I have trouble with the execution of any bill like that, and I would have to evaluate it if it became law. But I don't know that I have a problem with a system where you blow a .05 and your suspension is 24 hours.

I also do think that the police have to have some discretionary powers in terms of enforcing the laws unless you want to have a roving judge on duty that can be placed at checkstops or driven to pull overs to argue the merits of the law, then you would need to have a defense lawyer and prosecutor with him.

To be honest, I do get sick of hearing radio reports and reading news paper articles about accidents where "Alcohol was a factor".