B.C. Introduces Canada's Toughest Impaired Driving Laws

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by zamler

You could do that. But then you would have to get a ride the next day to pick up your car. Or walk there. But I guess driving there is just too damn irresistible? And then there's the possibility of something bad happening to you car in the lot, I mean a bunch of drunks around is not going to help.

Let's be honest, when you drive somewhere you have the full expectation of driving home, 9 times out of 10.

Sure something could happen to your car in the parking lot, it could happen outside your house as well. This is why we have insurance. Sorry but that excuse is the one I usually have to battle buddies with when they want to drive drunk. To me a car is a piece of metal with tires on it and the value of my life, and more importantly the people I could hurt, are worth way more than my car could ever be.

Also when I drive somewhere I expect to drive home 10 out of 10 times. But when I'm drinking I fully expect not to drive so I will leave my car at my house, a friends house, or even the bar parking lot. Hell I did the exact thing during a Victoria CP meet. People are just stupid and selfish when they drive home drunk.

[mikey_the_redneck]

If they lower the BAC limit to 0.05.....they might as well ban the following substances that mildly impair a persons judgement;

-caffeine
-smoking
-medication


....and we should have random check stops to make sure people aren't doing these things either....because you just may kill someone in a collision.

[zamler]

You can be charged with impaired driving regardless of your drug of choice, legal or not. Heck, you can be charged even if you are stone cold sober.

[Sylvanfan]

Having tough drinking and driving regulations is fine with me. But I'd sure as hell love to see that arrogant jerk Campbell be forced to retroactively deal with this new legislation for the act he committed in Hawaii.

Is BC so devoid of reasonable politicians that Campbell is still the premier? He's far and away the most incompetent and biggest hypocrite of any political leader in Canada who's held the job as long as he has. The BC Liberals are brutal..but they get away with it because their only opponent is the NDP.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Having tough drinking and driving regulations is fine with me. But I'd sure as hell love to see that arrogant jerk Campbell be forced to retroactively deal with this new legislation for the act he committed in Hawaii.

Is BC so devoid of reasonable politicians that Campbell is still the premier? He's far and away the most incompetent and biggest hypocrite of any political leader in Canada who's held the job as long as he has. The BC Liberals are brutal..but they get away with it because their only opponent is the NDP.

Campbell's financial minister was supposed to be next in line, but the whole HST backlash by a lot of the public has ended that

the NDP may even have enough votes to win the next election

[Pacem]

Total garbage. Its just a cash grab. These changes aren't about saving lives or making people drive less while drinking. Its all motivated by money.

They want more people in their Responsible Driving Program(RDP) and want more people installing interlock devices into their vehicles. These new changes will do that. The RDP is nearly $1000. $360 goes to the company that provides the counselors(Stroh Health). $500 goes to the government. 12 - 14 people per class for $6000 - $7000 per class. The installation of the interlock device is controlled and regulated by the government with a fixed price of over $1400 IIRC. I don't mind them saying someone needs an interlock device for their vehicle in order for them to drive, but to regulate and control the cost of installing the interlock device is wrong. Some people need glasses to drive, should the government control how much a pair of glasses should cost? Of course not.

This also gives police officers far too much power. I have no problem with extended suspensions, after i have my right to defend myself. Innocent until proven guilty right? To allow a cop to be able to give you a suspension up to 90 days right on the road is total bull. They are taking away my right to demand a proper BAC test down at the police station. Thats far too much power for the police. The police will abuse it. And they'll be absolute tards about abusing their powers too. Its bad enough that you cannot dispute being impaired by drugs with regaurds to suspensions, they don't need to add more power. I was accused of smoking pot while driving and got a 24hr suspension for it. I haven't smoked pot in years and offered to give blood to prove I was clean... Nope. Get my ticket look into disputing it... Nope, can't dispute drug related suspensions. Good stuff.

Impounding a vehicle for up to 30 days is unneccessary. Many vehicles are used by multiple people, impounding a vehicle for 30 days does nothing to deter drinking and driving. If someone really wants to drive they'll find a way, all its doing is costing money which doesn't provide or teach a lesson.

Its not a good plan. The government just wants to line their pockets with more money. As well as their friends at the tow yard and the guys who install the interlock devices. They'll all be raking it in.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by zamler

Okay someone answer me this. Why do clubs and bars often have large parking lots? And guess what, everyone drives there, and nearly everyone drives home. But wait, the Cops could just easily sit in the parking lot and arrest people en masse. But nooooo, that would be a political issue, the bar owners would complain that they are losing business and raise a big stink. So instead, the parking lot gets filled up and of course the people that drove there are going to drive home. Sure, there is the designated driver thing, but it's not used nearly enough.

I say the legal limit should be 0.01. You have even a lick of alcohol, you can't drive. But what really needs to change is the culture of drinking, you DRIVE to a bar and drink, so you DRIVE home. Until people figure out that you can't do that no matter what, and it becomes the norm, the drinking and driving problem will never ever go away.

Because a group of people/friends will carpool to hang out at the bar and the responsible one who didn't drink drives everyone home.

[Antithesis]

nm

[Finny61]

You better watch it Mr. Bombay, they are watching you.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Pacem

Total garbage. Its just a cash grab. These changes aren't about saving lives or making people drive less while drinking. Its all motivated by money.

They want more people in their Responsible Driving Program(RDP) and want more people installing interlock devices into their vehicles. These new changes will do that. The RDP is nearly $1000. $360 goes to the company that provides the counselors(Stroh Health). $500 goes to the government. 12 - 14 people per class for $6000 - $7000 per class. The installation of the interlock device is controlled and regulated by the government with a fixed price of over $1400 IIRC. I don't mind them saying someone needs an interlock device for their vehicle in order for them to drive, but to regulate and control the cost of installing the interlock device is wrong. Some people need glasses to drive, should the government control how much a pair of glasses should cost? Of course not.

This also gives police officers far too much power. I have no problem with extended suspensions, after i have my right to defend myself. Innocent until proven guilty right? To allow a cop to be able to give you a suspension up to 90 days right on the road is total bull. They are taking away my right to demand a proper BAC test down at the police station. Thats far too much power for the police. The police will abuse it. And they'll be absolute tards about abusing their powers too. Its bad enough that you cannot dispute being impaired by drugs with regaurds to suspensions, they don't need to add more power. I was accused of smoking pot while driving and got a 24hr suspension for it. I haven't smoked pot in years and offered to give blood to prove I was clean... Nope. Get my ticket look into disputing it... Nope, can't dispute drug related suspensions. Good stuff.

Impounding a vehicle for up to 30 days is unneccessary. Many vehicles are used by multiple people, impounding a vehicle for 30 days does nothing to deter drinking and driving. If someone really wants to drive they'll find a way, all its doing is costing money which doesn't provide or teach a lesson.

Its not a good plan. The government just wants to line their pockets with more money. As well as their friends at the tow yard and the guys who install the interlock devices. They'll all be raking it in.

I really couldn't have said it better myself.

[DuffMan]

If I were driving in BC, could I still text on my phone, while driving, at .04

[You Need a Thneed]

The law is a step in the right direction, but the penalties are still not nearly enough. I think something similar to Norway would be about right - first offense - lose your license for a year (plus a large fine), second offense, you may never have a drivers license again (plus a large fine).

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Pacem

This also gives police officers far too much power. I have no problem with extended suspensions, after i have my right to defend myself. Innocent until proven guilty right? To allow a cop to be able to give you a suspension up to 90 days right on the road is total bull. They are taking away my right to demand a proper BAC test down at the police station. Thats far too much power for the police.

I agree with your entire post Pacem.

The 90 day suspension has been around for 12yrs. ? It took 2-3 weeks to process, the only difference now is that it is immediate. I went thru it about 11 yrs ago, I appealed and kept my licence until the Supreme Court's decision in 2001 ? In the meantime I was not convicted of impaired and served no driving suspension.

I did have to serve a 90 day suspension a couple years after the fact simply for being charged...

There is no doubt this law is being abused and will continue to give immature and unscrupulous Police far too much power.

[Russic]

This seems like a pretty simplistic problem to avoid. To me it's like people that complain about speeding laws ... if you don't speed there's no way this could ever impact you. If you're driving don't drink. Doesn't really seem like a big problem to me. If you are at a social engagement and end up having a glass of wine you're taking a risk, but it's quite unlikely you'll blow a .05.

People who get upset about it being a cash grab act as if they are completely without option in giving the government money.

[lucky1]

the first time this one goes to court, it will get tossed out.....how can you be penalized for being under the legal limit?.....you cant be charged under the criminal code (can you), so it would be a provincial thing....so would it carry demerits? It does sound very much like a cash grab....if you are not above the legal limit, how can they just take your car away??...next thing you know they will be tazering streakers at stamps/flames games!!!!

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Russic

This seems like a pretty simplistic problem to avoid. To me it's like people that complain about speeding laws ... if you don't speed there's no way this could ever impact you. If you're driving don't drink. Doesn't really seem like a big problem to me. If you are at a social engagement and end up having a glass of wine you're taking a risk, but it's quite unlikely you'll blow a .05.

Your not paying attention... You do not need to be impaired to loose your licence for 90 days and have whatever vehicle you were driving impounded...

You also don't have to be speeding to receive a speeding ticket...

I remember when I thought Police were fair and honest... Ahh, Ignorance is bliss

[SeeBass]

I'm all for tough laws but the city of Calgary needs to increase taxi permits badly.

I'm more than happy to take a cab but the trouble is finding one.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Your not paying attention... You do not need to be impaired to loose your licence for 90 days and have whatever vehicle you were driving impounded...

You also don't have to be speeding to receive a speeding ticket...

I remember when I thought Police were fair and honest... Ahh, Ignorance is bliss

I'm not 100% clear on how it works in Canada but in the states, you don't even need to be driving to be charged with a DUI.
Sleep in the back seat of your parked car in the bar parking lot to sleep off the booze? If you were in the car and have your keys on you - you're in control of the vehicle and can be charged with a DUI!

It always made me wonder... what if your house has wheels... Can you be charged for having a beer while in your own home?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

If I were driving in BC, could I still text on my phone, while driving, at .04

Sure but you will get a $500 fine for playing with an electronics device while driving.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Sure but you will get a $500 fine for playing with an electronics device while driving.

Yup, even talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in B.C. now, thank god.