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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's tough because drunk driving really is a legitimate public policy issue. But in a free society you can't address an issue like that through the institution of draconian laws that do away with the presumption of innocence, require accused persons to provide evidence against themselves and limit the kinds of evidence they can lead in their own defence, all of which Canadian impaired law has basically done.

Impounding vehicles and imposing a fine, on a non-reviewable basis at a police officer's discretion is a particularly alarming step to take.

And to clarify, it would be totally different if the Criminal Code contemplated a "between .05 and .08" offence, and prescribed penalties in law accordingly--and required the Crown to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, as they do with every other offence in the Code. But that isn't what's happening here.

What we have is provinces (who cannot validly enact criminal laws) creating rules under their respective Highway Traffic Acts that impose criminal penalties without the benefit of a hearing. That's not acceptable in a free society, and if the judiciary isn't willing to stop it, then the people in office who are eroding our civil liberties in this manner need to hear about it from their constituents.

And thats exactly the situation. Summed up rather nicely too.

If you want the legal limit to be 0.05 or 0.10 or 0.0 then do it the right way. This is Mickey Mouse nonsensical BS thats going to cause more problems than its worth.

And while drinking and driving is a serious social issue, this isnt the right way of going about fixing it. Hell, people cant even agree on whether or not its actually been a deterrent in places where its already been instituted.

Not to mention the fact that the entire idea behind this legislation so inbred and ass-backwards its insane.

"We have to stop drunk drivers from killing people!"

- OKay, heres the plan, lets institute what effectively amounts to a traffic ticket and a 24 hour pain in the ass. That'll surely stop 'Johnny 10 Pint' from driving the next time he closes down the bar.

Meanwhile, Johnny 10 Pint is on his third DUI and gets a 6 month licence suspension the next time he gets caught.

Wheres the real problem? Maybe they should start by fixing that first, but everyone wants to do something brand new and shiny.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

We have an alarming trend in Canadian judiciary of deferring to the police - it's almost an attitude of "well, this wouldn't affect me, so it's OK". The search provisions, etc, I don't know if it's the Quebec/French poison affecting the rest with their tradition of "the state knows best", "don't worry it won't affect you if you don't do anything wrong"...

'

Agreed--and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The McLachlin court has eroded our charter rights in a way that has virtually reversed the significant gains in those areas carved out by the Dickson and Lamer courts.

Examples abound: the "Interrogation Trilogy" (Sinclair, Singh, Oickle), R v Grant, the list goes on. It's like a bad dream.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

valo, I think Tiger is one of the people you alluded to in your initial post. No sense continuing on that track without being branded as 'pro-drunk driving.'

I guess you are probably right in that.

I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths, and it has obviously reduced the amount of drinking as restaurants have complained. That has to be good for drivers overall. People argued to go after the higher drinker with stiffer penalties, that would help some but not completely, so you have to have stricter rule at the low end too to change societies views.

the argument that the law is unconstitutional, at the low end that people are arguing it was found to be constitutional. So what is the counterargument now that the BC courts said that part of the rule and the 3 day suspension they have is fine.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Locke

- OKay, heres the plan, lets institute what effectively amounts to a traffic ticket and a 24 hour pain in the ass. That'll surely stop 'Johnny 10 Pint' from driving the next time he closes down the bar.

Meanwhile, Johnny 10 Pint is on his third DUI and gets a 6 month licence suspension the next time he gets caught.

Wheres the real problem? Maybe they should start by fixing that first, but everyone wants to do something brand new and shiny.

your right too many of these drivers get off on stupid technicalities in the courts

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I guess you are probably right in that.

I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths, and it has obviously reduced the amount of drinking as restaurants have complained. That has to be good for drivers overall. People argued to go after the higher drinker with stiffer penalties, that would help some but not completely, so you have to have stricter rule at the low end too to change societies views.

the argument that the law is unconstitutional, at the low end that people are arguing it was found to be constitutional. So what is the counterargument now that the BC courts said that part of the rule and the 3 day suspension they have is fine.

Do you catch many balls out there in left field?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I guess you are probably right in that.

I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths, and it has obviously reduced the amount of drinking as restaurants have complained. That has to be good for drivers overall. People argued to go after the higher drinker with stiffer penalties, that would help some but not completely, so you have to have stricter rule at the low end too to change societies views.

the argument that the law is unconstitutional, at the low end that people are arguing it was found to be constitutional. So what is the counterargument now that the BC courts said that part of the rule and the 3 day suspension they have is fine.

My guess is this will go to the BC Court of Appeal in relatively short order. There's a major evidentiary problem here--the BC court has said that where the roadside screening device reads "fail" that sanctions under the Motor Vehicles Act infringe s. 8. This makes sense: where there's a "fail" reading there is a requirement that a breath demand be read and a breath sample taken pursuant to the Criminal Code, which provides for specific penalties upon conviction.

With the greatest of respect for the Court it makes no sense to then uphold the imposition of sanctions on persons who blow "warn" where they've been deemed unconstitutional for people who blow "fail."

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Do you catch many balls out there in left field?

thanks for the well thought out counterpoint...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

My guess is this will go to the BC Court of Appeal in relatively short order. There's a major evidentiary problem here--the BC court has said that where the roadside screening device reads "fail" that sanctions under the Motor Vehicles Act infringe s. 8. This makes sense: where there's a "fail" reading there is a requirement that a breath demand be read and a breath sample taken pursuant to the Criminal Code, which provides for specific penalties upon conviction.

With the greatest of respect for the Court it makes no sense to then uphold the imposition of sanctions on persons who blow "warn" where they've been deemed unconstitutional for people who blow "fail."

I will say it in "everyman" terms and risk Law Society sanctions - the BC judge in question is an idiot... or a political lackey trying to spin things to the liking of his political masters.

[Tiger]

not matter how you car gets impounded to you have to pay fees for that with no recourse. How is getting charged the impounding too any different from when your car gets stolen and found and you still have to pay the impound fee.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tiger

thanks for the well thought out counterpoint...

I figured there wasn't a point in posting something explaining how the statistics were flawed and that there isn't any hard proof the new law has lowered drunk driving fatalities. So that's what you got instead, enjoy .

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Tiger

not matter how you car gets impounded to you have to pay fees for that with no recourse. How is getting charged the impounding too any different from when your car gets stolen and found and you still have to pay the impound fee.

To be totally honest--it seems like you're having a little bit of difficulty understanding the issue here. I'm not trying to be mean--it's just that your responses aren't really on point in this discussion. That's understandable, by the way--I think that a lot of people don't know how the criminal law in Canada works, and that's not really their fault. It's a complicated subject that isn't taught in school. However, maybe it will help if I break down the issues a little bit.

1. The province is trying to enact criminal laws. They're not allowed to do this because it's beyond the scope of their constitutionally granted authority. If we start letting the province make laws with respect to things that are within federal jurisdiction we may as well fold up our tents and call it a day on this whole federalism experiment.

2. The province is trying to enforce criminal penalties without evidence of a crime. This is a violation of a basic principle of justice that dates back to the earliest days of the common law: the presumption of innocence. If we stop presuming that accused persons are innocent, we may as well fold up our tents and call it a day on this whole fair and just society experiment.

3. The province is trying to enforce criminal penalties without allowing a person to be heard in court first. See #2.

4. The province is enacting laws to address a made-up policy concern in response to a lobby that (though it started with an admirable goal) has completely lost touch with reality. If we start instituting draconian laws to respond to imaginary concerns, then.... see #2.

5. This law grants a police officer the discretion to impose a penalty on you without drafting a formal charge, collecting any evidence or being accountable in any way to any higher authority. This means that the police officer has the powers of a judge, in effect. This is a MAJOR problem, that the BC Court got around by saying that this is not an "offence," and thus that one's section 11 rights aren't triggered. (That's not a holding I can see standing up on review--how can something that carries a criminal penalty not be an offence) But if we start allowing police officers to circumvent the courts and impose penalties at their own discretion, then... see #2.

To respond to your point above, the impound fee is a levy that is prescribed for this particular offence. That makes it a fine. A rose by any other name....

[MarchHare]

I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths

For the last freaking time, you can't make that claim. The statistics you're using compared a single year versus a five year average. Do you not understand how that methodology is flawed and could lead to incorrect conclusions? Do you also not understand how correlation does not necessarily mean causation?

Here is the statement you're looking at:

The government says preliminary data shows 68 people died in alcohol-related vehicle crashes between Oct. 1, 2010 and Sept. 30 this year, compared to 113 deaths on average in each of the previous five years.

And from that you draw the conclusion that this new law has definitively reduced alcohol-related vehicle fatalities.

What if the individual year-by-year numbers were this (I'm just making these numbers up as an example to show how the stats could be misleading):

Year 1: 150
Year 2: 130
Year 3: 110
Year 4: 95
Year 5: 80
5-year Average: 113

Year 6: 68 (40% lower than the 5-year average)

So, is the new law the cause of the decline in drunk-driving deaths seen in Year 6 compared to the 5-year average, or is the decline just a continuation of a downward trend that was already occurring even before the new law?

Even if there wasn't a downward trend prior to Year 6, perhaps the decline can be attributed to the huge amount of press attention surrounding the bill and had nothing to do with the law itself? Or maybe it's because cops are spending more time enforcing drunk driving checkstops in the wake of the new law, particularly because the government has a direct financial incentive (licence reinstatement fee cash grab) for them to do so? Do the stats that show a decline in drunk-driving deaths after the law went into effect control for any of these and other factors?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tiger

I guess you are probably right in that.

I just like the result of BC law, it has reduced deaths, and it has obviously reduced the amount of drinking as restaurants have complained. That has to be good for drivers overall. People argued to go after the higher drinker with stiffer penalties, that would help some but not completely, so you have to have stricter rule at the low end too to change societies views.

the argument that the law is unconstitutional, at the low end that people are arguing it was found to be constitutional. So what is the counterargument now that the BC courts said that part of the rule and the 3 day suspension they have is fine.

You go to a court of higher authority

[MarchHare]

My GoogleFu is completely failing at trying to find the exact number of alcohol-impairment related deaths by year in BC. If anyone has better luck than me, please post the stats.

I did; however, find this link that shows that overall traffic fatalities (including drunk driving deaths) in BC declined at a rate of 25% from 2003 to 2009:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailyn...tml?id=1320484

The article states that the decline was attributed to two factors: 110 new traffic enforcement officers, and a more concerted effort to ensure people wear seatbelts.

A steep drop in traffic fatalities in B.C. over the past few years is due in large part to a simple change in police strategy: Write fewer tickets for speeding and more for not wearing a seatbelt.

Since 2002, the number of people killed each year in traffic accidents in B.C. has dropped by roughly 25 per cent, from more than 450 a year to around 350.

B.C.'s decline occurred even though there was no real reduction in the overall number of crashes and is in sharp contrast to Alberta, where traffic deaths have stayed steady.

Part of the reason for the drop was the addition of 110 traffic enforcement officers in 2004.

But Supt. Norm Gaumont, head of traffic services for the RCMP, said the real turning point came in 2003, when the force began looking more closely at what was behind traffic deaths.

"Previously, road safety was about writing a lot of speeding tickets," said Gaumont.

And while speed is a factor in many crashes, Gaumont said it became clear the real culprit in many traffic deaths was people not wearing their seatbelts.

As a result, officers were instructed to spend less time writing speeding tickets and do more road-checks for seatbelts.

Before the change, Gaumont said, RCMP officers in B.C. would typically write about 40,000 tickets a year for seatbelt violations.

That jumped to roughly 90,000 a few years ago and now stands at about 70,000 a year.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

My GoogleFu is completely failing at trying to find the exact number of alcohol-impairment related deaths by year in BC. If anyone has better luck than me, please post the stats.

I did; however, find this link that shows that overall traffic fatalities (including drunk driving deaths) in BC declined at a rate of 25% from 2003 to 2009:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailyn...tml?id=1320484

The article states that the decline was attributed to two factors: 110 new traffic enforcement officers, and a more concerted effort to ensure people wear seatbelts.

I'm going to conclude that drunk driving laws have absolutely no impact and should be completely abolished, and that all drivers and passengers should be required to wear racing grade 3 point harness seatbelts. Clearly it is the seatbelts and seatbelts alone that have reduced deaths.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm going to conclude that drunk driving laws have absolutely no impact and should be completely abolished, and that all drivers and passengers should be required to wear racing grade 3 point harness seatbelts. Clearly it is the seatbelts and seatbelts alone that have reduced deaths.

Obviously that's not the point I was making. I was merely bringing attention to the fact that many different causes can lead to a decline in traffic deaths and that anyone who definitively states that the new BC drunk driving law "saved 45 lives" this year is making a facile and naive argument.

[valo403]

Did I seriously need to use green text??

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Remember folks there are two debates going on here (seems like most people are arguing like there's only one)

Debate 1: Should people who are determined to have a BAC of 0.05-0.08 by a roadside police officer be given due process, or simply suspend their licence and impound their car without a check or balance?

Debate 2: Will lowering the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05 BAC make a difference with regard to impaired driving? Does it reduce accidents/deaths? Or should the enforcement resources spent on enforcing the new law be better spent on enforcing more intoxicated drivers?

By arguing for due process does not mean that you think the limit shouldn't be lowered. By questioning the effectiveness of 0.05 over 0.08 does not mean you think drinking and driving is acceptable.



Me, personally, as a poster I answer the two debates as such:

Debate 1: This law requires due process. Period. As all laws should.

Debate 2: I don't think it will make a difference. The lack of methodology of the BC study makes me discount it, as you need show your work (remember that from junior high math class) to show you are correct, presumptive there are too many problems with it. It doesn't effect how I drive or consume alcohol if the BAC is set at 0.05 or 0.08.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by valo403

Did I seriously need to use green text??

Apparently so.