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

[Sled]

Vodka Tampons it is then.

Overheard in a pub near you soon

"Me and Earl here would like a couple of Grey Goose and Tampex please. Yes, I will have the lubed applicator please."

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

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.

What purpose did it serve? You were fine to drive home at .0523 were you not?

Again, if the goal is to keep people off the roads who are over .05 lower the limit to .05. Don't backdoor your way to lowering the limit through a process that affords people no recourse.

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

How are they being unfairly accussed, its not like the cop is sniffing their breath and flipping a coin. The Breathalizer is being used and you as the driver do have the right to ask for the more accurate blood test.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Sled

Vodka Tampons it is then.

Overheard in a pub near you soon

"Me and Earl here would like a couple of Grey Goose and Tampex please. Yes, I will have the lubed applicator please."

Real drinkers don't use lube, it affects the absorbtion rate, you basically have to grin and jam it and pray you don't need to use the buddy system.

[transplant99]

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.

Then punish THEM...not the guy legally driving his car home after dinner.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How are they being unfairly accussed, its not like the cop is sniffing their breath and flipping a coin. The Breathalizer is being used and you as the driver do have the right to ask for the more accurate blood test.

Perhaps not unfairly accused, but no due process is afforded. You don't get to have your day in court. You're guilty on the spot and that's that. That should never be acceptable.

[DementedReality]

so the law is suggesting that if you blow at .05 you can have your car impounded but the legal limit is still .08?

that seems wack, i agree.

however, who cares about whether its confusing about having a drink at dinner or not. dont drink at dinner, is your pizza going to be ruined because you had water instead of beer?

if you dont like these laws, look at your buddies, brothers, dads and coworkers and say "hey thanks for abusing the right to have a drink at dinner, now no one can".

drinking and driving is still an epidemic and while i agree that police state legislation is scary, lawmakers are clearly at their wits end about how to get rid of this ridiculas problem.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

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.

So hold on, were you getting the #### scared out of you because:
A) You were blitzed, and really shouldn't have been driving, but you blew only 0.0523, which saved you.
B) You were sober/tipsy, and had no issues driving, but you were scared of getting a DUI.

If it was A, then yes, you were a ###### and you're right in capping yourself to a few drinks or whatever. If it was B, then how does you getting your car impounded that night you blew 0.0523 help overall traffic safety at all other than make you pay a massive fine, and inconvenience you without any recourse?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

How are they being unfairly accussed, its not like the cop is sniffing their breath and flipping a coin. The Breathalizer is being used and you as the driver do have the right to ask for the more accurate blood test.

because .05 is LEGAL in this province.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by transplant99

because .05 is LEGAL in this province.

No it isn't, that's why you get a 24 hour and your vehicle impounded.
It might not be a criminal offense, but it's not LEGAL.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

Perhaps not unfairly accused, but no due process is afforded. You don't get to have your day in court. You're guilty on the spot and that's that. That should never be acceptable.

There's an entire appeals process around the law. depending on which prohibition you've been hit with.

I'm curious at what your suggestion would be?

And please keep in mind for example that Alberta has made the .05 levels punishments very clear.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Regorium

So hold on, were you getting the #### scared out of you because:
A) You were blitzed, and really shouldn't have been driving, but you blew only 0.0523, which saved you.
B) You were sober/tipsy, and had no issues driving, but you were scared of getting a DUI.

If it was A, then yes, you were a ###### and you're right in capping yourself to a few drinks or whatever. If it was B, then how does you getting your car impounded that night you blew 0.0523 help overall traffic safety at all other than make you pay a massive fine, and inconvenience you without any recourse?

this is my point ... too many people are only worried IF they get caught. they dont care about the safety issue.

and the OP you quoted, his answer is to limit himself to just 2 drinks? how about DONT drink period if you are driving.

what is so frikkin hard about that?

drink nothing if you are driving and this law will NEVER impact you.

i still dont like police state tactics, so if thats the issue of this thread i can understand the problem, but in the context of drinking and driving, i get rage that people just cant abstain when they are driving.

[Sled]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

No it isn't, that's why you get a 24 hour and your vehicle impounded.
It might not be a criminal offense, but it's not LEGAL.

By definetion if it's not a criminal offense it IS legal. Please explain the difference.

[photon]

.08 is the limit, but as has been mentioned already it's going to vary person by person.

So risk starts at lower than 0.08, and increases in general as the BAC increases.

So it makes sense that a softer level of deterrent be used below the hard limit.

[Esoteric]

Originally Posted by Sled

Vodka Tampons it is then.

Overheard in a pub near you soon

"Me and Earl here would like a couple of Grey Goose and Tampex please. Yes, I will have the lubed applicator please."

You'd still blow over - a breathalyser measures your blood alcohol content, it doesn't matter which way you consume it.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Sled

By definetion if it's not a criminal offense it IS legal. Please explain the difference.

I'm not an expert on law, but I don't think speeding is a criminal offense, but it's still illegal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

so the law is suggesting that if you blow at .05 you can have your car impounded but the legal limit is still .08?

that seems wack, i agree.

however, who cares about whether its confusing about having a drink at dinner or not. dont drink at dinner, is your pizza going to be ruined because you had water instead of beer?

if you dont like these laws, look at your buddies, brothers, dads and coworkers and say "hey thanks for abusing the right to have a drink at dinner, now no one can".

drinking and driving is still an epidemic and while i agree that police state legislation is scary, lawmakers are clearly at their wits end about how to get rid of this ridiculas problem.

Lawmakers are approaching this from the wrong angle. They're criminalizing the behavior of the typical driver as opposed to harshly cracking down on those who have been proven to be the cause of the majority of alcohol related driving deaths. Go after people with a .12 BAC harshly and up the scale at every .01 thereafter, including incarceration. Impose mandatory incarceration for people involved in an accident with a BAC over .08 and lengthy terms for those where people are injured.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There's an entire appeals process around the law. depending on which prohibition you've been hit with.

I'm curious at what your suggestion would be?

And please keep in mind for example that Alberta has made the .05 levels punishments very clear.

This proposal has no appeals process (unless I'm reading it wrong). That's the point.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sled

By definetion if it's not a criminal offense it IS legal. Please explain the difference.

Breaking a by-law isn't a criminal offence but it's still not legal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Now we're talking .12? Are you serious?

At .06 to .09 you have the following impairments

Reasoning
Depth perception
Peripheral vision
Glare recovery

the reason why the bar was set at .06 is because the imparment at .06 and lower is judgement.