01-02-2019, 03:04 PM
|
#261
|
Participant
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by agulati
Does depend on your license status though.
|
True. But those GDL people shouldn’t be complaining when they know they’re allowed 0.00 BAC.
I would wager anyone claiming they had one drink and then got a DUI (outside of their license stating they aren’t even allowed one drink) is, in fact, lying.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 03:05 PM
|
#262
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon
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.
|
I'd like to see some numbers too, but with the added context of what level of drunkenness was caught. Doubt it would ever happen though, they'll just give bulk numbers. To me catching people who are .1 or higher should be the top top priority as they are exponentially more dangerous but i suspect any increase will just be due to nabbing people on their GDL's who blow .02 and the program will be heralded as a success.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 03:10 PM
|
#263
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
The type of person getting plastered and then actually driving isn't going to be deterred by this or any other change in the law.
Also as someone else mentioned it would be awesome to get half cut and then see what you blew into a breathalizer. Like its been reported before blowing over requires nearly blackout level of drunk.
Last edited by rohara66; 01-02-2019 at 03:15 PM.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 03:13 PM
|
#264
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike
I'd like to see some numbers too, but with the added context of what level of drunkenness was caught. Doubt it would ever happen though, they'll just give bulk numbers. To me catching people who are .1 or higher should be the top top priority as they are exponentially more dangerous but i suspect any increase will just be due to nabbing people on their GDL's who blow .02 and the program will be heralded as a success.
|
The GDL angle is interesting....
Can cough medicine cause you to blow anything other then 0.000000? Mouthwash?
How many hours should a GDL licensed person wait the next day before driving? No driving for 24 hours after last drink?
The whole GDL thing seems stupid.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 03:50 PM
|
#265
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kelowna
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohara66
The GDL angle is interesting....
Can cough medicine cause you to blow anything other then 0.000000? Mouthwash?
How many hours should a GDL licensed person wait the next day before driving? No driving for 24 hours after last drink?
The whole GDL thing seems stupid.
|
Residual mouth alcohol (mouthwash, a sip of beer, etc) dissipates after 15 minutes.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 04:00 PM
|
#266
|
Guest
|
Wow! I just googled alcohol content of mouthwash... No wonder people buy it for a cheap drunk. Ick.
|
|
|
01-02-2019, 11:45 PM
|
#267
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swarly
0.06 has only been illegal for a few years now, probably did this before the 0.05 law
|
.05 is a 3 day suspension...I am talking about a .08 criminal charge DUI
I should have specified too, wasn't driving...just did a breathalyzer for scientific purposes
My point was that to blow a .08+ you are facking drunk, nobody blows that after having a drink or two over an hour
Being in my 30s GDL is something I know nothing about
__________________
GFG
Last edited by dino7c; 01-02-2019 at 11:48 PM.
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 12:16 AM
|
#268
|
damn onions
|
The other issue which has been alluded to but I don’t believe outright asked, beyond the seemingly blatant violation of Charter rights is- is this even the best use of police resources?
I mean that honestly. It may be I have no idea. But I do question this. How many traffic cops could otherwise be used in more effective ways of actual policing? And if we have this much resourcing going into policing as a city, does that even make sense?
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 07:26 AM
|
#269
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
|
just curious how many of you have been stopped and had to blow? (avoiding the obvious jokes)
have had my license for about 30 years and have been stopped once at a checkstop, about 20 years ago. Had two pints in me, admitted it when asked if I'd been drinking.
no idea what I blew, and all they said was "you're fine" have a nice night."
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 09:59 AM
|
#270
|
Franchise Player
|
Never had to blow, but I have been driving in Calgary for about 20 odd years and have probably been through a dozen check stop (probably close to one every other year). Waved through a few and have been stopped at the others. My favorite one was the one on Macleod where they were set up going south just after mission road. The amusing part is they had another one set up on mission road catching all the cars that came over cemetery hill and turned off because of the lights.
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 11:27 AM
|
#271
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MBates
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.
|
Now that would be interesting to see.
Thanks for your input by the way. For us 'Legal Laymen' what is particularly enlightening is that you can read the over-arching summary and see that the score on the 'smell test' is questionable at best and then you lay out why with the actual legal issues.
It never ceases to surprise me when people come in with the tired old defence of:
"If you've got nothing to hide you wont mind."
or
"Prove your innocence."
Its like they long for the 'Good Ol' Days' of Cold War Era East Berlin.
And finally it seems like an unreasonably strong piece of legislation for what statistically appears to be a rapidly dwindling issue. Similar to the 0.08 vs 0.05 debate, these largely arent the people responsible for most impaired driving issues, albeit .08 is pretty hammered, but the people who are so drunk that they're a danger will give Police plenty of good reasons to pull them over and likely dont care about BAC or the laws one way or the other.
The ~0.05 crowd largely arent bothering anybody, so do we really need to pull over everyone and their dog for mandatory breathalyzer tests?
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-03-2019, 12:01 PM
|
#272
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dino7c
.05 is a 3 day suspension...I am talking about a .08 criminal charge DUI
I should have specified too, wasn't driving...just did a breathalyzer for scientific purposes
My point was that to blow a .08+ you are facking drunk, nobody blows that after having a drink or two over an hour
Being in my 30s GDL is something I know nothing about
|
There are people born with the inability to process alcohol that may reach .08 after 1-2 drinks.
I agree though .08 is quite drunk. IMO it's way past what the legal limit should be. It's really an arbitrary number that's been chosen to remove any reasonable doubt about whether or not someone's drunkeness has affected their ability to drive. It can be thought of as the highest threshold of whether someone is impaired.
There's variation in how people hold their alchohol, but at .08 you're typically seeing symptoms like inability to walk straight and slurring. It's beyond the "buzzed" stage.
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 12:08 PM
|
#273
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
The ~0.05 crowd largely arent bothering anybody, so do we really need to pull over everyone and their dog for mandatory breathalyzer tests?
|
I can only assume that someone or some group complained loud enough for a long enough period of time they forced the government to make this change. Throw in some biased/skewed reports on catching drunk drivers and its a done deal.
What government official is going to go against public 'safety'?
|
|
|
01-03-2019, 06:43 PM
|
#274
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Estonia
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matata
"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.
|
Some associated data:
https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...w8P8Hyeu-16-Xo
Juneau, Alaska, may want to rethink their policy on water fluoridation after a paper published in BMC Oral Health found that the average number of carie procedures per child under six has jumped from 1.55 to 2.52 per year since the city voted to stop adding fluoride to the water supply in 2007.
We even get an honourable mention for stupdidty at the end of the article.
|
|
|
01-04-2019, 12:51 PM
|
#275
|
First Line Centre
|
Looks like the RCMP is making full use of these powers already...
Just saw this Redditor’s story (to be fair, he is getting blasted for using the term “profiling” as he is a white male in his 30’s and for “resisting”)
Quote:
I was profiled and pulled over for what I would say bogus reasons, and the offending officer gave nothing but empty excuses for the stop when i asked for a reason. The officer demanded I give a breath sample immediately upon contact, even before asking for licence or insurance.
When I put up resistance and wanted some info, backup was called and no less than four cars and six officers had converged on site within minutes.
I was threatened with arrest, car impounding, and forced blood draw should I not comply, and ended up capitulating under duress.
|
|
|
|
01-04-2019, 01:13 PM
|
#276
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorch
Looks like the RCMP is making full use of these powers already...
Just saw this Redditor’s story (to be fair, he is getting blasted for using the term “profiling” as he is a white male in his 30’s and for “resisting”)
|
I'll believe it when this or a something like it makes the media and isn't some anonymous story where there is likely much more to it.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-04-2019, 01:25 PM
|
#277
|
Franchise Player
|
I saw that story, too. He gets his understanding of Canadian law from American TV shows, so he's wrong on about every count he can be.
So, he was ignorant of the new law and how it works (and what the consequences are), "resisted", escalated the situation, and is having a hissy fit over that.
|
|
|
01-04-2019, 01:29 PM
|
#278
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saddledome, Calgary
|
Even if he's ignorant of the law, and confusing our laws/rights with the US, something like this is very scary. Sorry, you have no rights, is basically what I'm hearing here.
I mean, if he's swerving, excessively speeding or doing something unsafe, sure I guess you could suspect that alcohol was involved so you'd ask for a sample. However, you shouldn't just be able to pull someone over randomly and ask for a breathalyzer with ZERO suspicion, just because you can. What's next, DNA sample, blood sample, semen sample (for males), something else super invasive?? Of course I'm being ridiculous here to prove a point.
It's a very slippery slope, and I don't like the road this is heading down. A police state is something I'm not keen on living in.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Envitro For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-04-2019, 01:36 PM
|
#279
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Envitro
Even if he's ignorant of the law, and confusing our laws/rights with the US, something like this is very scary. Sorry, you have no rights, is basically what I'm hearing here.
I mean, if he's swerving, excessively speeding or doing something unsafe, sure I guess you could suspect that alcohol was involved so you'd ask for a sample. However, you shouldn't just be able to pull someone over randomly and ask for a breathalyzer with ZERO suspicion, just because you can. What's next, DNA sample, blood sample, semen sample (for males), something else super invasive?? Of course I'm being ridiculous here to prove a point.
It's a very slippery slope, and I don't like the road this is heading down. A police state is something I'm not keen on living in.
|
You may want to have a little brushup on Canadian driving laws and rights too (Hint, there aren't very many...) Police can pull you over at any time while you are operating a vehicle to do a License/Insurance/Registration check, and now with the new law, they can add a breathalyzer to it.
Basically, I'm presuming that if I'm ever pulled over, I'll be doing a breathalzyer. The court challenges on it should make for interesting reading, though.
|
|
|
01-04-2019, 01:42 PM
|
#280
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saddledome, Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteTiger
You may want to have a little brushup on Canadian driving laws and rights too (Hint, there aren't very many...) Police can pull you over at any time while you are operating a vehicle to do a License/Insurance/Registration check, and now with the new law, they can add a breathalyzer to it.
Basically, I'm presuming that if I'm ever pulled over, I'll be doing a breathalzyer. The court challenges on it should make for interesting reading, though.
|
I wasn't saying that they need a reason to pull you over, don't get me wrong. I was just saying that they shouldn't have to pull out the breath test machine for every routine traffic stop. Asking for documentation and asking for bodily fluids/vapors is not the same.
Just saying that asking for a breathalyzer for every traffic stops is a tad extreme, and a slippery slope.
Reminds me of the Dave Chapelle joke during routine stops "Spread your cheeks and lift your sack"... I don't think we need to get to that place.
Last edited by Envitro; 01-04-2019 at 01:45 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Envitro For This Useful Post:
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.
|
|