[ShepherdsDog]

24 - 48 hour suspensions based on discretion is completely acceptable. However, that being said there a more than a few people out there driving without a licence or insurance as it is. A few drinks likely won't stop them from driving.

[Yogi]

Yogi Yogi:

I'm all for it! It's a start. Now, if one of the other provinces would 'grow some balls' and pass a 0 Tolerance' law. We might actually get some control over impaired driving.
In view of these changes coming into effect, someone sent me this today. I'm posting it, not as a joke, but to show that there are many other ways to be 'impaired' whilst driving. We got a lot of work to do!

Please, take care of yourself. A recent joint study conducted by the
Department of Health and the Department of Motor Vehicles indicates
that 23% of traffic accidents are alcohol related. This means that
the remaining 77% are caused by assholes who just drink coffee,
carbonated drinks, juices, yogurts, text and talk on cell phones and shit like that. Therefore,
beware of those who do not drink alcohol. They cause three times as many
accidents!

http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/alberta ... 47151.html

[Brenda]

I watched CTV news yesterday, and they did a test. One (bigger) guy had 8 drinks (beer and rum), and blew 0.33 after 4 hours of drinking. Another guy had 4 drinks (beer and rum) and blew 0.13 after 4 hours. A woman had 3 drinks (2 beer and a shot of something) and blew a "warning" (meaning she was over the limit) after 4 hours.
The bigger guy (who had 8 drinks in 4 hours) said he was not able to drive anymore, while he blew way below the limit.

I am all for "DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!! NOT EVEN ONE!"

[digerdick]

Until people understand, that these new laws are going to do absolutely nothing to keep the real dangerous chronic alcoholics off the road. And is only a political ploy to try to give the unthinking masses a feeling of security.

anybody that feels safer, simply because police have been given stronger powers, and the ability to make judgments without repercussions,...................either has a very short memory or has not been paying attention to their track record.

This religious like fervor to try to brand anyone who has .05% alcohol in their system as a dangerous drunk driver who must be crucified on the cross to atone for their sins :dyinglaughing: would be funny if it didn't show how easy people can be manipulated by the government and the police, who I might add already have the loopholes figured out to protect themselves if one of their community happens to be accidentally caught.

with all the changes in the laws in the last few years, Canadian society is slowly goose-stepping their way into a police state.

and the unthinking masses believe that they are safer.

[Zipperfish]

I think the limit in BC for new drivers is zero. Which is impossible.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

24 - 48 hour suspensions based on discretion is completely acceptable. However, that being said there a more than a few people out there driving without a licence or insurance as it is. A few drinks likely won't stop them from driving.

Impound the car for 24 hours if valid reason to suspect impairment. Not just from ETOH, but drugs, lack of sleep, etc. That way the person can't drive and it gives them time to sober up. Of course there should be no charge for the impoundment - the province would have to pay, since it's not meant to be a punishment.

[ShepherdsDog]

same should be done to asswipes talking on their cells, as that too is impaired driving...or those who are caught eating or drinking while they are driving...all of this shit leads to accidents that kill and maim.

[Lemmy]

The larger issue is that we're just not selective enough in who we allow behind the wheel. There are simply way too many drivers. The standards to get a license are too low and the ability to continue driving when you've fucked up is too lax. I don't think we should have an impaired driving law at all. What we should have is a 1-strike law for all violations. You fuck up, you don't drive again. Get a bus pass or take the shoe-lace express.

[digerdick]

What we should have is a 1-strike law for all violations..............................but would you want that same train of thought to apply to police misconduct and corruption

I didn't think so.it is so easy to be self-righteous as long as it suits your own political needs.

[traveler1128]

The cops HAVE a rule. If you drive DRUNK or IMPAIRED you will be charged because its stupid and dangerous. That being said, giving the police the power to fuck up my life because I had a beer or a glass of wine with my dinner is stupid as well. Its political pandering and nothing more.

[Freakinoldguy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Both, as it turns out are just another crock of shit being spoonfed to the masses by this latest incarnation of an Orwellian society, much like impounding cars, giving large fines and having your license supended, without appeal does for drinking driving.

I agree. The penalties need to be much harsher. Every over the limit impaired charge should also come with an automatic willful criminal negligence charge. Upon conviction, the impaired driver gets to do some real time.
I'll give ya this much though FOG, until gov'ts quit looking at impaired driving charges as a revenue source and start taking it as serious as it actually is, there will be very little in the way of disincentive for the habitual drunk drivers.

I don't think anyone on this thread will disagree with drunk drivers having the full force of the law applied against them when caught.

What most people here are pissed about is the fact that aside from being another revenue generator for Gordo and the Lieberal Government, is the fact that there is no attempt in this law to even show any semblance of legal process, including appeal.

But it's like you said, until our beloved Lieberal Government gets they get their collective heads out of their collective asses about the need to raise revenue in every venture they embark on, we're gonna be stuck with a set of archaic, draconian laws that value money over lives.

[herbie]

Say it like it is oldguy!
Phoney as those radar cams, never ever saw one of them in a school zone. They were all out on the 20 mile long 2 lane straight stretch between Vanderhoof & Prince George where they could ticket as many as they can as fast as they can.

[Freakinoldguy]

Ain't that the truth.

[digerdick]

One of the biggest problems I have, is the accuracy of the handheld roadside device. If you get two different readings from two different devices in a very short period of time as far as I'm concerned neither one of them can be considered accurate.

For some reason, the RCMP seem to want to stay away from the true very accurate Breathalyzer which is at their station.

Could there be perhaps a reason for that. Could it be that the more accurate Breathalyzer which requires more paperwork is their major problem.

I would be fine if they gave someone a roadside Breathalyzer and if they failed they would be taken back and given a true accurate Breathalyzer at the station.

This just stinks of inaccuracies and incompetence both of which the RCMP are quite familiar with.

[Yogi]

diggerdick diggerdick:

One of the biggest problems I have, is the accuracy of the handheld roadside device. If you get two different readings from two different devices in a very short period of time as far as I'm concerned neither one of them can be considered accurate.

For some reason, the RCMP seem to want to stay away from the true very accurate Breathalyzer which is at their station.

Could there be perhaps a reason for that. Could it be that the more accurate Breathalyzer which requires more paperwork is their major problem.

I would be fine if they gave someone a roadside Breathalyzer and if they failed they would be taken back and given a true accurate Breathalyzer at the station.

This just stinks of inaccuracies and incompetence both of which the RCMP are quite familiar with.

All information to be considered in the review is disclosed to the driver prior to the hearing and the driver has the opportunity to provide additional evidence to dispute the facts of the case.

Applying for review does not stay a prohibition. In other words, this means that you are still prohibited from driving during the review process. In the case of shorter prohibitions, this may mean that you have finished serving it by the time a decision is made.

If a review is successful, the prohibition is revoked. This means the record is removed from your driving history, any associated impoundments are revoked, the vehicle is immediately released and all penalties – including impoundment fees – are waived or refunded (except in cases where the car was impounded for multiple reasons).

Drivers dissatisfied with the outcome of their review may also make an application under the Judicial Review Procedures Act to have the decision reviewed by the Supreme Court.