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

[valo403]

Originally Posted by troutman

Huge problem, or frat boy remover?

Are there frat boys in Calgary?? When I went to U of C joining a frat was about as close to social suicide as you could get.

[MarchHare]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=6057772

Officer: Good evening.

Love: Good evening.

Officer: Anything to drink tonight?

Love: Yup. We had some wine.

Officer: OK. I am going to ask you to take a breathalyzer test. Are you OK with that?

Love: No problem. (Test is taken, and the result is .05).

The officer stands up, pulls a card out of his fluorescent green vest and reads the following:

Officer: Mr. Love, you have broken no law. You are being charged with nothing. You have been convicted of nothing. You have harmed no one. Nonetheless, you have no opportunity to object or appeal what I am about to do.

Therefore, by the powers vested in me by the government, I am confiscating your vehicle and suspending your driving privileges for three days.

[...]

Love: Is there any way I can appeal this arbitrary roadside confiscation of my personal property by the state?

Officer: I’m not a lawyer. All I know is: three points safe of .08 and you are still busted. By the way, sir, are you in favour of drunk driving?

Love: Of course not. But if I am not legally impaired, and if I have broken no law, and neither been charged or convicted of anything, then civil liberties, the Charter of Rights, the rule of law and limits on the right of the state to seize private property are actually quite important to me.

Officer: Well, talk to the politicians about that.

Love: So, do I just call a cab?

Officer: Up to you. Having broken no law, having been formally charged with nothing, and having been convicted of nothing, you are free to go without your car, and you are free to take cabs for the next three days. Keys please.

Love: Who pays for the towing charge and the fees at the impound lot?

Officer: I’ll give you one guess. Thank you again for not driving while legally impaired.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=6057772

According to that scenario the only change is the length of suspension, 24 hours vs 72 hours.

All the other "penalties" were the same previously.

I am still unsure where the 0.04 warning 24 hour suspension is in all this.

[valo403]

Pretty much sums it up. A pathetic piece of legislation.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by valo403

Pretty much sums it up. A pathetic piece of legislation.

And hopefully once the courts get through with tearing into it, a short lived piece of legislation.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

March Hare an even more dangerous situation:

Officer: Good evening.

Love: Good evening.

Officer: Anything to drink tonight?

Love: No sir I have not

Officer: Excuse me, I don't like your attitude. I'd expect a little respect for as an officer of the law

Love: I'm not being disrespectful, sir, I mean nothing by my tone.

Officer: I put up with punk kids like you all day long!

The officer stands up, pulls a card out of his fluorescent green vest and reads the following:

Officer: Mr. Love, you have broken no law. You are being charged with nothing. You have been convicted of nothing. You have harmed no one. Nonetheless, you have no opportunity to object or appeal what I am about to do.

Therefore, by the powers vested in me by the government, I am confiscating your vehicle and suspending your driving privileges for three days.

[...]

Love: Is there any way I can appeal this arbitrary roadside confiscation of my personal property by the state?

Officer: Stop being a smart ass.

Love: I am not legally impaired, in fact I drank nothing, and was not even given a breathalyzer test. I have broken no law, and neither been charged or convicted of anything, then civil liberties, the Charter of Rights, the rule of law and limits on the right of the state to seize private property are actually quite important to me.

Officer: Sucks to be you.

Love: So, do I just call a cab?

Officer: Up to you. You are free to take cabs for the next three days. Keys please.

Love: Who pays for the towing charge and the fees at the impound lot?

Officer: I’ll give you one guess.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by valo403

That is such a terrible idea. I can already see the lawsuits arising from malfunctioning machines in bars giving people the impression they're at .02 when they're actually at .20.

... um what?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

... um what?

Not that difficult to figure out. Those machines are installed and then left to sit there, who knows if they've ever been calibrated, let alone recently.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

... um what?

Originally Posted by valo403

Not that difficult to figure out. Those machines are installed and then left to sit there, who knows if they've ever been calibrated, let alone recently.

Not to mention that, despite valo's example being hyperbolic, alcohol takes a while to metabolise. You could be stone sober, walk into a bar and down 10 shots of tequila, do an immediate breathalyzer and still blow close to '0.'

Is it then safe to say that you're good to drive because you'll blow close to zero?

[dhc-2]

Thought it might be appropriate to continue this thread of the discussion here, rather than in the election thread. And apologies in advance, I have not read the majority of this thread, so forgive me if I am just repeating what's already been said.

Your speeding ticket comparison is not valid, as one has the opportunity to challenge the offense in a court of law. In the case of this new law, the state is able to put punitive measures on an individual (in the form of suspension and impound fees) without one being able to defend themselves in a court of law, as is our right.

If I had not had any drinks that night, in the highly unlikely event the breathalyzer still says .05, I will ask for a 2nd breathalyzer (they surely will have more than 1 at a checkstop for instance), I will offer a blood test, and I will call a lawyer immediately. I will agree with you that it's not right that you don't have a similar recourse as with a speeding ticket, where you could challenge it in court, but the likelihood of someone being falsely accused of a .05 blood alcohol level is pretty low. Again, knowing the law, I will not be getting behind the wheel if I have so much as a shred of doubt that I may be .05 or higher.

And no law is perfect. People have spent decades in jail for murders they didn't commit only to be exonerated. This is life, some people will be falsely accused and have to deal with the consequences (and they had the benefit of a trial too). Can we ever eliminate that completely? Probably not. In the case of this law, there is definite room for improvement, but in the end no matter what we do, sometimes innocent people will get screwed.

My cost benefit response had to do with the statistics (found in the thread on this topic) that show the segment targetted by this legislation is the lowest cause of death and injury by a gigantic margin.

Apologies, I have not seen these statistics. This group may be the lowest cause of death/injury, but they are not blameless in this regard either. Any law that gets even some of the drunks off our roads is a law worth having, in my opinion. Yes, they may be targeting the wrong segment, but I don't see the problem in having a zero-tolerance policy (0.00 BAL) down the line. Inconvenient? Perhaps sometimes, I mean I enjoy a beer here or there, but I would not be against it. We all found seatbelts inconvenient at first, didn't we, but they've saved lives. A zero-tolerance policy with stiff penalties would save lives too.

There are 10 times more traffic fatalities in Alberta each year where the drivers had no alcohol in their system than ones where the drivers had "some" alcohol but not enough to fall into the impaired category (greater than 0.0 BAC, but less than 0.08 BAC).

I'm all for increasing penalties for dangerous impaired drivers, especially repeat offenders, and giving the police the resources to catch them, but tying up their resources by going after people who are not legally impaired is not the way to do it.

For the fatalities in which the driver had no alcohol in their system - were they impaired by other things? Drugs? Fatigue? (perhaps a seperate discussion altogether...)

Legally they may not be impaired, but in practical terms, any amount of alcohol from .00-.05 will impair you. I've driven after a glass of wine, for instance, and while I was not near .05, you can feel the effect it has on you. There is a degree of impairment, however slight. That translates to reduced reaction times, and sometimes a fraction of a second is all the difference. At .05, while you can say that legally you are not impaired, I would argue that in practical terms you most definitely are. Perhaps not to the degree where you're weaving in and out of lanes doing 50 over the limit but reaction times and decision-making will be affected. I think the issue here should be more about practical, real impairment as opposed to the legal definition of same.

I will, however, agree there are better ways to go about this, as you suggested. There must be some sort of recourse. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer couldn't do anything for you in a case like this, even after the fact.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Thought it might be appropriate to continue this thread of the discussion here, rather than in the election thread. And apologies in advance, I have not read the majority of this thread, so forgive me if I am just repeating what's already been said.



If I had not had any drinks that night, in the highly unlikely event the breathalyzer still says .05, I will ask for a 2nd breathalyzer (they surely will have more than 1 at a checkstop for instance), I will offer a blood test, and I will call a lawyer immediately. I will agree with you that it's not right that you don't have a similar recourse as with a speeding ticket, where you could challenge it in court, but the likelihood of someone being falsely accused of a .05 blood alcohol level is pretty low. Again, knowing the law, I will not be getting behind the wheel if I have so much as a shred of doubt that I may be .05 or higher.

And no law is perfect. People have spent decades in jail for murders they didn't commit only to be exonerated. This is life, some people will be falsely accused and have to deal with the consequences (and they had the benefit of a trial too). Can we ever eliminate that completely? Probably not. In the case of this law, there is definite room for improvement, but in the end no matter what we do, sometimes innocent people will get screwed.



Apologies, I have not seen these statistics. This group may be the lowest cause of death/injury, but they are not blameless in this regard either. Any law that gets even some of the drunks off our roads is a law worth having, in my opinion. Yes, they may be targeting the wrong segment, but I don't see the problem in having a zero-tolerance policy (0.00 BAL) down the line. Inconvenient? Perhaps sometimes, I mean I enjoy a beer here or there, but I would not be against it. We all found seatbelts inconvenient at first, didn't we, but they've saved lives. A zero-tolerance policy with stiff penalties would save lives too.



For the fatalities in which the driver had no alcohol in their system - were they impaired by other things? Drugs? Fatigue? (perhaps a seperate discussion altogether...)

Legally they may not be impaired, but in practical terms, any amount of alcohol from .00-.05 will impair you. I've driven after a glass of wine, for instance, and while I was not near .05, you can feel the effect it has on you. There is a degree of impairment, however slight. That translates to reduced reaction times, and sometimes a fraction of a second is all the difference. At .05, while you can say that legally you are not impaired, I would argue that in practical terms you most definitely are. Perhaps not to the degree where you're weaving in and out of lanes doing 50 over the limit but reaction times and decision-making will be affected. I think the issue here should be more about practical, real impairment as opposed to the legal definition of same.

I will, however, agree there are better ways to go about this, as you suggested. There must be some sort of recourse. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer couldn't do anything for you in a case like this, even after the fact.

Why do you find that hard to believe? The law explicitly prevents you from any legal recourse. If a cop says you are guilty, you are guilty. Judge, jury, executioner. It's a pathetic piece of legislation.

[Otsy]

Unecessary?

One of Alison Redford’s earliest moves as premier was also the most contentious on her pre-election agenda: legislation to bring in three-day licence suspensions and vehicle seizures for drivers with .05 blood-alcohol content or higher.

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/alber...734/story.html

[Pacem]

Originally Posted by dhc-2

Legally they may not be impaired, but in practical terms, any amount of alcohol from .00-.05 will impair you. I've driven after a glass of wine, for instance, and while I was not near .05, you can feel the effect it has on you. There is a degree of impairment, however slight. That translates to reduced reaction times, and sometimes a fraction of a second is all the difference. At .05, while you can say that legally you are not impaired, I would argue that in practical terms you most definitely are. Perhaps not to the degree where you're weaving in and out of lanes doing 50 over the limit but reaction times and decision-making will be affected. I think the issue here should be more about practical, real impairment as opposed to the legal definition of same.


I will, however, agree there are better ways to go about this, as you suggested. There must be some sort of recourse. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer couldn't do anything for you in a case like this, even after the fact.

I'm only speaking from the BC side of things but I do believe that the Alberta changes are based off of and are very similiar to the rules applied in BC. I could be wrong.


As already stated, a Lawyer can do nothing. You don't get your impound fees back. You don't get paid for days missed at work. In BC, you can get charged with a DUI, spend money on a lawyer beat the charges and you still have to go thru the Responsible Driver Program. You still face the possibility of a ignition locking system installed into your vehicle after the program. In fact with a DUI you are now almost guaranteed of it, keep in mind you have been acquitted. There is no recourse. That is just for DUI's. For the roadside suspensions, there is absolutely nothing you can do. There is no way to dispute it. You cannot even ask to be taken down to the station for a proper breathalyzer test. Altho, they are considering changing that.


For the above bolded part. So you have a slight change in your reaction time after one glass of wine. Where do you draw the line? What about when you have the flu? A head cold? A migraine? Slept for 4 hours because your baby kept you up all night? What if your allergies are acting up and your sneezing like mad? What about a stiff neck that doesn't allow you to have full turning radius? There are so many scenarios where your reaction time and driving awarness can be affected. If government is truly concerned about saving peoples lives, then when a cop stops you at a road block, wouldn't you feel safer if the cop suspends a driver who is obviously having his driving ability changed by the above mentioned scenarios?


The government has drawn the line at .08. That is currently the law. If they want to change that, then change it. Make .05 and over a DUI. Don't make it legal to be under .08 and then create some cash cow bull####. The government, insurance company(ies), ignition installers, program directors (RDP) and towing yards rake in a sick amount of money. And you know damn well the companies that get the exclusive contracts to facilitate these services are greasing some politician. This is not about saving lives its about making money. It is so aggrivating. If they actually cared about lives and belived being at .05 and over is wrong. Then make it illegal and make it a criminal charge to be over .05. That way a person gets to defend themselves and not have to deal with this money grubbing BS.

[Bill Bumface]

I encourage all of you to get your own breathalyzer. 0.05 is hammered, end of story. You should not be driving at 0.05, and I'm glad people that drunk will be off the road.

For reference: http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

Subject #8 (200lbs, ATI 153.85) registered the following levels through the test. 0.000, 0.013, 0.031, 0.032 before complaining about eyes being tired. Continued through the test and blew 0.043, 0.034, and finally 0.038. Subject indicated inability to drive prior to the 0.043 BAC.

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?

I've used a breathalyzer on several occasions. The least beer I have ever drank and been able to hit 0.05 with was just over 1.5L in 40 minutes, right after intense exercise and no food. The spike over 0.05 lasted about 10 minutes and I was back below. Other times it has taken about 5 pints to hit that level, and no way would I drive.

[MarchHare]

I encourage all of you to get your own breathalyzer. 0.05 is hammered, end of story. You should not be driving at 0.05, and I'm glad people that drunk will be off the road.

Ignoring for a moment the lack of scientific validity in the "study" shown in your linked article, I want address this point:

If you want to change the legal limit to 0.05 BAC, then attempt to change it to 0.05 and be done with it. What most of us in this thread are criticizing is that the criminal code states the legal limit is 0.08, but the provincial government is making a new quasi-legal limit of 0.05 and instituting punishments while denying civil liberties (right to a fair trial, right to appeal, etc.) to anyone who blows in the 0.05-0.79 range.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I encourage all of you to get your own breathalyzer. 0.05 is hammered, end of story. You should not be driving at 0.05, and I'm glad people that drunk will be off the road.

For reference: http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

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?

I've used a breathalyzer on several occasions. The least beer I have ever drank and been able to hit 0.05 with was just over 1.5L in 40 minutes, right after intense exercise and no food. The spike over 0.05 lasted about 10 minutes and I was back below. Other times it has taken about 5 pints to hit that level, and no way would I drive.

Well then perhaps they should make that the law, as opposed to imposing criminal penalties without anything remotely resembling due process.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I encourage all of you to get your own breathalyzer. 0.05 is hammered, end of story. You should not be driving at 0.05, and I'm glad people that drunk will be off the road.

For reference: http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

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?

I've used a breathalyzer on several occasions. The least beer I have ever drank and been able to hit 0.05 with was just over 1.5L in 40 minutes, right after intense exercise and no food. The spike over 0.05 lasted about 10 minutes and I was back below. Other times it has taken about 5 pints to hit that level, and no way would I drive.

My issue isn't the 0.05, it's the fact that the person has no rights and no legal action available to them.

Let's say that the breathalyzer is malfunctioning and you blow 0.05. Your license and car are now gone and there is nothing you can do about it. Why shlould the people who blow 0.08 get better treatment then the people who blow 0.05?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I encourage all of you to get your own breathalyzer. 0.05 is hammered, end of story. You should not be driving at 0.05, and I'm glad people that drunk will be off the road.

For reference: http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

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?

I've used a breathalyzer on several occasions. The least beer I have ever drank and been able to hit 0.05 with was just over 1.5L in 40 minutes, right after intense exercise and no food. The spike over 0.05 lasted about 10 minutes and I was back below. Other times it has taken about 5 pints to hit that level, and no way would I drive.

No, I want to protect this person's rights, period.

[Bill Bumface]

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 have people flirting with driving drunk off the road thanks.

[Hockeyguy15]

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 have people flirting with driving drunk off the road thanks.

This isn't going to prevent the serial drunk driver from continuing to do it though. For the most part it will prevent people from having 2 drinks with dinner and then driving, which isn't bad but it isn't targeting the people who need to be targeted.