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

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

why .05 thou? why not just make it zero alcohol tolerance?

That's way too extreme then. Heck, what if you took some cough surup before heading out? That'd probably spike it up from zero at least I would think.

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Because many responsible, law-abiding citizens enjoy having a beer or glass of wine with dinner and a single drink does not impair your ability to drive?

Not completely true...
http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/blood-alcohol-calculator
100 lbs female drinks 1 margarita in 1 hour = .0473 BAC
...there is the grey area again.

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

That's way too extreme then. Heck, what if you took some cough surup before heading out? That'd probably spike it up from zero at least I would think.

I agree with you, but how does a person go about having that drink without knowing if they are over the .05?

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

As a few others have pointed out in this thread, I don't understand why they don't just make the limit lower (0.05) instead of all this "grey area" bs. Leave the discretion out, and nab anyone over the new limit. Then there's no argument about it being unconstitutional.

Perhaps they are going for an argument that 0.08 is the legal limit, however, at 0.05 - 0.08, combined with other factors, they are letting you off with only a 24 hour suspension and warning. It would scare the bejeezus out of someone who gets caught, enough to hopefully have them rethink 2 beer + shooter chaser during his meal.

Otherwise, putting the legal limit at 0.05, now you get the criminal record, loss of driving privileges, fines, lawyers fees, loss of insurance, and so on.

Whether this is truly effective remains to be seen.

ers

[Locke]

Talk about targeting the entirely wrong demographic. Candy was right, they wont be happy until theres Prohibition.

I particularly love how in their study on the changes in BC, 3 months was a perfectly good sample size to compare against a time frame of 5 year comparables. By all means, pick and choose whatever stats validate your theory.

Heres an idea: for every vehicular fatality involving alcohol see how many were involving drivers with a BAC of .05-.08 and how many involve drivers with a BAC of .08 - greater.

I guarantee that the numbers will shock and surprise a grand total of absolutely no one.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ne7en

Not completely true...
http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/blood-alcohol-calculator
100 lbs female drinks 1 margarita in 1 hour = .0473 BAC
...there is the grey area again.

How is it a grey area? At .0473, her BAC is slightly more than half the legal limit. She's fine to drive in that state.

[Chump]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

As a few others have pointed out in this thread, I don't understand why they don't just make the limit lower (0.05) instead of all this "grey area" bs. Leave the discretion out, and nab anyone over the new limit. Then there's no argument about it being unconstitutional.

I believe it is because the federal government sets the legal limit so the provinces can't actually change it.

[Ne7en]

^locke exactly. lowering it to .05 is only harming pubs/restaurants. That is why i stated earlier MADD should focus on the more serious offenders. (re-offenders, double legal limit..etc.)

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How is it a grey area? At .0473, her BAC is slightly more than half the legal limit. She's fine to drive in that state.

You took my post out of context, it was in reference to lowering the limit to .05, therefore having people under the impression of blowing over.

[Tiger]

I have a friend that if he blew 0.05 is in no condition to drive a car. They should be able to impound your car... but they should make it worse for people over 0.08 too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I have a friend that if he blew 0.05 is in no condition to drive a car. They should be able to impound your car... but they should make it worse for people over 0.08 too.

So...what you're saying is that the legal limit should be reduced to 0.05 and a tiered punishment system based on degree of intoxication should be implemented?

Cool, but that is not at all whats being proposed by this legislation. Not even close.

[GP_Matt]

Has anyone seen any stats about whether or not BC increased enforcement when the new laws were rolled out and how much their advertising increased during the roll out?
I would love to see what happens to B.C.'s stats after the rules have been in place for a year or two. In the end, if lowering the limits saves lives even indirectly then I am in favour of lowering the limit. With the caveat that I find the proposed method of bypassing the justice system to be a disturbing practice. I question the 30 day impounding that is being proposed. A company that I do business with had a new employee who was pulled over in B.C. driving a company truck (a hydro-vac truck I believe). The employee blew between 0.05 and 0.08 and now the truck is impounded with no way to get it out. The employee has been fired but the employer is without the use of his equipment for a month. That seems like you are punishing the employer more than the employee who committed the offense.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

So...what you're saying is that the legal limit should be reduced to 0.05 and a tiered punishment system based on degree of intoxication should be implemented?

Cool, but that is not at all whats being proposed by this legislation. Not even close.

are you being charged at 0.05, no. you are just having your car impounded. so it is a fine basically... tiered

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tiger

are you being charged at 0.05, no. you are just having your car impounded. so it is a fine basically... tiered

Why? You havent broken the law yet. Yet you should lose your license for 24 hours and have your car impounded and have to pay to get it back? For not breaking the law?

Realistically speaking, having a BAC of .05 instead of a BAC of .08 is actually being a responsible citizen. No crime has been committed, so why should there be any punishment at all?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why? You havent broken the law yet. Yet you should lose your license for 24 hours and have your car impounded and have to pay to get it back? For not breaking the law?

Realistically speaking, having a BAC of .05 instead of a BAC of .08 is actually being a responsible citizen. No crime has been committed, so why should there be any punishment at all?

If this law passes, then yes you have if you're caught driving over .05. You will be in violation of Alberta provincial laws and be subject to the penalties prescribed.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If this law passes, then yes you have if you're caught driving over .05. You will be in violation of Alberta provincial laws and be subject to the penalties prescribed.

Without due process right? Just like a roadside ticket, except the damage is done and theres nothing you can do about it?

So, if you appeal after the fact and win do you get your money for impound and reinstatement back, reimbursement for inconvenience and 24 hours of traffic law immunity?

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why? You havent broken the law yet. Yet you should lose your license for 24 hours and have your car impounded and have to pay to get it back? For not breaking the law?

Realistically speaking, having a BAC of .05 instead of a BAC of .08 is actually being a responsible citizen. No crime has been committed, so why should there be any punishment at all?

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't drink at all if you are going to drive. At all, you want to enjoy a couple beers, fine, don't drive. You haven't broken the law at 0.05-0.08 but you're not doing the right thing. So you are not getting charged with an crime, but you are basically getting a ticket. And if there is a law that cops can impound your car between 0.05-0.08 than you are actually breaking that law if you are between the two... I agree you are not breaking the criminal law of being over 0.08 though.

also If I blow a 0.077 or something like that chances are I was above 0.08 when I started driving so I probably should get punished for that.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

Realistically speaking, having a BAC of .05 instead of a BAC of .08 is actually being a responsible citizen. No crime has been committed, so why should there be any punishment at all?

and your are crazy if you think 0.05 vs 0.08 is a responsible citizen! 0.00 is responsible for driving... 0.05 is questionable. But too many people justify it like that, and that is a major problem

[photon]

Originally Posted by Locke

Without due process right?

Just because it infringes on rights doesn't mean it's illegal, as we've seen recently something can still be permitted if it infringes on rights (occupy movements, polygamy).

That's what they'll argue anyway, that the harm caused by allowing such drivers to drive outweighs the harm to infringing on people's rights.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't drink at all if you are going to drive. At all, you want to enjoy a couple beers, fine, don't drive. You haven't broken the law at 0.05-0.08 but you're not doing the right thing. So you are not getting charged with an crime, but you are basically getting a ticket. And if there is a law that cops can impound your car between 0.05-0.08 than you are actually breaking that law if you are between the two... I agree you are not breaking the criminal law of being over 0.08 though.

also If I blow a 0.077 or something like that chances are I was above 0.08 when I started driving so I probably should get punished for that.

Your opinion is all well and good, but the majority of the civilized world maintains that a BAC under 0.08 is totally cool and an individual is still perfectly capable of driving a car.

If they dont like that anymore, they certainly can try and reduce the legal BAC limit to 0.05 if they're more comfortable with that. Then, when its the law it can be enforced as such.

Building in a gray area isnt doing anyone any favours.

Originally Posted by Tiger

and your are crazy if you think 0.05 vs 0.08 is a responsible citizen! 0.00 is responsible for driving... 0.05 is questionable. But too many people justify it like that, and that is a major problem

As a set of reasoning, its got its flaws. However, I'd contend that whats really a major problem are drivers with a BAC of 0.08+.

Well, clearly society isnt too concerned about the 0.05 guys as the equivalent of a ticket is whats being suggested to deter them. If driving around with a 0.05 BAC was such a menace, stronger enforcement alternatives would probably be recommended.