[EyeBrock]

The interlock system is in Ontario and as of the 26th Oct cellphones et al are banned from use while driving.

English Common-Law derived societies are the most free, and very succesful. Hence the cloggies coming out here to bathe in the rights that stem from the 13th century and the Magna Carta.

[Brenda]

Thats Ontario, not all of Canada. Imo, as long as every province has different laws and regulations, you can not make that generalization.

[EyeBrock]

Sure we can. Individual and localised rights are a tenet of English common-law.

[Scape]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

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.

The rate in which people have died has gone down a great deal since spotchecks were put in place but the rate has since stabilized and in fact is creeping back up. Are spot checks working? Of course, but the reason why they were put into effect remain persistant and we have not eliminated DD. Worse, now that we have these spot checks the people who DD have become used to the fact they can drive through them with a minimal level of preparedness further undermining the effectiveness.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

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.

Depends on the level of standardization to the randomness. If for example they start off by having one in every 100 cars checked and they see improvement and then increase that to one in 50 and there is no significant improvement in capture rates or the incidents of DD then the motivation to go further is held in check. It cost a fair amount to do this and it also has an impact on traffic patterns that can only be disrupted so far.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

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.

To the public it would be random but to the police it would be a reported quota as per volume of cars inspected x amount would be tested. If the same person is being tested time after time they would be able to cite that in the records kept. The police would know to move to the next person rather than have it go to court only to be challenged under a reasonable doubt.

[JustKate]

I have a problem with this! This law, if past covers all motorized vehicles won't it? Can't have a few beers fishing in a boat or at the beach if you plan to drive your boat home. I'm assuming.

[Brenda]

No, you can not drink "a few beers" and drive your boat home. Thats not new, is it? I dunno, but is there a difference between drinking indoors or outdoors or something? If you drink outdoors, you can drive?

You need a license in BC, btw, to operate a motorized boat.

[canadian1971]

those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security, gain neither but lose both.....not an exact quote but close enough.

My friend drove 3 hours up the west coast of NL....there were 4 road blocks during that 3 hour drive....police state....looks like they are trying around these parts and the people don't have enough balls to stand up for themselves. We can take a lesson from the French on this shit......there the government is afraid of the people...not the other way around.

[Yogi]

JustKate JustKate:

I have a problem with this! This law, if past covers all motorized vehicles won't it? Can't have a few beers fishing in a boat or at the beach if you plan to drive your boat home. I'm assuming.

Alcohol and Boats Have your Beer on the Pier
Red Cross statistics: Boating and Alcohol
37% of boaters in Canada admit to consuming alcohol every time they boat.
66% report they drink alcohol sometimes when boating.
Alcohol is a factor in over 40% of recreational boating fatalities.
The Red Cross claims that up to 200 Canadians will drown this year as a result of boating-related incidents, and 25% of those will have alcohol in their blood. Many other incidents involving even serious injuries are not reported.

In all provinces of Canada, operating a boat while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. In some provinces, no one on board can consume alcoholic beverages while the boat is being operated. In provinces like Ontario, you can't even transport alcohol unless the boat is classed as a "home" with sleeping accommodations and a head. There are differences between provinces, but all require alcohol on board to be packaged and out of reach. Even then, when you visit shore or even on board your own boat, Ontario law says you must not "display alcohol to the public". Alcohol consumed at a public picnic table is usually illegal. If you are visiting a marina, you should check to see to make sure it's a "private club", not a public place, before drinking at a picnic table on shore.

Impaired Boating (Transport Canada Aug/2005):

Boating while impaired is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. The laws are enforced by local, provincial and federal police who carry alcohol-screening devices on the water.

Upon conviction for the offence of impaired operation of a vessel, or of operating a vessel with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, a person is liable of the following:

1st offence - a minimum fine of $600
2nd offence - imprisonment for not less than 14 days
3rd and each subsequent offence - the maximum sentence for these offences may vary depending on provincial statutes.

Transporting Alcohol (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario):
Under what circumstances is it illegal to transport beverage alcohol?
It is illegal to transport beverage alcohol in a motor vehicle, a motorized snow vehicle or a boat unless the beverage alcohol is in a container that is unopened and the seal unbroken, or unless the beverage alcohol is packaged in baggage that is fastened closed or is not otherwise readily available to anyone in the vehicle. In a boat, the beverage alcohol must be stored in a closed compartment.

What boats may carry alcohol (Ontario Liquor Laws Sec.3/7):
A boat with permanent sleeping accommodations and permanent cooking and sanitary facilities, other than a boat used to carry passengers for hire, is considered to be a private place while the boat is at anchor or is secured to the dock or land. ...

For more information about the law, see the Office of Boating Safety in our Government Directory or ask the Provincial Police.

[leewgrant]

Scape Scape:

Depends on the level of standardization to the randomness.

Can't see it as totally random. Even if a cop has a quota (one of out of every 100 cars) he/she will be looking for indicators - driving too fast, erratic driving, driving too deliberately, maybe even age or gender and, who knows, even, god forbid, race.

And as somebody said before he won't be standing outside a church on a Sunday AM; maybe, however, outside a well-known watering hole at lunch time.

[ASLplease]

you know its more fun when most people dont agree with me, but in this case I am shocked that it seems like no one even understands what I am getting at.

[Scape]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

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.

Then why file taxes that are subject to audit? To me the checkpoints are one aspect of law enforcement but without the ability to go after those who choose to break the law it is a toothless action. Make no mistake, people drive drunk every single day and the current set up does not catch them. It is only by fluke or when they are so drunk they can't stand that they are caught and even then our courts let them off again and again because we see the threat to the perps income as more significant to the community at large. That is of course until someone is killed and by then it's too late to say your sorry. Isn't that a blatant disregard for the core principals of society?

[Zipperfish]

Scape Scape:

The rate in which people have died has gone down a great deal since spotchecks were put in place but the rate has since stabilized and in fact is creeping back up. Are spot checks working? Of course, but the reason why they were put into effect remain persistant and we have not eliminated DD. Worse, now that we have these spot checks the people who DD have become used to the fact they can drive through them with a minimal level of preparedness further undermining the effectiveness.

This doesn't give me much hope for this new infringement of my rights. I suspect you might see much the same thing for this new proposed law: An inital drop, the inevitable response as violaters adapt, the stats "creeping back up" again, and then the prohibtion groups coming forth with another, more grievous, infringement of my rights until DD is eliminated (which, in my opinion, is not even a realistic goal; even prohibition enforced with a death penalty would not eliminate drunk driving).

Scape Scape:

Depends on the level of standardization to the randomness. If for example they start off by having one in every 100 cars checked and they see improvement and then increase that to one in 50 and there is no significant improvement in capture rates or the incidents of DD then the motivation to go further is held in check. It cost a fair amount to do this and it also has an impact on traffic patterns that can only be disrupted so far.

I disagree. As stated above, history shows that you're likely to see an intial large drop followed by a slow rise. That will provide the justification for further acion by the prohibition groups.

Scape Scape:

To the public it would be random but to the police it would be a reported quota as per volume of cars inspected x amount would be tested. If the same person is being tested time after time they would be able to cite that in the records kept. The police would know to move to the next person rather than have it go to court only to be challenged under a reasonable doubt.

As a guy who grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, I can tell you there is nothing random about whom the police choose to pull over.

[Alta_redneck]

JustKate JustKate:

I have a problem with this! This law, if past covers all motorized vehicles won't it? Can't have a few beers fishing in a boat or at the beach if you plan to drive your boat home. I'm assuming.

It cost me $137.50 to find out you can't drink in a camper, on the ice, while ice fishing. I went to court to fight a ticket a fish cop gave me for that. My argument was that I was camping there. It's not a camp ground.

Most Deadly Sport? Fishing

http://www.spike.com/video/most-deadly-sport/2941306

[OldChum]

That was a good reason in my opion to bad it did not fly. You should have keeped one of your old camp ground reciepts hehehe

[Scape]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

This doesn't give me much hope for this new infringement of my rights. I suspect you might see much the same thing for this new proposed law: An inital drop, the inevitable response as violaters adapt, the stats "creeping back up" again, and then the prohibtion groups coming forth with another, more grievous, infringement of my rights until DD is eliminated (which, in my opinion, is not even a realistic goal; even prohibition enforced with a death penalty would not eliminate drunk driving).

People thought the same way about smoking and driving without seat belts. People still smoke and drive without belts to this day but the social norm has changed because we made the laws and we enforced them. We have changed the laws somewhat for DD but as you have already pointed out the courts are tepid at best in enforcing this and our spot checks are toothless tigers that are infrequent anyway and easily avoided. Not something that really shows we are serious about DD at this point in time anyway. It was only recently that we had a repeat drunk driver declared as a dangerous offender after nearly 20 arrests and he killed as well and we had to take it almost to the supreme court to do it. There is a signal being sent but it's not one that the public really has adhered to, even the Premier was doing it not long that long ago.