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

[Hilch]

edit: I should have stuck to my original thought and stayed out of this thread.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

No it couldn't. In order to violate s.8 there needs to be a reasonable expectation of privacy being violated. Aside from the fact that the point of the impounding isn't to snoop around your car, there are plenty of s.8 cases out there (i.e. Belnavis) which clearly state that an automobile is generally subject to a reduced standard for s.8 purposes. Classic statement of Canadian constitutional law is that the charter protects people, not places, and it certainly doesn't protect your car. Long story short, your property rights are in no way enshrined in the Charter.


This, however, is far more likely, particularly if there is no avenue for judicial review built into this thing that would pass constitutional muster. There are plenty of absolute liability offences out there which is perfectly fine but I can't think of any off the top of my head that don't allow you to get in front of a judge to protest.

Not just that, but criminal law is the purview of the Fed, and an argument can easily be made that the Province is legislating in an area where it has no jurisdiction.
By the way, a challenge to the BC legislation is working its way through the courts.
I hate this law. This is punishment without recourse at the discretion of a bureaucrat (cop) which does nothing to address the actual problem (Telscher and the like). Big Brother indeed.

[flamesfan6]

without reading the thread... but i don't see how people are against lowering the limit, one drink affects your judgement no matter what you think.

How bout this for a lot of what i did see: make the legal limit 0.05!!!! then half your arguments is invalid

oh no, people are scared to drink at places if they are driving.. how is that a bad thing?? yes restaurants/bars lose business, but they have to adjust, their business isn't there to put drunk drivers on the road.

Usually 0.05 will allow you to have your one drink with supper and still be safe (note the first word of the sentence) ... anything to get drunk drivers off the roads, or at least a lot less of them and I'm happy, don't see how anyone could be against it.

As for the money grab aspect, yes there is a bit of that, but really who cares? why fight for allowing 0.06 and 0.07 limit which then people are going to go up to 3 drinks is safe to drive with (i'd rather have the thought: 1 drink may put me over 0.05 than people saying 3 drinks is safe to drive with)

learn to plan to have a DD, take the bus, take a cab, or somthing instead of arguing against a law that actually makes sense compared to a lot of others.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I rarely, if ever, drink to get buzzed. However, I do enjoy a glass of wine or beer with a meal to compliment the flavour of the food. Why should responsible people who aren't a danger to anyone be denied that pleasure?

I'm sorry if a rule that can make the roads safer (and it does no matter how much this is argued people would have to admit if people are afraid to get there car impounded and they drink less or not at all or don't drive when they had drinks the roads are safer) but it may effect the flavour of your fish or steak... That is a serious first world problem if you are actually afraid this rule may effect your pleasure of eatting. If you have one glass with a meal you should be below 0.05, so what are you worried about?

I do have a question though. Do the impaired driving stats include data of drives if they are not charged with impaired driving because they are below the 0.08 range... that would be cops discretion at that point wouldn't it, and if that is the case it wouldn't be too accurate of a stat.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

without reading the thread... but i don't see how people are against lowering the limit, one drink affects your judgement no matter what you think.

How bout this for a lot of what i did see: make the legal limit 0.05!!!! then half your arguments is invalid

oh no, people are scared to drink at places if they are driving.. how is that a bad thing?? yes restaurants/bars lose business, but they have to adjust, their business isn't there to put drunk drivers on the road.

Usually 0.05 will allow you to have your one drink with supper and still be safe (note the first word of the sentence) ... anything to get drunk drivers off the roads, or at least a lot less of them and I'm happy, don't see how anyone could be against it.

As for the money grab aspect, yes there is a bit of that, but really who cares? why fight for allowing 0.06 and 0.07 limit which then people are going to go up to 3 drinks is safe to drive with (i'd rather have the thought: 1 drink may put me over 0.05 than people saying 3 drinks is safe to drive with)

learn to plan to have a DD, take the bus, take a cab, or somthing instead of arguing against a law that actually makes sense compared to a lot of others.

Well, you're certainly right about not reading the thread before hand. You've taken the argument right back to the beginning.

[MarchHare]

if you are actually afraid this rule may effect your pleasure of eatting. If you have one glass with a meal you should be below 0.05, so what are you worried about?

That comment was in response to people who said the legal limit should be 0.00, not .08 or even .05.

[ken0042]

Put me in the "not liking" this new bit of legislation. As others have said; I would like to know what the BAC level was in fatalities involving alcohol. If a significant percentage involves people .05-.08; then that justifies the legislation. If this isn't the problem area; then let's focus on the area that is the problem.

And let's tackle the causes of drinking and driving. I have mentioned before that the last time I drove drunk it was an issue of not being able to get a cab. I'm not excusing my actions; just saying what caused them. So now with forcing more people into cabs, is the province also going to legislate more cabs being allowed on our streets?

Take that one step further. I have a couple of drinks and I am around .04. Knowing I am close to the limit I choose to take a cab home. Out comes a guy who is .14 and he can't find a cab; all us slightly impaired people are creating an excess demand on the cabs. Not being able to get a cab he says with his imapired judgement "Screw it- I'll just drive home."

I'm all for stopping impaired driving, but let's get to the cause of the problems instead of doing things that don't solve the problem, and could even make things worse.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Does anyone have links to real scientific studies in respected journals that prove that 1 beer effects your ability to drive?

Something with no association with MADD or any other slanted group. Real scientific data that proves that the average 160-200lb male has tangible effects when they have 1 beer? 2 on an empty stomach sure, 3 in a few hours and so on. But one? Really?

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that. Maybe it is because I just had half a glass of wine with supper and it is effecting my judgement.

[jar_e]

I find it funny that people are harping on this whole "vehicle impounded thing" when it already happens right now (albeit to a lesser extent)...

Get a 24 hour suspension? Chances are vehicle is towed.
Get charged with impaired (CHARGED not CONVICTED)? Vehicle towed, plus a licence suspension depending on what you're charged with.

So I understand why people are frustrated with the police being the judge and the jury but it already happens with alcohol/traffic related matters already. Your licence is suspended for 30 days or more if you get charged with impaired driving and that isn't even dependent on your criminal charge disposition. So the province has already set precedent for police having such powers. Its the same as a GDL driver (wasn't there a CP thread a while back on this?) who gets suspended instantly with any alcohol in his system.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't agree with the rules the province puts forth, I guess don't drive. I am quite sure in hippy, liberal BC that if this was going to be challenged already as a charter issue, it would have been already (or maybe it has? I don't know).

Another point worth noting is that you can be charged with impaired driving, even if your BAC is under 0.08. You usually get charged with both (impaired driving plus having a bAC over 0.08)...however, if an officer believes that your ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, regardless of BAC, can still be charged criminally.

So if you're gonna drive drunk or buzzed....be a good driver

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jar_e

I find it funny that people are harping on this whole "vehicle impounded thing" when it already happens right now (albeit to a lesser extent)...

Get a 24 hour suspension? Chances are vehicle is towed.
Get charged with impaired (CHARGED not CONVICTED)? Vehicle towed, plus a licence suspension depending on what you're charged with.

So I understand why people are frustrated with the police being the judge and the jury but it already happens with alcohol/traffic related matters already. Your licence is suspended for 30 days or more if you get charged with impaired driving and that isn't even dependent on your criminal charge disposition. So the province has already set precedent for police having such powers. Its the same as a GDL driver (wasn't there a CP thread a while back on this?) who gets suspended instantly with any alcohol in his system.

Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you don't agree with the rules the province puts forth, I guess don't drive. I am quite sure in hippy, liberal BC that if this was going to be challenged already as a charter issue, it would have been already (or maybe it has? I don't know).

Another point worth noting is that you can be charged with impaired driving, even if your BAC is under 0.08. You usually get charged with both (impaired driving plus having a bAC over 0.08)...however, if an officer believes that your ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, regardless of BAC, can still be charged criminally.

So if you're gonna drive drunk or buzzed....be a good driver

Duly noted. If I ever get pulled over drunk, I'm going to tell the cop to page you, telling him you said I can be drunk as long as I'm a good driver.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

I am all for the idea of having a reliable breathalyzer in every car - no guesswork.

I think that's a great idea. They'd never make a car without a speedometer, but it wouldn't really be all that different from making them without breathalyzers.

If we could eliminate the guesswork, I think there'd be less resistance to lowering the legal limit and increasing penalties for drunk drivers.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Duly noted. If I ever get pulled over drunk, I'm going to tell the cop to page you, telling him you said I can be drunk as long as I'm a good driver.

Who said I was a cop?

[Ozy_Flame]

Now I'm nervous of putting rubbing alcohol over a wound. Can anyone drive my drunk ass to the hospital?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Who said I was a cop?

nm long flowing locks apparantly

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Your buzzcut.

nm i'll PM you.

[jammies]

Ever driven when you were tired or sick? With crappy wipers in a huge storm? On summer tires when there was an early snowfall? With a temporary spare on? With a drink or a snack in one hand? With the music pumped loud enough to shake the car? When you were on the phone? Are you too short or too tall compared to the ideal person the car is designed for?

Any of those, and plenty of other common situations "impair' your driving. Sanctimonious bleating about how 0 drinks is the only correct amount to have before driving is an argument of fools; there is such a thing as an acceptable level of risk, and the point of making the law .08 BAC is that this is where we've decided the risk goes from acceptable to unacceptable.

Life entails a certain amount of danger; the law should be there to help minimize that danger by focusing on deterring high-risk behaviour while leaving low-risk behaviour at the citizenry's discretion. Overly stringent laws breed resentment and contempt for the law, which is far worse than the minor ills such regulations purport to address.

[troutman]

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.

A beer does not cost much more than a soft drink, and only the driver in the party has to cut back.

I also think the LRT should run 24 hrs a day.

[puckluck]

Good news everybody!

[TopChed]

Originally Posted by troutman

I also think the LRT should run 24 hrs a day.

This. Especially on weekends. But then what would the poor cab companies do?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by TopChed

This. Especially on weekends. But then what would the poor cab companies do?

Drive to the hundreds of thousands of houses that aren't near an LRT station?