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

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The nice thing about doing it this way and not touching the criminal code is you don't protect people's rights.

Wow, you're right, think of how much money we'd save if we just eliminated due process.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

There are two ways to err in this situation, one is to let drunky-mcdrunkerson get his license back, which currently happens all too much, and people have lost their lives when these guys get back behind the wheel.

This way you err on a broken breathalyzer and someone losing their car for 3 days and out some cash.

I think the error here is that there is a law going into place that targets the wrong group. Some numbers posted last fall in this thread regarding drunk driving fatalities; what percentage of traffic fatalities fall under what group:

Originally Posted by ken0042

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

So instead of going after the group that is responsible for the most fatalities, we go after the group that has the least. So now your social drinker who may have had 3 beers after work will now only have 1 or 2. However your drunky-mcdrunkerson will still continue with his ways.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

For reference, each of those readings was after 1.5 ounces of Vodka, spaced at 15 minute intervals.

Here is a person who had 10.5 ounces of Vodka in 1.5 hours and didn't hit 0.05. And you want to protect this persons right to drive a car?

The 10.5 ounces in 1.5 hours to hit 0.05 seems crazy. Unless there wasn't enough elapsed time for the alcohol to enter the system. You usually hear about an accident where the guy was three times the legal limit or 0.24. By my math that guy would have had to drink about 50 ounces in 1.5 hours to get that high. I have a hard time believing there are that many people out there who will drink more than a 40 in an hour and a half and then get into their car.

As for the law, by biggest complaint is that they aren't making it illegal and giving people access to the courts. Do you not think it is fair that measuring devices that could affect your life will no longer have to be calibrated? Sure they have a policy that states they need to calibrate, but what if they don't follow it. Under the old system you could ask to see the calibration reports in court. Under the new system you are punished but can't ask for proof.

I am not sure how many oilfield workers are on this site, but we use gas monitors on a lot of sites and they need to be tested daily and calibrated weekly. If you don't calibrate they can start producing some wild results. I would hope that the police detectors are better quality but they still need calibration.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think the error here is that there is a law going into place that targets the wrong group. Some numbers posted last fall in this thread regarding drunk driving fatalities; what percentage of traffic fatalities fall under what group:

So instead of going after the group that is responsible for the most fatalities, we go after the group that has the least. So now your social drinker who may have had 3 beers after work will now only have 1 or 2. However your drunky-mcdrunkerson will still continue with his ways.

So sober people cause most of the accidents. If anything, people should have a couple drinks before driving. Get them into that .05 -.08 safe zone.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ken0042

So instead of going after the group that is responsible for the most fatalities, we go after the group that has the least. So now your social drinker who may have had 3 beers after work will now only have 1 or 2. However your drunky-mcdrunkerson will still continue with his ways.

Which in my opinion just reinforces the notion that this is nothing more than a nanny state/greater good, political posturing/cash grab.

They're not trying to actually help anyone with this law they're just trying to make some money and look good and build up some goodwill while doing it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

the nice thing about doing it this way and not touching the criminal code is you don't protect people's rights. There are two ways to err in this situation, one is to let drunky-mcdrunkerson get his license back, which currently happens all too much, and people have lost their lives when these guys get back behind the wheel.

This way you err on a broken breathalyzer and someone losing their car for 3 days and out some cash.

Yeah, yeah, slippery slope, got it. id still rather subject people to criminal penalties without the need to prove anything, allow for appeals to the courts or generally comply with the basic premises of the canadian legal system thanks.

fyp

[Bill Bumface]

The arguments about due process are fine, and founded, but this "going after people who have 1 or 2" stuff is BS.

It is not 1 or 2 unless you are a 90lb Asian woman. Get a breathalyzer and try it for yourself. 0.05 is drunk, and a good portion of people in this thread are obviously peeved that they might get caught being over 0.05, which shouldn't even be a consideration for anyone.

[ken0042]

I think your numbers are wrong HR. I entered the following into a couple of BAC calculators:

140 pound male
2 beers
1 hour

BAC- 0.041 to 0.0412

http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/blood-alcohol-calculator
http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

[GreatWhiteEbola]

In my experience:

I'm a seasoned drinker
5'9"
180lbs

3 pints over 1.5 hrs with a large meal. 45 min later I recorded a 0.044, almost a 24 hour suspension...

I have a hard time believing 10.5 ounces wouldn't have put that person on their butt and they would have recorded a far greater BAC than 0.05.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

The arguments about due process are fine, and founded, but this "going after people who have 1 or 2" stuff is BS.

It is not 1 or 2 unless you are a 90lb Asian woman. Get a breathalyzer and try it for yourself. 0.05 is drunk, and a good portion of people in this thread are obviously peeved that they might get caught being over 0.05, which shouldn't even be a consideration for anyone.

According to you. According to the law it's 0.08, if you want to actually be afforded due process.

And your attempting to pin this on people who are peeved about getting caught themselves theory is BS. I'm in a different country and this bothers me for the simple fact that it completely undermines basic concepts of justice.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

In my experience:

I'm a seasoned drinker
5'9"
180lbs

3 pints over 1.5 hrs with a large meal. 45 min later I recorded a 0.044, almost a 24 hour suspension...

I have a hard time believing 10.5 ounces wouldn't have put that person on their butt and they would have recorded a far greater BAC than 0.05.

That's not a seasoned drinker. Early 90's I (pulled over for speeding) recorded 0.27 at the station and could walk a perfect straight line, carry a normal conversation, answered all the officer's strategic questions without hesitation to the point the RCMP thought there was an issue with their equipment as people at half that level were typically incoherent. That's a seasoned drinker.

Anyway I can say after serving my one year suspension and dealing with harsh insurance for five years I learned my lesson and have never driven drunk again. I'm okay with this personally as I have kids now and one of them had a close call with a sober driver let alone one one driving at 0.05 or more.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's not a seasoned drinker. Early 90's I (pulled over for speeding) recorded 0.27 at the station and could walk a perfect straight line, carry a normal conversation, answered all the officer's strategic questions without hesitation to the point the RCMP thought there was an issue with their equipment as people at half that level were typically incoherent. That's a seasoned drinker.

Anyway I can say after serving my one year suspension and dealing with harsh insurance for five years I learned my lesson and have never driven drunk again. I'm okay with this personally as I have kids now and one of them had a close call with a sober driver let alone one one driving at 0.05 or more.

Wait, you blew more than three times the legal limit and your only punishment was a one year license suspension and higher insurance costs? That is what should be changed if we want to adjust the drunk driving laws, not going after people in the 0.05-0.07 range.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's not a seasoned drinker. Early 90's I (pulled over for speeding) recorded 0.27 at the station and could walk a perfect straight line, carry a normal conversation, answered all the officer's strategic questions without hesitation to the point the RCMP thought there was an issue with their equipment as people at half that level were typically incoherent. That's a seasoned drinker.

Anyway I can say after serving my one year suspension and dealing with harsh insurance for five years I learned my lesson and have never driven drunk again. I'm okay with this personally as I have kids now and one of them had a close call with a sober driver let alone one one driving at 0.05 or more.

I was eluding to my capacity to handle alcohol or even the years that I have been drinking... but you win this pissing match, congrats.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Wait, you blew more than three times the legal limit and your only punishment was a one year license suspension and higher insurance costs? That is what should be changed if we want to adjust the drunk driving laws, not going after people in the 0.05-0.07 range.

I agree completely, those are the guys who are endangering lives with their actions. Not the glass of wine with dinner crowd that the new law (can we really call it a law if it is above the courts) targets.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I'm not sure they have this here in Canada, but when Jacksonville Jaguars WR Justin Blackmon blew a .24 he was charged with aggravated DUI, which is a felony unlike regular DUI.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I'm not sure they have this here in Canada, but when Jacksonville Jaguars WR Justin Blackmon blew a .24 he was charged with aggravated DUI, which is a felony unlike regular DUI.

That is something I could get behind. Mandatory jail terms for those that record an outrageous BAC level while driving anything over 0.16 perhaps 3 months jail...just a thought. This new law doesn't affect me directly, however, circumventing due process is scary.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Wait, you blew more than three times the legal limit and your only punishment was a one year license suspension and higher insurance costs? That is what should be changed if we want to adjust the drunk driving laws, not going after people in the 0.05-0.07 range.

That was 1991 and I believe until the late 80's it was only a 6 month suspension that could be reduced to 3 months in court. My capacity was irrelevant because as I mentioned the RCMP were used to seeing people at 0.12 being totally incapacitated. The bottom line is that 0.08 is the cut off and I don't see any benefit or logic to changing fines/suspensions according to level of being over the limit. Do you expect drinkers to stop drinking at 0.15 before getting behind the wheel because they don't want to risk an extra year of license suspension? No real extra deterrant there. You have to punish them all and to send the message and 0.05 is closer to 0.08 than 0.00.

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

I was eluding to my capacity to handle alcohol or even the years that I have been drinking... but you win this pissing match, congrats.

Take it easy there young fella. It's only a pissing match if you make one out of it. My capacity to handle alcohol is as relevant to this thread as yours which is pretty irrelevant as from person to person it varies greatly.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Take it easy there young fella. It's only a pissing match if you make one out of it. My capacity to handle alcohol is as relevant to this thread as yours which is pretty irrelevant as from person to person it varies greatly.

Young fella? You are suggesting that my assertion of being a seasoned drinker is not up to your standards, yet we are in equal relevance. Circle logic at its finest. Take up the cause, I already conceded to you.

[Locke]

You are actually better off being drunker in order to be afforded due process where you have a chance to beat the DUI.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Do you expect drinkers to stop drinking at 0.15 before getting behind the wheel because they don't want to risk an extra year of license suspension?

I think the suggestion of jail time for a first offense for people that high would scare some people into looking at other options. I would even say start maditory jail sentances at 0.12; with a sliding scale that brings more jail time the more impaired you are.

I know friends who have blown in the 0.1 to 0.2 range; and all it would have taken is a conversation like:
- Where's Bill these days?
- In jail.
- WTF?
- For drunk driving. He's in there for 3 months.

That would have stopped most of my subsequent friends from getting behind the wheel while drunk. And that is the goal isn't it- to keep drunks from getting behind the wheel.