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

[FlamesAddiction]

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of even having a legal limit. Most people wouldn't know when they are over and it seems like it just tempts people to push it. A lot of countries have already gone to zero tolerance.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of even having a legal limit. Most people wouldn't know when they are over and it seems like it just tempts people to push it. A lot of countries have already gone to zero tolerance.

I certainly hope we don't go to that extreme.

[Dion]

The solution is to have bar owners install breathalyzer units. This way patrons know if they are impared or not.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of even having a legal limit. Most people wouldn't know when they are over and it seems like it just tempts people to push it. A lot of countries have already gone to zero tolerance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_d...law_by_country

Even Russia has a zero tolerance policy. I don't really understand the mentality that it's people's God given right to have an intoxicant and operate a motor vehicle. So you can't have a glass of port at the petroleum club before driving your bentley home, boo fataing hoo.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.
.

well now the government is deciding that .08 is not an acceptable level of risk and want it to be .05 as the acceptable risk

again, why, why are there people fighting this type of legislation? why do you want people to push the legal limits of alcohol, it makes no sense, this is something that makes sense, complain about other laws, but really one that actually is good and will save lives (as BC's case has proven)

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

The solution is to have bar owners install breathalyzer units. This way patrons know if they are impared or not.

That was tried 20-25 years ago,because of timelines there were too many inaccurate readings, a person can "sip" on booze for hours,then slam back 2 or 3 drinks at the end of the night and the unit would show their sober...1/2 hour later their hammered.

The biggest problem in all this is everyone is different, to some people they feel completely sober at .08 and other people can hardly talk.

There should be a test for how a person reacts to alcohol, I know I would be awful pissed off it I had my car towed for having 2-3 beers after work or having a glass of wine with dinner.

The old days they made you walk the line with your arms stretched out and then with one hand covering an eye. Sometimes I think it was a better method.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

So you can't have a glass of port at the petroleum club before driving your bentley home, boo fataing hoo.

So..

-Petroleum club and others go out of business thus hurt the economy.

-You would have Government dictate that you can't have a glass of port and drive home completely sober.

So whats next? they tell you what you can eat,ban sports because someone could get injured, women can't go out after dark because there's a risk.the list goes on

boo fataing hoo yourself

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

well now the government is deciding that .08 is not an acceptable level of risk and want it to be .05 as the acceptable risk

Read the thread. The limit is not being changed.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

well now the government is deciding that .08 is not an acceptable level of risk and want it to be .05 as the acceptable risk

No, the provincial gov't is pushing it's nose into the federal government's bailiwick and deciding that they want to punish people as if they are criminals for doing something that isn't actually criminal. As many others have argued, if the limit needs to be changed, change it properly, not by arrogating powers to your level of government that you don't possess.

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Read the thread. The limit is not being changed.

i know what the law is, i live in BC so i know what it would do.

guess another way of saying is that the AB government has decided that they want to make people think more about drinking and driving, and that penalties at they believe the acceptable risk is 0.05 in alberta.

and to the guy a few posts above .. 2-3 drinks after work then driving.. even at 0.08 that is risky and you shouldn't be driving... but again, give a good reason for being able to drive to 0.08 instead of max 0.05 (ignore laws, just say why allowing driving at 0.08 vs 0.05 is better)? you can't ... as the guy there proves, apparently 0.08 allows you to have 2-3 beers after work then drive, which you shouldn't be.

[Circa89]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Sometimes I wonder what the point is of even having a legal limit. Most people wouldn't know when they are over and it seems like it just tempts people to push it. A lot of countries have already gone to zero tolerance.

Really? Zero Tolerance. A LOT of countries??
Name one that is NOT a Muslim fundamentalist state or have the asterisk of underage driving.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

and to the guy a few posts above .. 2-3 drinks after work then driving.. even at 0.08 that is risky and you shouldn't be driving... but again, give a good reason for being able to drive to 0.08 instead of max 0.05 (ignore laws, just say why allowing driving at 0.08 vs 0.05 is better)? you can't ... as the guy there proves, apparently 0.08 allows you to have 2-3 beers after work then drive, which you shouldn't be.

I weigh 230, I don't even feel 3 beers, my level is probably about .03 or maybe .04

I hope it's "ok" with you that I have a couple beers after work with some buds from time to time.

PS, I never have more than 3 and drive.

[Pacem]

I'm not sure if they are trying to impliment the current system thats in BC in Alberta. I don't see why Alberta any every other province wouldn't head down the same road as BC. In BC its just a tax grab. IIRC, it costs an individual at least $1500 if they get pulled over in the warning range. $1500 is on the cheap end. They are not interested in saving lives. Its all about the money. They are targetting average Joe and Jane who work steady jobs and have to pay off these fines, impound fees, license re-instantment fees because they are generally responsible people. It gives the police way too much power, while a citizen has no immediate recourse. I'm sure you can dispute the warning charge, but it does nothing. It doesn't stop them from taking our vehicle for 3 days, for not breaking the ####ing law.

They are making a ton of money off this. And nothing goes back to solve the problem. There was an article about the RCMP being a bit peeved about this because they know they are generating alot of money and they aren't seeing any of it come back to their department. I wouldn't mind all the money they are making off this if they used it to fund projects for say problematic drinkers. Or help victims/family of victims of drunk drivers. So far as I can tell, none of the money is going towards anything like that. The RDP (Responsible Driver Program) is not one of those projects thats helpfull. The RDP is just another cog in the money making machine.

It gives the police too much power and these changes have been motivated by money. Those are the reasons why I hate the changes. Go to zero tolerance drinking for all I care, but just make the rules the rules and none of this gray area bull####.

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

well now the government is deciding that .08 is not an acceptable level of risk and want it to be .05 as the acceptable risk

again, why, why are there people fighting this type of legislation? why do you want people to push the legal limits of alcohol, it makes no sense, this is something that makes sense, complain about other laws, but really one that actually is good and will save lives (as BC's case has proven)

I'm not so sure on that one. I don't think its been nearly effective as they are claiming. Its a cash cow and they got to throw some sort of attention getting number out there to average Joe so they can continue making money.

If someone has a more detailed article that would be great but anything i've seen has used a five year average for comparing October 2010 to October 2011. They say since the new changes that 68 people died to due to drinking and driving during that time period compared to a five year average of 113 during the same time period. The way the numbers have been presented i'm really curious as to what the death totals were like on a year to year basis. I'm curious to see if there is a steady decline and 68 isn't that far off projections. 113 over 5 years is 565 deaths if my math is correct. Now im sure there would be some way to manipulate the numbers in order to make sense that there is only 68 deaths. Maybe 4, and 5 years ago the deaths were pretty high, but years 3, 2, 1 were on a sharp steady decline low and 68 goes in line with that.

Unless there is another article stating the numbers from year to year, this release just reeks of manipulation of the numbers. It makes no sense for them to base their results off of the average of five years prior. You know damn well that if the year before the changes there were alot of deaths (say 175) and the four years preceding that had death totals closer to the 68 number, that they would not base it on a five year average.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Circa89

Really? Zero Tolerance. A LOT of countries??
Name one that is NOT a Muslim fundamentalist state or have the asterisk of underage driving.

Russian, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Brazil, and The Czech Republic.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Russian, Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Brazil, and The Czech Republic.

I'm not sure whose point you're proving because that isn't a lot of countries. They aren't all Muslim though.

[freedogger]

This makes $ents. A lot of people challenge an impaired driving charge which is very expensive for Alberta. With this new option, cops will take the easier route most of the time and just issue the suspension. The net effect of this is a decriminalization of drunk driving, a cash cow for the province and a huge step back for our charter rights.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not sure whose point you're proving because that isn't a lot of countries. They aren't all Muslim though.

Just pointing out that it's not just Iran, Kuwait and Saudi.

However, there are a lot of countries that have set their standard at 0.05 and below.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Just pointing out that it's not just Iran, Kuwait and Saudi.

However, there are a lot of countries that have set their standard at 0.05 and below.

.05 seems to be the standard in most of western Europe.

[Hockeyguy15]

Blow .05 and you get your car impounded and a suspension....Blow way over, kill 2 people and you get bail and a slap on the wrist I bet.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/11/23...-driving-crash

Makes sense to me....

[ken0042]

^^ And that is my concern. That person was more than double the legal limit of .08. Why are we toughening the laws for the people at the lower end of the limit instead of going after the ones who are very, very drunk?

Why not leave the law as it is for the lower limits, current laws for .08, and then somewhere like .12 you get automatic jail time? And I mean serious jail time like at least a year for your 1st offense.