[ASLplease]

martin14 martin14:

Brenda Brenda:

It is YOUR OWN damned responsibility to NOT FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE and everybody who comes up with an excuse is a fucking loser who does not deserve to drive AT ALL!

This is true at least....

I knew that I agreed with the two of you on catching the drunks.

I just disagree that 'random' is the way to go.

[ASLplease]

Well, DerbyX will be shocked that I'm saying this, but the federal justice minister must be a closet liberal.

[leewgrant]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Well, DerbyX will be shocked that I'm saying this, but the federal justice minister must be a closet liberal.

And one time the socons thought he was one of them.

[ASLplease]

lets get all of the rotten apples off the tree by randomly picking 10% of the apples

it could work!

[Brenda]

ASLplease ASLplease:

lets get all of the rotten apples off the tree by randomly picking 10% of the apples

it could work!

Just shake the tree! Every apple that keeps on hanging is sober, the ones that fall are drunk BUSTED!!

[Zipperfish]

Scape Scape:

Over 900 people died in 2006 for no reason and the numbers are going up, not down. Every time a drinking driver escapes detection now the message that he or she can continue to get away with this dangerous behaviour is reinforced and it might be as simple as counting cars going through a roadblock and testing every 100th driver.

A random system has a better chance of standing up to a Charter challenge, since it is based on the reasonable suspicion that all drivers are under since we know that at any given time, some of them have been drinking.

It should also have the same deterrent effect of random audits performed by Revenue Canada. Drivers will know that their ability to appear sober won't help them if they are randomly picked for a test.

When road checks came in (which were also, at the time, considered controversial because of rights issues) we were ensured that this would do something to curb drinking and driving. And yet, according to your stats, road checks seem to be making things worse. And, if this random check things goes through, how long before MADD and teh safety bureaucrats are back, saying that drinking driving is getting worse and wielding some new limit on our freedoms that they will claim as necessary.

Also: if they could guarantee randomness, I'd still be opposed, but a lot less opposed. But this will just be a way for cops to pull you over for having long hair in the wrong neighbourhood.

The Good Lord keep us from those who only want to make us safe.

[EyeBrock]

Scape Scape:

Choban Choban:

I gotta argee with you Brock and normally I'm for ANYTHING that gets drunks off the roads. Even in a checkstop situation they have to have "reasonable grounds" the appearance of intoxication or the smell of alcohol to make you blow.

And when they don't have 'reasonable' grounds? Truth be told too many drivers are still getting away with being drunk behind the wheel. Something isn't working. Experienced drinkers are better at masking their impairment and are more likely to be repeat offenders. How are we to nip them in the bud when they do not display a reasonable grounds?

Over 900 people died in 2006 for no reason and the numbers are going up, not down. Every time a drinking driver escapes detection now the message that he or she can continue to get away with this dangerous behaviour is reinforced and it might be as simple as counting cars going through a roadblock and testing every 100th driver.

A random system has a better chance of standing up to a Charter challenge, since it is based on the reasonable suspicion that all drivers are under since we know that at any given time, some of them have been drinking.

It should also have the same deterrent effect of random audits performed by Revenue Canada. Drivers will know that their ability to appear sober won't help them if they are randomly picked for a test.

It sounds fine in theory but demanding people do things that if they refuse to do they can face very serious consequences, without the centuries old common-law principle of 'reasonable grounds', undermines the whole system of justice as I see it.
Once you allow agents of the state to disregard these core principles we are in a less just society.

And there is no way this would ever stand up to a charter challenge, it's just fundamentally legally flawed.

[Chumley]

I would think being in a drinking establishment would be reasonable grounds.
How many people go to the bar and don't drink?
The parking lot is packed at night yet after closing there may be a half dozen cars left behind.

[ASLplease]

Brenda Brenda:

ASLplease ASLplease:

lets get all of the rotten apples off the tree by randomly picking 10% of the apples

it could work!

Just shake the tree! Every apple that keeps on hanging is sober, the ones that fall are drunk BUSTED!!

I apreciate your humor, but lets look at this seriously for a moment....I like your suggestion better than 'random' because at least you are defining a strategy.

Random checks aren't a strategy. They are just a way to waste time. and money.

[EyeBrock]

Chumley Chumley:

I would think being in a drinking establishment would be reasonable grounds.
How many people go to the bar and don't drink?
The parking lot is packed at night yet after closing there may be a half dozen cars left behind.

That's no where near 'reasonable grounds'. You can buy weed in a certain bar. Does that mean the police can search any persons for drugs in that bar or on the way out?

Prostitutes also frequent certain bars and hotel lobbies. Would it be reasonable to assume all skanky chicks in a bar or a hotel lobby that is frequented by known prostitutes are prostitutes?

Reasonable grounds is an ever changing legal test and relies on case law. This is a definition that is current.

"A set of circumstances, which would satisfy an ordinary, cautious and prudent person, that there is reason to believe an offence has been committed. The belief must go beyond mere suspicion."

As I've said, the application of reasonable grounds is a core facet of our legal system.

Messing with it is ill advised.

[leewgrant]

Chumley Chumley:

I would think being in a drinking establishment would be reasonable grounds.

Reasonable grounds of having had a drink or reasonable grounds of being impaired? You can't test everybody. The cop would have to use his senses to determine if a guy might have a snootful - staggering, glassy eyes, slurred speech.

[EyeBrock]

Exactly lee. Our system isn't perfect but it's better than all the others.

[Brenda]

Have you guys ever heard of a breathalizer lock in a car?

I thought in Holland, a judge could order a residivist to have a thing like that installed. It means that everytime he wants to start his car, he needs to take that test, and when he is impaired, the car won't start. If he is sober, he can drive because the car will start.

[Brenda]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Exactly lee. Our system isn't perfect but it's better than all the others.

Thats a generalization I can not agree with. I don't know "all the others" but I am sure there are other countries who have a better/different system.

The fact you can STILL drive and talk on a handheld cell phone is imo not a good part of it. (just an example)

Every country has its goods and its bads.

[DrRosen]

Being ina bar certainly cant be reasonable grounds. This isnt East Germany.