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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

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

For Alberta there will be appeals process, and you still have the right to contact lawyers and the whole thing.

[MarchHare]

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.

The cops will never pull you over if you always drive 90 in a 110 zone, so speed limit laws will NEVER impact you. Who cares what the posted limit is, everyone should just choose to drive slower and road safety would improve.

What you're saying is no different. The legal limit is .08, not zero.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

0.08 blood-alcohol content

Yes because everyone is aware of their BAC when drinking. I'm guessing you have never had a friend who was clearly not able to drive but thought he/she was?

Every single person is different and there are too many factors to say "you can have X amount of this booze and you will be okay to drive". So simply make it zero tolerence on this with tiered punishment. A person who had one drink at dinner shouldn't be punished the same as the guy who can't see past his windshield. But they both should be considered breaking the law and punished for it.

I have had 5 friends killed in drunk driving accidents, one was a friend killing 2 other friends when he thought he was fine "only having a few". Well he wasn't and ran himself and everyone in the car into a tree. The other 2 friends were at the fault of other drivers. So maybe I'm the wrong person to be getting involved in this debate. But I think it's ridiculous when people claim to be fine, if you have one drink you are impaired one way or another.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by 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.

We're talking about increasing to an even higher level of punishment at .12, not moving the legal limit.

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.

You do realize what you are "guilty" of don't you? This is a provincial traffic offence, not a criminal offence.

Currently, as some have mentioned, a 24hr Suspension can be issued for suspicion of impaired driving or blowing a "warn" on a roadside screening device. Suspicion is the cops own observations and even an admission of drinking.


The spirit of the legislation is to prevent those that may be considering one more drink before getting behind the wheel or from defeating the 80mg% criminal offence. Fact of the matter is, impaired driving accidents, property damage, injuries, fatalities, etc, dont magically start to happen at 80mg%.

I don't think the proposed legislation is much different.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

For Alberta there will be appeals process, and you still have the right to contact lawyers and the whole thing.

There will be appeals, AFTER you've been convicted and punished without any due process.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

We're talking about increasing to an even higher level of punishment at .12, not moving the legal limit.

that didn't come across in your post my apology

Go after people with a .12 BAC harshly and up the scale at every .01 thereafter

People shouldn't be getting into the right side of a car at .08 and over because the impairment is both judgement, motorskills and reactions.

At .12, it pretty close to guaranteed that your car is a missile, and I'm all about incredible levels of punishment for that.

At .08 there is physical impairment that should outright prevent you from driving,

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You do realize what you are "guilty" of don't you? This is a provincial traffic offence, not a criminal offence.

Currently, as some have mentioned, a 24hr Suspension can be issued for suspicion of impaired driving or blowing a "warn" on a roadside screening device. Suspicion is the cops own observations and even an admission of drinking.


The spirit of the legislation is to prevent those that may be considering one more drink before getting behind the wheel or from defeating the 80mg% criminal offence. Fact of the matter is, impaired driving accidents, property damage, injuries, fatalities, etc, dont magically start to happen at 80mg%.

I don't think the proposed legislation is much different.

What does this matter? The codification makes little difference beyond the degree of consequences you face, it doesn't change the fact that you are found guilty without any due process.

Put it this way, would it be okay if the speed limit was set at 110 but cops could pull over people doing 90-109 and suspend their license for 24 hours (complete with a $200 reinstatement fee) without any due process?

Make the limit the limit, be it .04 or .08, don't create a grey area in which you remove legal rights.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

There will be appeals, AFTER you've been convicted and punished without any due process.

So what's your idea, I'm curious?

a person is driving a two ton potential missile, has been drinking and you don't want to get that person off of the road for at least the 24 hours? Look granted, the fine is possibly not a best idea.

However its not disimilar from a moving violation ticket where you're speeding and you get pulled over and you get a ticket, thats the same thing in your book, you're getting punished for that moving violation without due process.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

that didn't come across in your post my apology



People shouldn't be getting into the right side of a car at .08 and over because the impairment is both judgement, motorskills and reactions.

At .12, it pretty close to guaranteed that your car is a missile, and I'm all about incredible levels of punishment for that.

At .08 there is physical impairment that should outright prevent you from driving,

Agreed. Look I'd be all for a lowering of the limit to .06 with penalties being a little less harsh than they are now, .08 and you face penalties like the current ones, .10 a bit more, .12 a whole lot more etc. The problem i have is the removal of due process rights via the creation of a grey area.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So what's your idea, I'm curious?

a person is driving a two ton potential missile, has been drinking and you don't want to get that person off of the road for at least the 24 hours? Look granted, the fine is possibly not a best idea.

However its not disimilar from a moving violation ticket where you're speeding and you get pulled over and you get a ticket, thats the same thing in your book, you're getting punished for that moving violation without due process.

You're not punished for that violation until AFTER you are afforded your right to due process. You can contest that ticket and if successful not face punishment. That's not the case here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

What does this matter? The codification makes little difference beyond the degree of consequences you face, it doesn't change the fact that you are found guilty without any due process.

Put it this way, would it be okay if the speed limit was set at 110 but cops could pull over people doing 90-109 and suspend their license for 24 hours (complete with a $200 reinstatement fee) without any due process?

Make the limit the limit, be it .04 or .08, don't create a grey area in which you remove legal rights.

if there's an appeals process then your really not removing legal rights, its enforcement in the same way that moving violations happen.

I get what your getting at with the Grey area thing, but you really can't compare drinking and driving with speeding.

Speeding is fairly absolute.

Drinking and driving isn't absolute, but to me its ok to have a system where you can get these guys off of the road if need be.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're not punished for that violation until AFTER you are afforded your right to due process. You can contest that ticket and if successful not face punishment. That's not the case here.

What!?!

I didn't know that, you mean I can argue with the cop on the scene when he's writing the ticket and then he's obligated to let me go?

Thats awesome.

Its the same, the cop writes ticket, I can have my day in court.

the cop pulls me over for drinking and driving and impounds my car and I can argue that fine and the charge in court through the appeals process.

How is it different, whether its a moving violation or a drinking and driving violation, your getting a ticket.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

However its not disimilar from a moving violation ticket where you're speeding and you get pulled over and you get a ticket, thats the same thing in your book, you're getting punished for that moving violation without due process.

The difference with a speeding violation is that you only get ticketed if you exceed the legal limit. Cops can't suspend your license and impound your vehicle for driving 100 in a 110 zone because you're "close to the legal limit".

Also, if you are cited for speeding, you can choose to plead guilty and pay the ticket or fight the charge in court, so there is due process. With this proposed legislation, you have no other option but to surrender your vehicle to the impound lot and pay the fine to have it returned.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm granting that March, but I think that you have to look at the whole drinking and driving thing as a whole different thing then speeding.

And at some point you have to get that person out from behind the wheel.

And to be honest speeding tickets are pretty granular as well in the opposite direction, there's a point when the police impound your car and drag you're a%% to jail until your appearance.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

the cop pulls me over for drinking and driving and impounds my car and I can argue that fine and the charge in court through the appeals process.

How is it different, whether its a moving violation or a drinking and driving violation, your getting a ticket.

The former requires to pay a fine after (or if) you contest the charge.

The latter results in the loss of your vehicle, an expensive admin fee, and numerous other possible consequences before you have the right to contest the charge.

Even if you agree with both laws, there is quite a distinct difference between the two.

[MarchHare]

And at some point you have to get that person out from behind the wheel.

Of course, but the people who blow .05 aren't the problem. As I've said a few times in this thread already, I'm all for harsher punishments for drunk drivers who exceed the legal limit, especially in cases where people are injured or worse because some idiot got behind the wheel after having too much to drink. If someone blows a .12 or .16 or whatever, by all means impound their vehicle, suspend their license, and charge them with a criminal offence. My problem is that this proposed legislation will result in punishment against people who haven't broken any law. It creates a grey area where the legal limit is still .08, but the quasi-legal limit is .05. Make it definitively one or the other; there shouldn't be any confusion.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

II think that you have to look at the whole drinking and driving thing as a whole different thing then speeding.

Who's the goof that compared the two?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What!?!

I didn't know that, you mean I can argue with the cop on the scene when he's writing the ticket and then he's obligated to let me go?

Thats awesome.

Its the same, the cop writes ticket, I can have my day in court.

the cop pulls me over for drinking and driving and impounds my car and I can argue that fine and the charge in court through the appeals process.

How is it different, whether its a moving violation or a drinking and driving violation, your getting a ticket.

No, you can't. There's no formal fine. It's hidden as a license reinstatement fee, which would not be subject to appeal.

Originally Posted by valo403

What does this matter? The codification makes little difference beyond the degree of consequences you face, it doesn't change the fact that you are found guilty without any due process.

Put it this way, would it be okay if the speed limit was set at 110 but cops could pull over people doing 90-109 and suspend their license for 24 hours (complete with a $200 reinstatement fee) without any due process?

Make the limit the limit, be it .04 or .08, don't create a grey area in which you remove legal rights.

This is what you are clearly not understanding. I am not sure I can put it a different way.

In your example, doing 90-109 in a 110 zone is not an offence- criminal, provincial or otherwise.

In the case of driving while having alcohol in your system, it IS an offence (just not a criminal code offence). You seem to think it's not.

So to use your example, say driving over 110 was a criminal offence. You drive over and get caught, you get a criminal charge. However if you are going between 90-109, the province has determined that you should not be on the road.... simple really....

Get it?