Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 12-27-2018, 07:46 PM   #201
FireGilbert
Franchise Player
 
FireGilbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane
Exp:
Default

Since Australia was mentioned I might as well share my experience living here. RBT (random breath testing) is heavily utilized. In my 9 years here I have been tested 4 times compared to zero times in my previous 10 years in Canada. I've also driven into at least another 5 checkshops but was waived through because they were full. I don't like it but have come to accept the loss of rights as a requirement of a license and that there is a chance I could be randomly tested any time I am on the road.

It it definitely random. The police will set up an area, usually somewhere hidden away on a minor arterial road, and start pulling over every driver until the checkstop is full. Once pulled over a straw is put into your face and you are told to blow (the cops don't bother with the "have you been drinking" preamble). They also have random drug testing (RDTs) but they are less common due to the length of time to get a saliva test result. These concern me more than the alcohol testing as I am not sure a saliva test gives you can accurate measurement of impairment. They also do not test for cocaine which means the wealthy drug users are not caught.

Something I have noticed is that the majority of stops I have run into are set up in the mornings around 10am. It isn't likely isn't the best time to catch drunk drivers but it is a time when the roads are busy and you can easily meet a quota. Hence my comments in a previous post that these rules are more focused on testing as many people as possible not catching as many drunk drivers as possible.

Speaking of quotas, the Victorian police force was recently caught out for faking tests:

https://www.news.com.au/national/vic...f3c0b20c0c3dfc

Quote:
LAST week it emerged that Victorian police officers were faking their way through random breath-tests by blowing into devices themselves. The rort, uncovered after a whistleblower spoke out, forced Victoria Police to admit more than 258,000 random breath tests had been falsified over the past five years.The shocking findings were detailed in an internal report that revealed officers had faked more than 1.5 per cent of its 17.7 million preliminary roadside breath tests to meet quotas or to avoid breath testing motorists. In the wake of the damning statistics, Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission (TAC) suspended the $4 million in annual funding it gives to the state’s police force. But the Herald Sun is reporting the more accurate number of false results might be closer to one million.
Yes Australia has done a great job reducing drunk driving incidents but there is more to it then just randomly testing everyone and I believe there is a more efficient use of police time than 10am checkstops. This seems to be accepted by society here though so I do not see things changing.
__________________
The masses of humanity have always had to surf.

Last edited by FireGilbert; 12-27-2018 at 07:49 PM.
FireGilbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 08:55 PM   #202
longsuffering
First Line Centre
 
longsuffering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Absolutely. If drug testing were a part of this it would be an insane disaster. The technology isn't even close for testing with probable cause (or how to identify drug-based probable cause, as evidenced by the article).



Glad it's not part of it.
Yet

Sent from my MIX using Tapatalk
longsuffering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 09:40 PM   #203
Travis Munroe
Realtor®
 
Travis Munroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Put me in the category of not really caring and if I had to choose, being in favor of this.... we all know the people who can have a drink too many and you would never know it. If this law prevents even a small percentage of people from getting behind the wheel then it is a success.

I was recently t boned (after this law came into play) and without saying too much at this point, I couldn't believe the other party was not breathalyzed. If there was ever a time to take advantage of this law, would it not be in every accident?

I am also the type of person who would be completely fine with security cameras on every single corner of the city to make the city a safer place. I have nothing to hide and in reality, nobody needs to be monitoring the cameras unless something comes up.
__________________

OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300

Residential Buying & Selling
info@tmunroe.com
www.tmunroe.com

Property Management
travis@mpmCalgary.com
www.mpmCalgary.com
Travis Munroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 09:52 PM   #204
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Cameras on every corner wouldn't be a violation of any of your rights. And also, they're always watching.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:11 PM   #205
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

How does this make anything better? Are people who are drunk able to drive so well that they are otherwise escaping suspicion and the police need this in their tool bag to fight drunk driving? Like, in what circumstance would this be needed by police in the first place? What was the catalyst for this change?
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:12 PM   #206
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata View Post
"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

Https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/fe...randjean-choi/

Flouride is known to have numerous negative impacts on the brain and the idea that it should he added to our water because people can't be trusted to floss and brush is absurd.
Hahahahahha is this you Druh ‘I only listen to the science I agree with’ Farrel?

I wish that when I moved to Calgary someone would have told me my dental bills would increase as much as they have. This city..
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:14 PM   #207
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Section 8 is definitely engaged here, but my bigger concern is about self incrimination. Refusing to blow is a criminal offence. When an officer had to have reasonable suspicion that an offence had been committed, that was more or less okay. Here, though, you're being told the following by the state: "we have no reason to think you have done anything wrong. Despite that, we require that you prove to us that you have not committed a crime. Accordingly, we require that you provide evidence to us that may be used to incriminate you. If you refuse to provide that evidence, that refusal will also be incriminating." It actually is fairly Orwellian.
Do we actually have a charter right against self-incrimination?

Maybe Section 7 could apply but their certainly isn’t anything specific in the text. Does case law shed some light on this?
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2018, 11:52 PM   #208
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius View Post
How does this make anything better? Are people who are drunk able to drive so well that they are otherwise escaping suspicion and the police need this in their tool bag to fight drunk driving? Like, in what circumstance would this be needed by police in the first place? What was the catalyst for this change?
Exactly. The argument is that this will save lives, but I can think of only one very specific example where it would be useful, and that is where...
  1. A person drinks enough to be legally impaired
  2. The person decides to drive in that condition
  3. The person is stopped by the police either in a Checkstop or other traffic stop
  4. The person doesn't give the officer any reason to suspect they are impaired and the officer sends the person on their way without administering a roadside test
  5. Before the person gets to their destination or consumes any additional alcohol, the person gets into a major accident and injures or kills someone


If that scenario ever actually happened, I'm sure it would have made national headlines. I've never heard of such a thing ever happening.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 12:46 AM   #209
Scorch
First Line Centre
 
Scorch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FireGilbert View Post
Since Australia was mentioned I might as well share my experience living here. RBT (random breath testing) is heavily utilized. In my 9 years here I have been tested 4 times compared to zero times in my previous 10 years in Canada. I've also driven into at least another 5 checkshops but was waived through because they were full. I don't like it but have come to accept the loss of rights as a requirement of a license and that there is a chance I could be randomly tested any time I am on the road.

It it definitely random. The police will set up an area, usually somewhere hidden away on a minor arterial road, and start pulling over every driver until the checkstop is full. Once pulled over a straw is put into your face and you are told to blow (the cops don't bother with the "have you been drinking" preamble). They also have random drug testing (RDTs) but they are less common due to the length of time to get a saliva test result. These concern me more than the alcohol testing as I am not sure a saliva test gives you can accurate measurement of impairment. They also do not test for cocaine which means the wealthy drug users are not caught.

Something I have noticed is that the majority of stops I have run into are set up in the mornings around 10am. It isn't likely isn't the best time to catch drunk drivers but it is a time when the roads are busy and you can easily meet a quota. Hence my comments in a previous post that these rules are more focused on testing as many people as possible not catching as many drunk drivers as possible.

Speaking of quotas, the Victorian police force was recently caught out for faking tests:

https://www.news.com.au/national/vic...f3c0b20c0c3dfc


Yes Australia has done a great job reducing drunk driving incidents but there is more to it then just randomly testing everyone and I believe there is a more efficient use of police time than 10am checkstops. This seems to be accepted by society here though so I do not see things changing.
You forgot to mention they call it “drink driving” in Australia

Past tense words somehow doesn’t exist in the land of kangaroos
Scorch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 01:09 AM   #210
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorch View Post
You forgot to mention they call it “drink driving” in Australia

Past tense words somehow doesn’t exist in the land of kangaroos
I'm just surprised they don't call it "drinky drivey" like their slang terms for everything else.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Old 12-28-2018, 01:16 AM   #211
MBates
Crash and Bang Winger
 
MBates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Yes, they can test you for any reason if they pull you over (for alcohol). But outside of checkstops, they still require probable cause to pull you over.

They cannot pull an individual over without probable cause, that hasn't changed.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/...cfa/qa-qr.html
Do you wonder why the government press release doesn’t explain the powers police have to pull you over under ‘common law’ and traffic safety legislation?

Maybe so people like you will blindly tell everyone they know not to worry because ‘probable cause’ is required for a stop? Which is simply not true.

Police can stop any car they want to check that the driver has a license and that the car has insurance and is mechanically safe etc. They don’t have to have grounds to believe the driver is not licensed or that the car is uninsured or dangerous. Under the old law, when that was the purpose of the stop, they couldn’t just launch an arbitrary criminal impaired investigation.

There is zero ‘probable cause’ required for stopping you and then making you provide a roadside breath sample under the current law. Police can pull you over whenever they want and now, unlike before where they had to have the most minimal reason to suspect you were doing anything illegal before detaining you and forcing you to provide bodily samples you are automatically obligated to provide same on demand.

Another part of the new law people are not talking about here is that you are guilty of a criminal offence for having blood alcohol readings at or over .08 mg% within two hours of driving. The offence no longer is about being over the limit at the time you drive. So yes, you can be convicted of a crime for driving sober and then drinking to more than the limit after parking at your destination.

But no worry, so long as you prove you were under the limit at time of driving (in a manner that has your evidence be consistent with the breathalyzer result because the result is now conclusive proof of your BAC) you still have a chance to show you didn’t commit an offence. You will have to hire a specialized lawyer and a toxicologist expert (last one I hired charged $400 per hour by the way).

Another interesting change not being discussed is that a statutorily compelled statement under the traffic safety act that has always clearly been inadmissible in criminal proceedings because, well it is the definition of an involuntary statement, is now declared to be admissible. So yes, the state can now force you under threat of imprisonment to give them a statement and then use that to imprison you. The SCC has ruled that is unconstitutional but the government is going to give it another go.

Also, don’t forget provincial driver control board license suspensions will all be proceeding independent from the criminal allegation. Incidentally, you might recall parts of Alberta’s last provincial regime based on ‘safety’ were struck as being unconstitutional as well.

But anybody even remotely concerned about state overreach and slippery slopes is apparently living in an alternate reality and deserves to be mocked according to some on this site.

Just because the grade isn’t steep doesn’t mean we are not on a slippery slope.

Remember the government itself clearly knows they are breaching potentially each of section 7, 8 and 9 of the Charter with these changes and have prepared in advance to ‘save’ the law with arguments under section 1. People being concerned about unwarranted state intrusion are not the only ones who see potential problems with what has been done here. You might want to read the law more closely before defending it so strongly...and incorrectly.

Last edited by MBates; 12-28-2018 at 03:16 PM. Reason: To clarify that being ‘at or over’ 80 mg% is the new limit
MBates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 07:15 AM   #212
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Maybe so people like you will blindly tell everyone they know not to worry because ‘probable cause’ is required for a stop? Which is simply not true.

That's not the fault of people like Pepsi. Literally all the news stories about this issue said the same thing...


Quote:
It means police no longer need to suspect drivers of drinking and driving, though they will still need lawful cause to pull them over.

https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/mandator...erns-1.4229762


But thanks very much for clarifying everything in your post. It's a much more terrifying scenario when you understand everything about it. I'm completely against it now.



I also saw on the news that cops will be much more likely to lay refusal charges now for simply asking a question. So people who have no intention of refusing get slapped with a charge for no reason except the cops have more power to do so. I wish I could find the clip because I'd like to hear an opinion on it.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 07:35 AM   #213
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

I wonder how quickly this policy will extend to marijuana testing, which is apparently very unreliable?
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 07:51 AM   #214
Barnet Flame
Franchise Player
 
Barnet Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Barnet - North London
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
The law!



DUI - $2200.00 fine, 1 year suspension and a criminal record.



Distracted driving - $287.00 fine and 3 demerit points


That has nothing to do with how people feel about it.

Drink driving and it’s effects have been known for decades.

Distracted driving because of cellphone use is a recent problem.

Laws typically lag behind the problem they are meant to address.
Barnet Flame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 07:54 AM   #215
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
Exp:
Default

wow really wrong thread
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 08:46 AM   #216
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates View Post
Do you wonder why the government press release doesn’t explain the powers police have to pull you over under ‘common law’ and traffic safety legislation?

Maybe so people like you will blindly tell everyone they know not to worry because ‘probable cause’ is required for a stop? Which is simply not true
Thanks for shedding some light for "people like me" on a few issues that aren't readily available for those of us who don't have professional experience with the law.

The only point I'd argue is that the slippery slope argument continues to pop up, and while I understand that some may see it being there despite maybe the grade not being steep, with have multiple federal examples and decades worth of evidence where the slippery slope that this apparently creates has led to... nothing.

I think it's important to look at this issue and take issue with it based on what it is, which I can fully understand, not some imaginary slope to nowhere. Our imaginations are wide, but when reality gives you something to base your predictions on, there's no sense ignoring it.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 08:54 AM   #217
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Thanks for shedding some light for "people like me" on a few issues that aren't readily available for those of us who don't have professional experience with the law.

The only point I'd argue is that the slippery slope argument continues to pop up, and while I understand that some may see it being there despite maybe the grade not being steep, with have multiple federal examples and decades worth of evidence where the slippery slope that this apparently creates has led to... nothing.

I think it's important to look at this issue and take issue with it based on what it is, which I can fully understand, not some imaginary slope to nowhere. Our imaginations are wide, but when reality gives you something to base your predictions on, there's no sense ignoring it.
So then I would ask this; ignoring the slippery slope why should we allow the police to force people to take a breathalyzer when the data shows drunk driving has come down at the same rates of countries who have taken this step? Why trade away freedom when it may not actually help?
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 09:11 AM   #218
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

Some things seem to be purposefully misleading in the news. Like the lawful reason to pull someone over. The news makes it seem like a lawful reason is an infraction of a driving law, not just a random spot check. The news also mentions Ireland first and foremost as an example of a country who's DUI death rate was cut in half after the random breath test law was passed. But they don't mention that the penalties in Ireland were also changed from a slap on the wrist fine and demerits to imprisonment and criminal convictions. That alone is enough to account for the drop.



I assume the news gets their information first hand so I'm wondering why police or government law makers want this message formed this way.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 12-28-2018, 09:13 AM   #219
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403 View Post
So then I would ask this; ignoring the slippery slope why should we allow the police to force people to take a breathalyzer when the data shows drunk driving has come down at the same rates of countries who have taken this step? Why trade away freedom when it may not actually help?
I can’t tell you why we should allow it, but I can tell you why I’m comfortable with it. There have been multiple academic studies dedicated to this very thing, all showing that (in other countries) the introduction of this law was responsible for a directly related, significant, and measurable decline in drunk driving and the related crashes and deaths associated with it. That’s not to say Canada did accomplish similar results, but it does suggest that this law is effective and should lead to another significant drop like the one we’ve seen in other countries immediately following.

The studies show it does help. And they aren’t based on just looking at a graph. Based on that, I’m comfortable with it.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2018, 09:16 AM   #220
FireFly
Franchise Player
 
FireFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by getbak View Post
Virtually identical trends.

This raises the question of why we need to change the law to be much more intrusive to match Australia when the existing laws were already seeing the same trend as Australia?
Well, not necessarily as the graphs are showing two different things.

200 DUIs/100,000 people is A LOT.

55 DUI deaths is only a few. Is that the whole country?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimbl420 View Post
I can wash my penis without taking my pants off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23 View Post
If edmonton wins the cup in the next decade I will buy everyone on CP a bottle of vodka.
FireFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021