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

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sure people would call that a cash grab too.

[GFG4Life]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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.

How is it redundant when it was published today?

And however you want to spin your stats, or your percentages, (for either argument) 45 fewer crash deaths in the 1 year the new laws have been in effect, certainly is a positive thing. Can't argue with that.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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.

So stats on one side of the argument are wrong and stats on the other side of the argument from a twitter account are gold...

[ken0042]

We aren't debating the stats about reduced drunk driving fatalities since the new BC law. We are saying that you cannot take a 5 year average and compare it to a few months. What hasn't been shown is how much the average went down year by year. Everything I have seen is that drunk driving is generally on the decline.

I know some durisdictions have been down to .05 for a lot longer. How has that affected the impaired driving deaths? Why are we only seeing the BC stat; if this reduced deaths then let's see all the places where this has worked.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

And however you want to spin your stats, or your percentages, (for either argument) 45 fewer crash deaths in the 1 year the new laws have been in effect, certainly is a positive thing. Can't argue with that.

Check out this article http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...s-decline.html According to them,

Fatalities caused by drinking drivers declined by 24.4 per cent, while those seriously hurt dropped by 14.5 per cent.

This is over the period between 2007 and 2010.I have had trouble finding the stats, but in 2008 it looks like there were 100 deaths due to drunk driving. So assuming that the 24.4 percent was linear the average number of deaths from 2007 to 2009 was 100 and in 2010 it was 89. This is 11 fewer deaths over three years without a law. It would be interesting to dig up all the stats and compare Alberta to B.C. over the same time period. Also comparing things like the increased enforcement and advertising that went along with the new law in B.C.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

How is it redundant when it was published today?

And however you want to spin your stats, or your percentages, (for either argument) 45 fewer crash deaths in the 1 year the new laws have been in effect, certainly is a positive thing. Can't argue with that.

Because it was already posted on the first page. It is a rehashed article.


And actually I can argue with the law causing fewer deaths. The reduction wasn't caused at all by the new law but by my Drunk Driving repellant rock.

Would you like to buy my rock?

Originally Posted by Tiger

So stats on one side of the argument are wrong and stats on the other side of the argument from a twitter account are gold...

Uh, what?

No one is questioning the validity of the stats. It is the cause of the statistics. There is hardly a correlation between the new law in BC and the decrease, let alone causation.

Based on the number of drunk driving fatalities and the BAC content of the drivers in those fatalities the stats about decreases don't make plausible sense.

[GP_Matt]

What is the price of said rock?

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No one is questioning the validity of the stats. It is the cause of the statistics. There is hardly a correlation between the new law in BC and the decrease, let alone causation.

Based on the number of drunk driving fatalities and the BAC content of the drivers in those fatalities the stats about decreases don't make plausible sense.

As mentioned, the new laws are further discouraging all levels of drinking and driving, and isn't just stopping people between 0.05-0.08. This isn't about snagging a couple more people in roadside tests; its about a implementing strong change in how society itself *thinks* about drinking and driving. They're trying to change the culture through stronger enforcement.

[MarchHare]

Here's a much better metric to see if BC's law has worked in practice: how many people were caught driving above .08 in the year before the law versus the year after. As many, many people have noted (with stats to back themselves up), it is the drunk drivers who grossly exceed the legal limit who cause the vast majority of alcohol-influenced accidents. Has the new law actually done anything to deter those morons from thinking they're fine to drive home after a night of hard drinking?

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Here's a much better metric to see if BC's law has worked in practice: how many people were caught driving above .08 in the year before the law versus the year after. As many, many people have noted (with stats to back themselves up), it is the drunk drivers who grossly exceed the legal limit who cause the vast majority of alcohol-influenced accidents. Has the new law actually done anything to deter those morons from thinking they're fine to drive home after a night of hard drinking?

Well sales of alcohol are apparently down dramatically... This cannot be only because of the people in the 0.05 range. So I would infer some of that reduction in alcohol sales has dropped the amount of drivers that are above 0.08. it probably has got the people who assume they are fine with 3-4 drink but probably aren't to reduce their drinking, they think they are fine but remember their judgement of them feeling fine is impaired, and hardly anybody tests themselves before they drive.

That being said it would be interesting to see the stat you ask for. And you are right that the law probably has done little to scare morons, but people seem more scared of getting their car impounded that they are apparently drinking less in BC, so maybe it is working a bit. Maybe the morons are at 0.1 instead of 0.16 so even the idiots are driving a little better

as for Russia being zero tolerance... They need that rule, they are terrible drivers. driving 1000km across Siberia was scary...

[Fire]

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

They could make driving illegal in BC and bring this number to virtually zero. Anyone who disagrees with this, must be ok with drinking and driving deaths.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Those rights are infringed upon with process, not at the whim of a cop at the side of the road.

[wookster]

Looks like there is indeed some opposition mounting to this proposed law... I received an email about the website below and how the hospitality industry is gearing up to fight this bill, not to kill it per say but to have it ammended so to speak.

http://www.albertansagainstbill26.com

I'm not saying nay or yay on the matter, it just seemed relevant to the discussion.

[corporatejay]

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

[ken0042]

My single biggest issue is that instead of doing something to target the group causing the most damage, they are going after the group that is causing the least amount of damage.

It is a smoke screen; in that it is an attempt by the provincial gov't to be able to say they are getting tougher with impaired driving. The uninformed voters will not know that they are getting tougher with the wrong group.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

I don't think it would be an intelligent approach to the issue, but I wouldn't really have a problem with it. IMO the best approach would be to target those who greatly exceed .08 as they are the most likely to kill people.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by ken0042

My single biggest issue is that instead of doing something to target the group causing the most damage, they are going after the group that is causing the least amount of damage.

It is a smoke screen; in that it is an attempt by the provincial gov't to be able to say they are getting tougher with impaired driving. The uninformed voters will not know that they are getting tougher with the wrong group.

Exactly. It is motivated by money. They are the largest group and they are the type of people that can afford these fines. They are part of the population that is showing restraint and they are generally aware of the amount of alcohol they are consuming and making a conscience effort to NOT break the law. Yet they are getting stiffly punished. The heavy heavy drinkers who cause most of the fatal accidents don't give a crap about fines. They always have and always find away to get wheels.

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

I personally would not have a problem if the laws were changed. I hate the gray area they are trying to create. Giving cops way to much power. I've been thru the program and i'm instantly red flagged if/when i get pulled over. You can blow 0.00 and if the cop thinks your impaired you can't do #### about it. And since i've been thru the program here in BC, if in 5 years some cop decides to be a dick and I get a one of these suspensions within 5 years i get an automatic 1 year ban from driving and fines up the kazoo and I can be completely sober.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

No, I wouldn't be okay with it. The legal limit being at 0.08 is not the problem. The tiny amount of impairment below 0.08 is acceptable in my view.

Maybe they should limit the number of children in the backseat to one so it isn't to limit the distraction to the driver or maybe just tow the vehicle if there are 2 or more kids. Any pets in the vehicle would obviously be grounds to lose your license as well.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

Absolutely. I'd have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is spending time, money and law enforcement resources on a bandaid fix that targets the tiniest demographic from which the public benefits the least and has the most problems.

If the feds decide that 0.05 is the way to go, and many countries have, then fine. But theres no need to Mickey Mouse about provincially to target the 2%.

Realistically speaking, theres really very little upside to targeting the 0.05-0.08 crowd when the vast majority of the problem stems from the .08 and up crowd.

Target the real problem.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Serious question for people in this thread. If the Federal government changed the legal drinking limit to 0.05 and everything else stayed the same, would you be okay with that?

I'm all for lowering the limit on BAC, but I don't care for the apparent lack of due process that this new legislation seems to impose.

If this is a change to the legal limit than I would be okay with it. I would hope it is done with due process and a bit of research first to determine and state what the intent of the law is though. One of the things that bothers me though is how quickly this is being pushed through. I don't recall Allison mentioning this plan during her campaign so I can't figure out why there is suddenly such a hurry to have this thing passed before Christmas.

The other part of this proposed law that is bugging me is that it appears to punish those below 0.08 not because they are a danger but more to scare those above 0.08. If that is the case I am not really sure how I feel about it. If it works to reduce deaths then maybe it is worth it, but if we are giving up personal rights for the collective good then I think that that conversation should be had.