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

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Fire

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.

So what happens if someone elses view is anything over.05 is unacceptable? And how is having kids in the backseat and drinking and driving even remotely the same?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

Yes there is. They get $200 out of every person they "bust" in the form of a licence resinstatement fee (which is a fancy way of issuing a ticket that you don't have any legal recourse on) AND they get to look like heros, ie: Hey look, we're getting tough on drunk drivers, and by drunk drivers, we mean not the drunk drivers killing people, but the people under the legal limit, that statistically pose little to zero risk to the public, but darnit, they have alcohol in their system so they're drunks and we need them off the road.

[Tiger]

there is a lot of evidence for things like crime that working on the small things help prevent the bigger issues. Take new york for example one method they use to lower there crime rate was to really crack down on the lower crimes, Vandalism, graffiti etc. and by working on the small crimes it lead to preventing the big crimes. This is maybe working on a small thing, but it is probably going to prevent a lot of the people who think they are fine and are really above 0.08.

i'm quite surprises by this board that there are so many people that think they should be able to have a couple drink and drive because they are fine and holding on to the 2% stat that they are targeting the wrong group. They are targeting societies views on drinking and driving not the two percent. If you think this is a cash grab like red light cameras then you are being stupid.

I'll give some advice that prevents all these cash cows
1)don't run red lights
2)don't speed
3)don't speed or run red lights at intersection that have camera's (not like they are hidden)
4)don't have a few drinks and think you can drive home

This is not a cash cow but a stupidity tax. Or maybe you can think of it as a luxury tax so you can enjoy your wine at dinner

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Tiger

there is a lot of evidence for things like crime that working on the small things help prevent the bigger issues. Take new york for example one method they use to lower there crime rate was to really crack down on the lower crimes, Vandalism, graffiti etc. and by working on the small crimes it lead to preventing the big crimes. This is maybe working on a small thing, but it is probably going to prevent a lot of the people who think they are fine and are really above 0.08.

i'm quite surprises by this board that there are so many people that think they should be able to have a couple drink and drive because they are fine and holding on to the 2% stat that they are targeting the wrong group. They are targeting societies views on drinking and driving not the two percent. If you think this is a cash grab like red light cameras then you are being stupid.

I'll give some advice that prevents all these cash cows
1)don't run red lights
2)don't speed
3)don't speed or run red lights at intersection that have camera's (not like they are hidden)
4)don't have a few drinks and think you can drive home

This is not a cash cow but a stupidity tax. Or maybe you can think of it as a luxury tax so you can enjoy your wine at dinner

Your post reads like a MADD press release. Luxury tax? Don't be absurd. If you're a neo Prohibitionist then that's cool. As has been said before this is targeting the wrong group. Go after the .08+ group with stiffer penalties, that's the real problem.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Your post reads like a MADD press release. Luxury tax? Don't be absurd. If you're a neo Prohibitionist then that's cool. As has been said before this is targeting the wrong group. Go after the .08+ group with stiffer penalties, that's the real problem.

I agree with you that they should go after the 0.08+ group and I've said that many times in this thread. But you also have to go after the low range a prevent that to. Doing it in a both ways would be best. This is exactly like the NDP and Conservative always argue about preventing crime, the NDP say more education and rehabilitation and the conservatives say tougher penalties, the answer is do both and don't argue which one is better.

Would you agree to the premise that there are a fair number of people who think they would be in the 0.05-0.08 range that are really higher and drive? how many people have you seen down a few and drive and they think they are fine but you don't really think so? If this law lowers what people drink say the people that were at 0.05 would have a drink less and be at 0.03 for example, drink sales have lowered in BC so you have to assume this is happening. Therefore the people at 0.08 when they drive and feel fine would be at 0.05 instead of 0.08 and safer to drive (the magical 2% range). presumably the people that are drunk but feel fine should even worry a bit about losing there car and have a drink or two less. Therefore people that are still not in a condition to drive at say 0.12 may be at a 0.08 instead. Therefore a rule of the would help reduce drunk drivers. Do you disagree with this logic? do you think it would work else wise? Do you think only the people who have 1-2 drinks will reduce their drinking? or would it be the people at 3-4 drinks or 5-6 drinks? Would it make more people say, hey you better not drive you had a few, you could get fined?

BC showed that 1 year of the law Oct 1-sept 30 there were 40% less deaths, but people poo pooed that argument with weird logic? 40% is not a random amount. Say if it was a 5% decrease then that is debatable, but 40%. basically there were 40 less needless deaths in BC with this simple rule and people argue that they are targeting the wrong group. That flawed, they are obviously targeting a significant group to drop it 40%.

Please feel free to argue why it should only be stiffer crimes for the over 0.08 that prevents drunk driving?

As an aside, I'm not a neo prohibitionist, I drink. Just when I do I plan ahead and have a way to get home. I will DD often when I go out with some people because they are stupid and would drive so I help them get home. And when I have kids I'll have the same rule my dad had for me, I can call him any time if I was drunk and he would pick me up no questions asked and I'd never be in any trouble for it.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Your post reads like a MADD press release. Luxury tax? Don't be absurd.

Can you also explain to me why this is a cash cow instead of a luxury tax as I put it. It is not a right for you to drink when you go out, it is a luxury you can. If you can't control yourself and you get caught, you basically got taxed for a luxury. and do you agree about how the other cash cows people complain about are easily avoidable?

I know it is impossible to change a persons mind on an internet battle. I just don't like the argument of 'it's not me, there are worse people'

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Would you agree to the premise that there are a fair number of people who think they would be in the 0.05-0.08 range that are really higher and drive?

Then go after those people. Does it make sense to target people who are under the limit because others may be over the limit?

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

And how is having kids in the backseat and drinking and driving even remotely the same?

There are lots of studies that show distracted driving can be as bad as impaired driving. The obvious difference with kids distracting the driver is that driving with your kids is a necessity. I think the point was that this new law is just as silly as imposing bans on how many kids you can drive around.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Locke

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.

Ah, but this is how you go about changing the legal limit to 0.05. You can't just propose it right off the bat. There would be too much outcry. Instead you have this wishy-washy law come into effect, let people get used to the idea that they have to be under 0.05 for a few years, and then you bust out a legal limit change. Call it a warm-up law.

This is all heading towards a zero BAC tolerance when driving. In Ontario, we already have this under 0.05 legislation and drivers under the age of 23 aren't allowed to have any alcohol in their blood while driving either. Next, it will be drivers under the age of 26, then 31, until one day, you won't even be allowed to rinse with mouth wash before getting behind the wheel of a car.

At some point, you have to ask yourself what you are willing to give up to be a little bit safer. As one poster mentioned, if we banned driving altogether, there would be no more vehicle fatalities. Where do you draw the line? It certainly won't be at this proposed legislation.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Can you also explain to me why this is a cash cow instead of a luxury tax as I put it. It is not a right for you to drink when you go out, it is a luxury you can. If you can't control yourself and you get caught, you basically got taxed for a luxury. and do you agree about how the other cash cows people complain about are easily avoidable?

I know it is impossible to change a persons mind on an internet battle. I just don't like the argument of 'it's not me, there are worse people'

Fail.

Elected representatives at any level of government are not there to impose luxury taxes on their constituents. They are there to ensure public safety (among other things) by implementing laws that make that happen.

This legislation does nothing of the sort, therefore it has no business being discussed as anything but a thinly veiled cash cow. Period.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So what happens if someone elses view is anything over.05 is unacceptable? And how is having kids in the backseat and drinking and driving even remotely the same?

Both prevent the driver from driving at their 100% best.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fail.

Elected representatives at any level of government are not there to impose luxury taxes on their constituents. They are there to ensure public safety (among other things) by implementing laws that make that happen.

This legislation does nothing of the sort, therefore it has no business being discussed as anything but a thinly veiled cash cow. Period.

so you are worried about the $200 ticket and there is a 40% drop in deaths in BC to drunk driving and you call it a fail. And this is why arguments on the internet fail, people ignore facts, don't like change, and are afraid of anything that might cost them money and are ingrained to there idea and stick with flawed arguments.

I'll save you guys from posting the next post of "your argument is fail", "target the worst ones". There that is your argument. I have agreed with stiffer laws for over 0.08 but you have to agree that fact shows targeting the lower range helps overall.

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Can you also explain to me why this is a cash cow instead of a luxury tax as I put it. It is not a right for you to drink when you go out, it is a luxury you can. If you can't control yourself and you get caught, you basically got taxed for a luxury. and do you agree about how the other cash cows people complain about are easily avoidable?

I know it is impossible to change a persons mind on an internet battle. I just don't like the argument of 'it's not me, there are worse people'

I view it as a cash cow, they are making an insane amount of money off of this. This is not motivated by saving peoples lives, this is motivated by cash. If this project just broke even, IE: it didn't cost the government a thing to do this, I'd bet they wouldn't even bother. Here is my view on it.

For one, they are doing this to people that are not breaking the law. Do you get a $75 ticket for doing 95km/h in a 100km/h? If they want the new law to be .05, then make that the law.

Companies get the contracts to install the iginition devices. The costs are set. There is no competition. If it wasn't a cash cow, I should be able to just go get an igintion devices installed if its required due to my past driving habits.

Towing companies bid on the contracts for the RCMP. One tow yard that I know for sure charges extra when its an RCMP tow. $70 a night on a regular impound, $100 a night when its an RCMP tow. $50 hook up fee, vs $75. Fine, suspend my license and give me a fine, but the impounding of the vehicle is a bit much. If I can get arrangements for my vehicle in a timely manner I should be able to. There is no reason I should lose my vehicle for 3 days without an appeal process ESPECIALLY considering there is no law being broken. I'm not sure if the writing on their tickets have changed, but I know it used to be that if you could arrange for a tow and the cop wasn't a dick, you could get your own vehicle towed. If it wasn't about generating cash then i'd be able to choose to get my car towed. I know that they say the 3 days impoundment is to ensure that a person wont drive, thats just bull####. Some homes have multiple vehicles, so a person can still drive. You've notified them that their license is suspended. Its a huge penalty to drive with a suspended license. Don't handle us with kid gloves. And don't tell me to be mad at the tow yards for price gouging. If they didn't have to bid on these contracts to get the coveted RCMP contract (that bid has got to be worth some serious coin) there would be no price gouging. They've created a system that will screw us over.

And my favourite. The $250 re-instatement fee. Prior, when you got a 24 hour suspension you could just walk into the RCMP office 24 hours later and just pick up your license. This system was in place for years. The officers literally dropped off your physical license at the office after your shift. That $250 is just going straight to the DMV for literally doing nothing.

Then in BC there is the RDP. Responsible Driver Program. The class I was in had 15 people. We met once a week for 8 weeks for 1 hour. Cost us $1000 each. There is some overhead, however there is no way the course costs $15000 to run.

If these changes were done as non profit, these changes would not be in place. If they were not making money hand over fist, they would have not changed a thing.

If it wasn't a cash cow. I'd be able to arrange towing for my own vehicle. If it wasn't a cash cow there would be competition for who installs these ignition devices. The $250 re-instatement fee is a joke. If it wasn't a cash cow the RDP, would be an actual competent program. The instructor I saw, has seen multiple people go thru more then once, and some as high as 4 times. Its not working.... oh wait it is, its making a #### ton of money.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Tiger

so you are worried about the $200 ticket and there is a 40% drop in deaths in BC to drunk driving and you call it a fail. And this is why arguments on the internet fail, people ignore facts, don't like change, and are afraid of anything that might cost them money and are ingrained to there idea and stick with flawed arguments.

I'll save you guys from posting the next post of "your argument is fail", "target the worst ones". There that is your argument. I have agreed with stiffer laws for over 0.08 but you have to agree that fact shows targeting the lower range helps overall.

Comparing the drunk driving related deaths in one month to a five year average is a flawed argument.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by flamingreen

Comparing the drunk driving related deaths in one month to a five year average is a flawed argument.

It was a year. Oct 1 2011 to sept 30 2011... that is a year. It wasn't a leap year, so we cannot compare all five of the previous last years though, you are right

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

so you are worried about the $200 ticket and there is a 40% drop in deaths in BC to drunk driving and you call it a fail. And this is why arguments on the internet fail, people ignore facts, don't like change, and are afraid of anything that might cost them money and are ingrained to there idea and stick with flawed arguments.

I'll save you guys from posting the next post of "your argument is fail", "target the worst ones". There that is your argument. I have agreed with stiffer laws for over 0.08 but you have to agree that fact shows targeting the lower range helps overall.

Add to the list: People present incredibly flawed statistics as factual evidence.

[Tiger]

dp

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tiger

It was a year. Oct 1 2011 to sept 30 2011... that is a year.

That doesn't look like a year to me.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Tiger

It was a year. Oct 1 2011 to sept 30 2011... that is a year. It wasn't a leap year, so we cannot compare all five of the previous last years though, you are right

My mistake. Comparing the drunk driving related deaths in one year to a five year average is a flawed argument.

[ken0042]

Does anybody have a year by year comparison for BC? Every link I have found just shows the one year compared to the average.

What I am getting at Tiger is this; if over the 5 years there had been a steady decline of 10-20% per year; then yes year 6 would be about 40% lower than the 5 year average just by following the same trend.

[jar_e]

I don't really think there is any easy way of going around it. You're never going to see immediate or drastic change on the criminal side...there is amazing amount of case law for impaired driving which has really crippled conviction rates and anyone seeing any punishment. I guess the biggest punishment for the majority of people being charged with impaired is paying for a lawyer, but unfortunately, it should be much, much more than that.

In a sense, I agree with the province in an attempt to "change the culture" of drinking and driving, though how you go about that is beyond me.

In regards to BC, it will be quite interesting to see how the BC Supreme Courts rule today in regards to if it violates the constitution or not. The ruling should be sometime today.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...tionality.html