BAC Calculator

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Poster

yes or dont drink.

is your love of wine so great that you wouldnt sacrifice it so we could get the guys who drink a bottle of JD off the road too?

personal choice clearly, if i was one of your friends I would attend and be your designated driver and not drink at all without a second thought.

If you actually think a zero tolerance law, or any law for that matter, will get the guy who drinks a bottle of JD and drives off the road, I have news for you.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If you actually think a zero tolerance law, or any law for that matter, will get the guy who drinks a bottle of JD and drives off the road, I have news for you.

I was going to, before I read his post.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Poster

yes or dont drink.

is your love of wine so great that you wouldnt sacrifice it so we could get the guys who drink a bottle of JD off the road too?

personal choice clearly, if i was one of your friends I would attend and be your designated driver and not drink at all without a second thought.

So are you in favour of prohibition in general. Drunk driving barely skims the surface of the damage that alcohol causes. Society would be significantly better off with out it and many other vices. The problem is the responsible follow the law while the problem users do not.

So unfortunately Tax and treat becomes the best we can do.

[Red Potato Standing By]

So hypothetically, if say for example,you had a couple beers over a couple hours, then drove and got into a accident that wasn’t your fault and the police smelled alcohol on your breath would you be charged or be ok?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So hypothetically, if say for example,you had a couple beers over a couple hours, then drove and got into a accident that wasn’t your fault and the police smelled alcohol on your breath would you be charged or be ok?

Well they would likely make you blow. If you're stumbling around but blow under they can give a sobriety test using your motor skills. I don't know the conviction rates on that but I'm guessing it's near zero.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So hypothetically, if say for example,you had a couple beers over a couple hours, then drove and got into a accident that wasn’t your fault and the police smelled alcohol on your breath would you be charged or be ok?

I have no idea what the actual answer to this question is, but I imagine that there would be either a breath or blood test and if it registered under .08 you would not be charged with a DUI. I think the police judgement call on impairment is pretty rare and would go out the window if they were trying to figure that after a car accident.

[rbochan]

Originally Posted by Major Major

... I think the police judgement call on impairment is pretty rare and would go out the window if they were trying to figure that after a car accident.

That either 100 % bull#### or incredibly naive. Perhaps you've never had any interaction with "law enforcement" whatsoever.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by rbochan

That either 100 % bull#### or incredibly naive. Perhaps you've never had any interaction with "law enforcement" whatsoever.

Lol, I certainly have!

What is naive about that? If there's an accident, and a cop pulls either a breath or blood test that reads under .08, why would he assume that person is drunk rather than shaken or injured. It seems like that would never hold up. Maybe they get one of the drug recognition guys on the scene, but as far as booze, this seems like a problematic time to make a judgement call.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by rbochan

That either 100 % bull#### or incredibly naive. Perhaps you've never had any interaction with "law enforcement" whatsoever.

I have to go with Major Major here. I'd like to see some stats of people being convicted of DUI while blowing under 0.08. As I mentioned before its probably close to zero.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yeah, the whole change to 0.05 people had everyone freaking out. "Now I can't have my one or two glasses of wine at dinner because I'll blow over." Nope, not the case. And if it is, you probably shouldn't be driving anyways.

To be fair, that was the messaging from politicians and law enforcement spokespeople when the new limit was rolled out - it you have even a single drink, you shouldn't drive.

I wonder if the people who say those thing honestly believe it's practical, or if it's just a case of saying the right-on thing to make yourself look good. If we as a society really did decide people should not drive after having a single drink, the next logical step would be to shut down all bars. 90 per cent of people drive to the bar, and they aren't going to add $50 to their night out by taking a cab if they have two drinks. So just stop licensing businesses to serve alcohol on the premises.

The reality is that most collisions caused by impaired driving involve drivers who are hammered. And most of the people driving hammered in 2017 are hard-core, chronic alcoholics who are not deterred by social pressure or awareness campaigns. The only thing that stops them from driving is catching them in check stops, and then removing their driver's license and ability to register and insure a vehicle. But that's expensive and hard.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I have to go with Major Major here. I'd like to see some stats of people being convicted of DUI while blowing under 0.08. As I mentioned before its probably close to zero.

It sort of doesn't matter if you're convicted or not. By the time you prove your innocence your car has been impounded and your costs are mounting even without a trial or lawyer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

To be fair, that was the messaging from politicians and law enforcement spokespeople when the new limit was rolled out - it you have even a single drink, you shouldn't drive.

It was the Wildrose talking about personal liberties and what ever else those whackjobs talked about, while bringing that up. With the occasional cry from a restaurant owner.

It was certainly not Redford saying that you should not drive if you've had one glass and law enforcement never really changed their view on the topic (for some reason they've always been a bit anti-drinking and driving...). They just started coming out with more evidence that 0.05 and beyond can cause impairment. If anything they emphasized that 0.05 was not going to occur after one drink during that time.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It was the Wildrose talking about personal liberties and what ever else those whackjobs talked about, while bringing that up. With the occasional cry from a restaurant owner.

It was certainly not Redford saying that you should not drive if you've had one glass and law enforcement never really changed their view on the topic (for some reason they've always been a bit anti-drinking and driving...). They just started coming out with more evidence that 0.05 and beyond can cause impairment. If anything they emphasized that 0.05 was not going to occur after one drink during that time.

Sorry, but I remember Redford saying exactly that - you should find alternate ways to get home if you have even a single drink. Calgary's police chief also said the same thing. Their wording was so similar that I assumed they were parroting the talking-points from a government communications strategy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sorry, but I remember Redford saying exactly that - you should find alternate ways to get home if you have even a single drink. Calgary's police chief also said the same thing. Their wording was so similar that I assumed they were parroting the talking-points from a government communications strategy.

I'd like some evidence of that. It was Danielle Smith and other critics in opposition to it.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/how-much-is-0-05

Critics claimed the government was going after the people who would stop in for a beer or two after work. Or the couple that drinks a glass of wine over dinner.

To get a better understanding of the new drunk driving laws, the Calgary Police Service held a “social dosing” session. The premise was simple, drink booze, eat food, mimic a business lunch and see what your blood alcohol level is.

The Calgary Police Service literally ran sessions were people drank more than one and tested to show they were still under 0.05.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'd like some evidence of that. It was Danielle Smith and other critics in opposition to it.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/how-much-is-0-05



The Calgary Police Service literally ran sessions were people drank more than one and tested to show they were still under 0.05.

I question this:

For context, I’m 22-years-old, six-foot-three, 265 pounds and will probably average two or three beers three times a week.

After two Molson Canadians and a Subway sub in 30 minutes, I was weak in the knees, slurring my words, plump red cheeks and talking with my hands.

I agree though I don't think the government ever was saying it. It was the opposition.

[Oling_Roachinen]

The guy had two (yes TWO) whole Molson Canadians. He was done for.

Yeah, I question it as well, but what he blew makes sense.

And the point of the article was at the time of the 0.05 proposal being passed through, the Calgary Police Service was going out of their way to explicitly states that one beer wasn't going to take you over 0.05. In contrast to what CliffFletcher recalls.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'd like some evidence of that. It was Danielle Smith and other critics in opposition to it.

You'll just have to trust my memory. I paid close attention to the story at the time, and recall 'if you're going to drink at all, have an alternative way home' said by several spokespeople. I specifically recall an interview David Gray had with a Calgary police spokesperson (I believe it was the police chief), where Gray cited the example of co-workers stopping to have a drink on the way home. My recollection:

Gray: "So you're saying even if you stop at a bar to have a drink with co-workers on the way home, and then wait an hour, you shouldn't drive?"

Police spokesperson: "Yes. We're trying to get the message out there that if you plan to have any alcohol, you should plan for alternate ways home."

The exchange stuck in my mind because I recounted it to a friend when we were having a beer and talking about the issue the next day.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You'll just have to trust my memory. I paid close attention to the story at the time, and recall 'if you're going to drink at all, have an alternative way home' said by several spokespeople.

Sorry, I don't trust your memory on this one as I followed it closely as well. I was actually on the other side of this and heavily against Redford. I listened to the restaurant and bar owners etc. and thought it was just a money grab and that they were going to nail people who had a glass at dinner. But it was Redford's government who was insisting that it would take more than a glass to get to 0.05 and that's where I finally got educated more on BAC.

I could see you being confused on Redford stating things like she was going to be "tough on drinking and driving" but she didn't mean 0 drinking and driving, she was talking about actual impairment (or at least 0.05 depending on how you feel about that).

You could be right about your exchange, I don't know, but I do know that the police were proactive in explicitly telling people it takes more than a drink to get to 0.05 (for a normal person at least).

[millhouse11]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I have no idea what the actual answer to this question is, but I imagine that there would be either a breath or blood test and if it registered under .08 you would not be charged with a DUI. I think the police judgement call on impairment is pretty rare and would go out the window if they were trying to figure that after a car accident.

A friend's son was stopped. He was stoned to where he was obviously impaired. Blew 0.00 but his car was impounded for 36 hours. He wasn't charged with anything. I don't know if that's standard procedure, but it's what happened to him. Probably hard to make the impaired stick, so do the next best thing and take the car away.

[JD]

I think when the authorities are saying plan another way home if you're going to have even one drink, they're not necessarily saying you will be breaking the law or blow over if you have one or two or even three for some people.

What they're saying is by driving in the first place, you have given yourself the option to have more drinks than you intended and still drive. If you start out with no option of driving, you will not drive. If you indulge more than you planned and the option is still there to drive, many people will still drive! Why? Because they are making the choice at a time when decision making is not at its best.

You've had three, you're feeling great! Confidence is higher, you're happy, of course you're okay to drive. Maybe you'll even have another one because right now you're fine. And it's such a pain in the ass to leave the car here and have to come get it in the morning, cabs are so expensive... I'll just drive, I'm fine.

Though totally wrong, that's the thought process. And that's the challenge in Calgary... it's a drive-first kind of city. Most people will start their night with the car. If people had more of a mentality of using alternative transportation in the first place, the challenge of making that right choice in the wrong time doesn't even exist.

Many people make the right choice, but so many people, especially the young, will make the wrong choice even with the best of intentions.