Calgary police begin mandatory alcohol screening at Checkstops

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Simple, straightforward, and incredibly stupid.

Why?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Why?

Mostly so we don't have to watch the inevitable barrage of MADD/CPS scare commercials...one drink and we torture you like ISIL.

[Barnet Flame]

Zero tolerance is a bad idea. I don’t know how long after drinking, a person may have traces of alcohol in their system. In those instances, people who have no impairment would end up with criminal records. That would be of no benefit for anybody.

In fact it would be a disbenefit not just to the individual and their family but also society in general. This is because a criminal record would have impacts way beyond the individual concerned.

We need to always think about what it is we are trying to achieve. In this instance we want to stop people with an impairment from causing death and injury. Prosecuting people who aren’t impaired doesn’t do that.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Why?

Because it doesn't work like you think it does. Zero consumption doesn't mean you would have to not drink shortly before you're going to drive, it means you'd have to pretty much give up drinking if you drive daily.

Between the hours needed to completely drain your system and the additional hours needed to relieve your paranoia of possibly still having traces in your system you've ruled out driving almost completely.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I blew a .06 after drinking 5 beers over a few hours and then a tall glass of water

You gotta be pretty blatantly drunk to get a full fledged .08 DUI

why the heck were you even driving after 5 beers?
you shouldn't have even been on the road.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by MBates

It is important to not conflate the provincial and federal legislation and also what can be done with actual grounds to suspect a person has alcohol in their body as compared to without. I don’t think I could just say yes or no to the question you are asking without a fair bit of clarification that is not well suited to a message board.

And in the interest of being clear, here is the actual text of the Criminal Code offence and exception (for alcohol)

320.14 (1) Everyone commits an offence who

(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;

(b) subject to subsection (5), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that is equal to or exceeds 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;

(c) subject to subsection (6), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation; or

(d) subject to subsection (7), has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration and a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood alcohol concentration and the blood drug concentration for the drug that are prescribed by regulation for instances where alcohol and that drug are combined.

(2) Everyone commits an offence who commits an offence under subsection (1) and who, while operating the conveyance, causes bodily harm to another person.

(3) Everyone commits an offence who commits an offence under subsection (1) and who, while operating the conveyance, causes the death of another person.

(4) Subject to subsection (6), everyone commits an offence who has, within two hours after ceasing to operate a conveyance, a blood drug concentration that is equal to or exceeds the blood drug concentration for the drug that is prescribed by regulation and that is less than the concentration prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c).

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if

(a) they consumed alcohol after ceasing to operate the conveyance;

(b) after ceasing to operate the conveyance, they had no reasonable expectation that they would be required to provide a sample of breath or blood; and

(c) their alcohol consumption is consistent with their blood alcohol concentration as determined in accordance with subsection 320.31(1) or (2) and with their having had, at the time when they were operating the conveyance, a blood alcohol concentration that was less than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.
...

Asking for a friend - is a mobility scooter considered a conveyance?

I would think you can operate an electric wheelchair while intoxicated or else we'd be saying people in wheelchairs can't drink. Do you know if a mobility scooter falls into the same category as an electric wheelchair?

[OMG!WTF!]

I'm not sure you need a license or insurance to drive a mobility scooter or wheel chair so you could probably be as hammered as you like without much consequence. I'll leave it to Mbates for the definitive answer but I say giv'er. There's probably like a menace charge or endangerment or something but those are pretty soft. At least you could drive to your court date.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I'm not sure you need a license or insurance to drive a mobility scooter or wheel chair so you could probably be as hammered as you like without much consequence. I'll leave it to Mbates for the definitive answer but I say giv'er. There's probably like a menace charge or endangerment or something but those are pretty soft. At least you could drive to your court date.

in the criminal code interpretations, I found this:

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment.

so you can be as drunk as you want in a manual wheelchair, but you could be charged in a mobility scooter. best to just ride the old ten speed if drunk.

I doubt a cop would charge you, though. maybe just give you a ticket for being intoxicated in public?

[TheIronMaiden]

This sounds expensive.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

in the criminal code interpretations, I found this:

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment.

so you can be as drunk as you want in a manual wheelchair, but you could be charged in a mobility scooter. best to just ride the old ten speed if drunk.

I doubt a cop would charge you, though. maybe just give you a ticket for being intoxicated in public?

I just found a pdf with a pretty good flow chart from transport alberta. Mobility aids like the common Rascal don't require a license or insurance. Nor do powered wheel chairs.

But for sure drunken rascaling would get you some kind of charge. Probably a WalMart ban too.

[Envitro]

Do we have any statistics yet on how many people have been charged since the law came into effect?

Just curious of the effectiveness of the law, given that the constitutional challenge is coming any day now.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

why the heck were you even driving after 5 beers?
you shouldn't have even been on the road.

Who said I was driving? This was for scientific purposes...I wasn't encouraging people to drink and drive, just saying those worried about having one beer and then getting a DUI on a mandatory breathalyzer have nothing to worry about.

If you get a .08 DUI you have had way too many and deserve it.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Case closed!

Except............... as everyone (hopefully) knows....and has already been mentioned multiple times but doesn’t seem to be sinking in with anyone.......:

- how much do you weigh? How tall are you? How many mL of blood are in your body?
- how much did you eat that night?
- what does “a few hours” mean?
- how fast do you normally process alcohol?
-etc etc etc etc

Any schmuck can pop on here and say anecdotal useless “well I do this so it must be good!” But that turns a blind eye to basic biology, physics and chemistry in that human beings are all different.

Humans are actually different sentient beings.

Thus, everyone is different.

Thus...........

Not at all what I said....but nobody is blowing a .08 after one beer. People that cry that they had one drink and got a DUI are lying

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

why the heck were you even driving after 5 beers?
you shouldn't have even been on the road.

0.06 has only been illegal for a few years now, probably did this before the 0.05 law

[agulati]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Not at all what I said....but nobody is blowing a .08 after one beer. People that cry that they had one drink and got a DUI are lying

Does depend on your license status though.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

in the criminal code interpretations, I found this:

motor vehicle means a vehicle that is drawn, propelled or driven by any means other than muscular power, but does not include railway equipment.

so you can be as drunk as you want in a manual wheelchair, but you could be charged in a mobility scooter. best to just ride the old ten speed if drunk.

I doubt a cop would charge you, though. maybe just give you a ticket for being intoxicated in public?

The new definition of conveyance includes a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft and railway equipment.

This Ontario case dealt specifically with the issue of operating a mobility scooter while impaired including arguments under section 15 of the charter:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/do...07oncj242.html

I suppose this guy blowing 0.328 might have been a deciding factor in the police proceeding with the charge but from the analysis the court did here it is clear cut that such devices are motor vehicles under the criminal code.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

I don't understand why we bother with all this to begin with, when it would be simple and straightforward to make the law zero tolerance for any alcohol when driving. This coming from someone who thinks we should be able to drink openly in public, so long as you're not causing problems.

Lets just ban booze.


Or even better lets ban cars!!!

[Lubicon]

Put me down in the camp of this being a slippery slope and I am not in favor of this. And for those who said a few minutes of your time as an inconvenience is not a big deal consider a checkstop where they are screening everyone, it is going to be a lot longer than a few minutes. Over the Christmas break we were in the Edmonton area and my kids and their cousins (all teenagers and running GDL's so zero tolerance) came across one one night in Fort Saskatchewan where the highway crosses the river. The traffic backup was massive as everyone was being screened. My beliefs aside (opposed to this) the kids said the police were good about it and explained the procedure nicely the them as neither of the girls driving had ever been stopped before and did not know what to do or even expect.


Edit to add I fully expect CPS, EPS, and the RCMP to provide statistics showing the results of mandatory screening. How many more impaired drivers were caught, what the percentage increase is in how effective this is etc. If this cannot be done then I also fully expect mandatory screening to be stopped.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Constitutional and moral issues aside.

How many impaired drivers being caught isn't really a good indicator though. If it's properly used as a deterrent, then there should be less drunk drivers on the road to begin with. The ideal outcome for this would be 0 DUIs issued as no one got on the road drunk.

It's a bit of a catch 22, because if it catches more, than it can be seen as a success. If it catches less, then it probably actually did a good job in deterring drunk drivers.

[Weitz]

nvm