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

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by return to the red

Cab companies are going to be loving this.

What I found interesting was that back when Cowboys was on 9th and 5th st., the cops used to chase off or give out parking tickets to the taxis that tried to park near the front door on 5th St. People would come out, see no cabs and stagger across the street to the parking lots.

If government was serious about getting drunks off the road, they could do it. This looks more like a political decision to appease MADD and rake in money while giving cops the power of judge and jury.

[Cheerio]

Lots of clubs/bars shut down around 2. Why don't they run the C-train on Fridays and Saturday's until like 3? How much more would that cost than shutting down at 1?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

If this is the best that supporters of the law can do then I'm going to go ahead and say that this is a terrible law and all of those opposed are right. Now maybe a opinion piece isn't the best place for this guy to go into detail about the conclusive study mentioned and frankly the journo may not have the expertise to do a proper break down.

Nevertheless, here is a really lame article in support of the law with virtually not a single thing in it that proves that this measure will curtail drunk driving. Although he makes some reasonable points about why it isn't so bad afterall. EDIT: I take that last sentence back. What a terrible article. All of his arguments are "well that argument against the law is invalid because it is invalid".

The Wildrose party says the law's tougher roadside suspensions will punish people like me, when it's the hardcore repeat drunks over .16 who are the real problem.

Not so, according to blood-alcohol levels of dead drivers analyzed by the University of Western Ontario and published by MADD Canada. In every jurisdiction where these measures were implemented, the study revealed an impact on drivers across all bloodalcohol levels, even those above .16. The statistics show that immediate consequences at the roadside are the most effective way to change behaviour before people reach the chronic .16 stage, by which time they are so far gone that punishments become ineffective.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Remington+Some+sobering+thoughts+tougher+impaired/5841200/story.html#ixzz1gAIQM7kd

[Jacks]

They were saying on QR77 the other day that of all traffic accidents only 2% of them involved drivers with BAC of .05 - .08%, the other 98% are either sober or drunk. They also said that the conviction would remain on your record for 10 years. So the roadside judgements will probably jack up your insurance rates too.

Edit: Looks like GP_Matt already posted the stats 3 pages back.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=392

[RW99]

Originally Posted by Jacks

They were saying on QR77 the other day that of all traffic accidents only 2% of them involved drivers with BAC of .05 - .08%, the other 98% are either sober or drunk. They also said that the conviction would remain on your record for 10 years. So the roadside judgements will probably jack up your insurance rates too.

Edit: Looks like GP_Matt already posted the stats 3 pages back.
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...&postcount=392

So with the 32.9% that were over 0.8% BAC, how many of those thought they were below 0.8 BAC? Would the changes to the legal limit would give them more food for thought before they get behind the wheel?

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by RW99

So with the 32.9% that were over 0.8% BAC, how many of those thought they were below 0.8 BAC? Would the changes to the legal limit would give them more food for thought before they get behind the wheel?

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that punishing people between 0.05 and 0.08 is justified, not because they are a danger, but because it will scare others who have a higher BAC into staying off the road?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that punishing people between 0.05 and 0.08 is justified, not because they are a danger, but because it will scare others who have a higher BAC into staying off the road?

Haha, yeah I kind of laughed at that type of justification.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by RW99

So with the 32.9% that were over 0.8% BAC, how many of those thought they were below 0.8 BAC? Would the changes to the legal limit would give them more food for thought before they get behind the wheel?

Setting aside the "Let's penalize one group for the actions of another group" arguement for a moment; let's look at the stats that Matt had up earlier:

61.3%- Sober
3.6%- .01-.05
2.2%- .05-.08
10.3%- .08-.16
22.6%- .16 and higher.

So there are two problems with your arguement; once again setting aside what I said above:

- We are targeting the wrong group. Let's target the group that has the least business being on the road. (Not saying that the 10.3% should be on the road, just that the 22.6% is even more wrong being there.)

- How many people .16 and higher do you think had any thought that maybe they were under .08? And assuming you think somebody has that kind of stupidity and/or denial; what makes you think they wouldn't now just assume they are at .05 now?

If we are going to change laws, let's do this:
- Keep the under .08 the way it was.
- .08-.11; same penalties as we see now
- .12-.16; automatic jail time. First offense- 6 months. Second offense- 23 months, etc.
- .17 and above; automatic jail time again. But now 5 years for the first offense.

[RW99]

I didn't say anything about punishing the other groups, please re-read my questions. I'm curious about how much of the over 0.8 group thinks they are below 0.8 AND would they think about it a bit more IF these rules were in place.

I'm liking this idea, but maybe more like 2-3 years for the .17 group.

Originally Posted by ken0042

If we are going to change laws, let's do this:
- Keep the under .08 the way it was.
- .08-.11; same penalties as we see now
- .12-.16; automatic jail time. First offense- 6 months. Second offense- 23 months, etc.
- .17 and above; automatic jail time again. But now 5 years for the first offense.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by RW99

I didn't say anything about punishing the other groups, please re-read my questions. I'm curious about how much of the over 0.8 group thinks they are below 0.8 AND would they think about it a bit more IF these rules were in place.

I'm liking this idea, but maybe more like 2-3 years for the .17 group.

Don't both to use logic and show that less people would be drinking overall reducing the number of >0.08 on the road. That argument doesn't work. I've tried that. Apparently this law will only make the people in the 0.05-0.08 range and will have no effect on the above 0.08 range at all. Don't agree that stiffer penalties for the high range would be good also... they ignore that too, they'll argue it is the only way to limit drunk driving. But for example it has to noted that stiffer sentences on youth crimes lead to those being charged more likely to offend in the future, where as community and family support systems have shown to be effective. This is just an example about how stiffer laws don't always curb a problem.

There are plenty of people on the road that drive over 0.08 that think they are in the 0.05-0.08 range. This would lower that type of person on the road significantly.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Tiger

There are plenty of people on the road that drive over 0.08 that think they are in the 0.05-0.08 range. This would lower that type of person on the road significantly.

There are plenty more people on the road killing people that are way over .08 and there is no way they can think they are in the .05 range or just don't care. And this will do nothing to lower this much more dangerous group.

And how can you say that this will significantly lower that type of person on the road? You may think it will but if you are over .08 and think that you are likely at .05 the likelihood is that under this new law you will still think that you are fine to drive.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by moon

And how can you say that this will significantly lower that type of person on the road? You may think it will but if you are over .08 and think that you are likely at .05 the likelihood is that under this new law you will still think that you are fine to drive.

But this rule showed a reduction in the amount of drinks served in BC restaurants and bars... Therefore everybody drank less. Therefore a lot of 0.5 drivers are 0.3 a lot of 0.8 are now 0.5 (in the magical no accident range). the 0.12 would be lower etc etc. Now this doesn't clean up the streets completely, but I would argue stricter laws wouldn't either, but I agree doing both would be best. But you cannot say that the 30% reduction in pubs and bar sales in BC is a result of just the 1-2 beer drinkers having less.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Tiger

But this rule showed a reduction in the amount of drinks served in BC restaurants and bars... Therefore everybody drank less.

That doesn't show that everybody drank less at all. You really have a hard time understanding cause and correlation don't you?

Therefore a lot of 0.5 drivers are 0.3 a lot of 0.8 are now 0.5 (in the magical no accident range). the 0.12 would be lower etc etc. Now this doesn't clean up the streets completely, but I would argue stricter laws wouldn't either, but I agree doing both would be best. But you cannot say that the 30% reduction in pubs and bar sales in BC is a result of just the 1-2 beer drinkers having less.

It is not just the 1-2 beer drinkers having less but since those are the people that obviously pay more attention to following the laws and monitoring their drinking than it is most likely (see how I don't use the crazy absolutes that you always do) that they are the majority of the people changing their drinking habits.

I would say that it is highly unlikely that the most dangerous group changed their drinking habits at all based on the BC law.

[Tiger]

Originally Posted by moon

That doesn't show that everybody drank less at all. You really have a hard time understanding cause and correlation don't you?




It is not just the 1-2 beer drinkers having less but since those are the people that obviously pay more attention to following the laws and monitoring their drinking than it is most likely (see how I don't use the crazy absolutes that you always do) that they are the majority of the people changing their drinking habits.

I would say that it is highly unlikely that the most dangerous group changed their drinking habits at all based on the BC law.

You are right, I shouldn't say everybody drank less. But you do admit it isn't just the 1-2 beer drinking that are decreasing the amount they drink. It is the people that drink 5 or 6 too. I know people like that who use to have 6 and drive and now they have 3 and drive... most likely at 6 drinks they are above 0.08 (but think they are fine to drive) at three they are not.

I agree it is highly unlikely the most dangerous group is changed. But I changes a lot of people that are over 0.08 that don't think they are in the dangerous group. And do you really think stricter laws are going to prevent the really drunk people too. The laws have gotten stricter over time, but still it is a major issue. Do the laws have to be stricter, or maybe a justice system that actually prosecutes the guilty instead of most the charges not sticking on a technicality. An instant punishment prevents them from getting off on a technicality.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Tiger

Do the laws have to be stricter, or maybe a justice system that actually prosecutes the guilty instead of most the charges not sticking on a technicality. An instant punishment prevents them from getting off on a technicality.

And that is what we have been saying; give the police and the courts the tools to go after those who commit Criminal Code offenses. The instant punishment takes away people's rights. There is a common saying in countries where the laws came from British Common Law: "It is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail."

That saying applies to murder and all the other most serious crimes. Why would we suddenly toss that out the window for a lesser offense? (And I say lesser as it isn't an offense under the Criminal Code.)

[Jacks]

They could lower the limit to 0.05 for all I care as long as people have the right to defend themselves in court. The whole problem is the instant conviction with no appeal on the side of the road. Why can't people understand that concept?

[GFG4Life]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2270788/

But in a decision released earlier this month, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Jon Sigurdson said the new law went too far by allowing automatic driving suspensions of up to 90 days, the impounding of vehicles, and the imposition of thousands of dollars in costs.

“I don't know if they'd be successful in suing for that money back, because there is precedent in the past where there's been changes to rules or legislation and the government has not had to pay things back,” Mr. Carr said.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GFG4Life

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2270788/

He also upheld the penalties for those who blow between .05 and .08.

[Jacks]

The government is running ads on the radio now saying that the only rules that have changed are stricter penalties for people over .08. Tax paid propaganda.

[ken0042]

On what station? I'd be curious to see if somebody would be able to fight a ticket by saying that the gov't sponsored ads were incorrect or incomplete.