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

[burn_this_city]

He was granted bail, which doesn't surprise me. He'll be serving time, no doubt about that. Probably not the 10+ years he deserves though.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

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'm sure it is. I know people who do defense work and this thing is killing their practices. But it's a traffic violation, I very much doubt you'll find a judge anywhere who's gullible enough to swallow a federalism argument.

[transplant99]

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

of those who cause road deaths 60% no BAC; 22% +.16; 11% .08-.16; 4% below 0.05; ONLY 2% by .05 to .08 -

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by transplant99

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

I assumed it would be something like that.

[Ducay]

You people are totally missing the point. You should realize that the 0.05 to 0.08 enforcement isn't aimed at directly preventing issues with people in that range, but rather to further deter people from drinking and driving at all. (Thus reducing the number of people who end driving over 0.08).

Its not a cash cow or a scheme of the MADD lobby , its aimed at reducing the number of drunk idiots on the road that can end up killing people (unless its a U-turn, thats apparently fine).

That said I think the 24hour/impound rule is pretty dumb, although it would certainly be effective.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You people are totally missing the point. You should realize that the 0.05 to 0.08 enforcement isn't aimed at directly preventing issues with people in that range, but rather to further deter people from drinking and driving at all. (Thus reducing the number of people who end driving over 0.08).

That doesn't make any sense; according to the numbers posted above. The people driving above .16 are responsible for twice the fatalities as the people just over .08. A person who will drive after getting completely wasted won't be stopped by the legal limit being lowered.

I just don't see why we aren't going after the problem groups. 33% of all traffic fatalities are caused by people over .08; as opposed to 6% being cause by people under .08. And I would even hazzard a guess that on any given night there are more people on the road who are .01-.07 as opposed to over .08. Even if it is the same number of drivers; that's still 5 times as many fatalities.

[Hatter]

Punishing people without due process is a violation of one's Charter rights under Section 11(d). I can't see this standing up to a serious legal challenge.

That being said, I'm very against drinking and driving. If 0.05 BAC is the standard that the government wants to enforce, change the appropriate section of the criminal code to reflect that. It is not the police's job to determine one's innocence or guilt, and this is what is happening.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You people are totally missing the point. You should realize that the 0.05 to 0.08 enforcement isn't aimed at directly preventing issues with people in that range, but rather to further deter people from drinking and driving at all. (Thus reducing the number of people who end driving over 0.08).

Its not a cash cow or a scheme of the MADD lobby , its aimed at reducing the number of drunk idiots on the road that can end up killing people (unless its a U-turn, thats apparently fine).

That said I think the 24hour/impound rule is pretty dumb, although it would certainly be effective.

Thats ALL it is...it has nothing to do with lowering drunk driving or making people think about driving after drinking, because if thats what they were trying to accomplish they would go to zero tolerance.

This is all about the 200 dollar reinstatemet fee because if it wasnt, there would be due process afforded and not some disguised fine instead.

[MarchHare]

You people are totally missing the point. You should realize that the 0.05 to 0.08 enforcement isn't aimed at directly preventing issues with people in that range, but rather to further deter people from drinking and driving at all. (Thus reducing the number of people who end driving over 0.08).

As Ken mentioned, the people who are really the problem (according to the statistics posted in this thread) are the idiot drunk drivers who get behind the wheel when they're bombed. Making the legal limit .08 and the quasi-legal limit .05 isn't going to deter those d-bags. Getting them off the road permanently (long-term license suspensions for repeat offenders, lengthy prison terms for drunk drivers who cause a fatality) is the solution.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Ducay

You people are totally missing the point. You should realize that the 0.05 to 0.08 enforcement isn't aimed at directly preventing issues with people in that range, but rather to further deter people from drinking and driving at all. (Thus reducing the number of people who end driving over 0.08).

Its not a cash cow or a scheme of the MADD lobby , its aimed at reducing the number of drunk idiots on the road that can end up killing people (unless its a U-turn, thats apparently fine).

That said I think the 24hour/impound rule is pretty dumb, although it would certainly be effective.

So let me get this straight.

You think the plan here is that by pseudo lowering the legal limit they are going to prevent people who are way blitzed from driving?

Riiiiiiiiight.

Not gonna work. If you are willing to drive after 10 beers what in god's name makes you think that having the limit be .05 vs .08 will make one iota of difference.

[Locke]

First of all, the sanctimonious whinging about "1 beer affects you and you should even dream of driving after so much as smelling alcohol!!!!"

That BS has to stop. I am not for one second believing any crap about 1 beer being so problematic. Especially not when you read these stats:

of those who cause road deaths 60% no BAC; 22% +.16; 11% .08-.16; 4% below 0.05; ONLY 2% by .05 to .08 -

Yeah, its the guy who had a couple of beers after work thats the devil. Not the guy who got to the bar at opening time and stayed till close. It is not horrendously unreasonable to have a couple drinks after work and be perfectly able to drive home safely.

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.

So what? Russia technically has a 'zero tolerance' policy on drinking and driving. And if you believe that I've got a couple of bridges for sale in the Frisco Bay area. Cheap Cheap!

Originally Posted by transplant99

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

Exactly. 2% of road fatalities are caused by the demographic we're talking about here. How much legislation do you want to enact, and pay for, to get that down to 1.9%?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by 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.

Different governments - the Fed has the responsibility for the CC and drunk driving punishments. The provincial government is pulling a cheap stunt by legislating where they are not supposed to, probably in the hope of positive publicity (for being tough on DD) and for the cash grab...

[transplant99]

So apparently this was discussed in the legislature yesterday and get this..

For a first offense the penalty would be a 3 day license suspension, a 3 day impounding of your vehicle, and you have to pay for your reinstatement. They also want to suspend the license of anyone charged with .08+ until the trial is complete.

All for doing nothing illegal. This is, in a nutshell, guilty until proven innocent.

Its an absurd line of thinking and a complete travesty and abuse of our liberties if it ever comes to pass.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Different governments - the Fed has the responsibility for the CC and drunk driving punishments.

Yeah, I guess what I was getting at was that if Redford wants to get tough on drunk driving, that is something she should bring up at a first minister's conference so it can be passed at the federal level.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by ken0042

That doesn't make any sense; according to the numbers posted above. The people driving above .16 are responsible for twice the fatalities as the people just over .08. A person who will drive after getting completely wasted won't be stopped by the legal limit being lowered.

I just don't see why we aren't going after the problem groups. 33% of all traffic fatalities are caused by people over .08; as opposed to 6% being cause by people under .08. And I would even hazzard a guess that on any given night there are more people on the road who are .01-.07 as opposed to over .08. Even if it is the same number of drivers; that's still 5 times as many fatalities.

If this rule is making people scared to drink and drive that is good. What it will be doing is probably reduce the amount people drink before they drive by say 1 drink per time they drive. So somebody that usually drinks 3-4 drinks and say they are fine probably will have 2-3 and be actually fine. I'm sure there are a lot of people how drive at over 0.08 who think they are in that 0.05 range. Therefore this rule will probably drop a lot of the 0.08 people down to 0.05 people and the people in that 0.05 range down.

For all the people that are made at this I don't actually understand your point. I agree there should be stiffer laws for the idiots well over 0.08, but most of your complaints really boil down to "This effects my pleasure and shouldn't be done". 0.05-0.08 doesn't represent a huge amount of fatalities, but it represents some, and probably a lot of those are preventable with better reaction time etc. So if you are arguing that a simple rule, that will save some (maybe a small amount) of lives is worthless, then I'm sorry you are more worried about having a extra beer, or you enjoy wine with your food, or you don't like the $200 cost or feel that it is a cash cow (I personally say tax the stupid).

[calf]

Originally Posted by transplant99

According to MLA Rob Anderson's twitter, some numbers to apply to this argument...

By these stats, maybe there should be zero tolerance for NOT having 1 or 2 beers in your system.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tiger

For all the people that are made at this I don't actually understand your point. I agree there should be stiffer laws for the idiots well over 0.08, but most of your complaints really boil down to "This effects my pleasure and shouldn't be done". 0.05-0.08 doesn't represent a huge amount of fatalities, but it represents some, and probably a lot of those are preventable with better reaction time etc.

Yes, this does affect my fun. I'm not going to dispute that. However that 2% rate is a bit of a statistical anomaly. Considering that 60% of fatalities are caused by sober drivers; it would seem that being .05 does not significantly increase your odds of causing a fatal accident.

Don't get me wrong, I don't go out to get up to .07 before I go driving. I know the math for my body weight and I know how to keep myself around .03 or below. This likely won't affect me at all. My problem is with there being no due process, and that they aren't going after the drunks who are doing the killing. This is like trying to tackle the problem with childhood obesity by removing salad dressings from the schools. It doesn't punish the ones who have most of the responsibility; but does punish the ones trying to be responsible.

[GP_Matt]

According to these guys http://www.saferoads.com/about/index.html 90% of accidents were caused by driver error, 6% speed and 4% driver condition (drinking, drugs, tired or medical condition) I wonder how many lives could be saved a year by introducing mandatory re-testing either after an incident or periodically.

[GFG4Life]

"In the year ending Sept. 30, 2011, there were 68 alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths across B.C. There were an average of 113 such deaths in the five previous years.

"For the first time in a decade, we've seen a real drop in the deaths associated with impaired driving," said Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor- General Shirley Bond."

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Drin...730/story.html

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

"In the year ending Sept. 30, 2011, there were 68 alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths across B.C. There were an average of 113 such deaths in the five previous years.

"For the first time in a decade, we've seen a real drop in the deaths associated with impaired driving," said Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor- General Shirley Bond."

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Drin...730/story.html

Unfortunately that article is redundant and has been picked apart, examined and essentially disproved. Don't get me wrong the stats are real but they have nothing to do with the new law. Even if they did you could never prove it. And they don't so it doesn't matter.

Given that only 2% of all traffic fatalities are caused by .05-.08 drivers it is pretty much guaranteed there are other factors at play in this stat. It is basically a statistical anomaly.