The police will be able to ruin your life without an appeal. Something like automatic fines that add up to about $3500 and a driving suspension, without a court hearing.
First of all, I rarely drink and it's been decades since I drove drunk (that's when it was fashionable). Although the new proposed laws won't/don't affect me, they are a slight-of-hand tax grab where the cops will become the taxmen. What a freakin joke.
The police will be able to ruin your life without an appeal. Something like automatic fines that add up to about $3500 and a driving suspension, without a court hearing.
What bugs me more than anything is the fake righteousness of this, when in reality it is nothing more than a new method to collect taxes.
On the Kreskin middle-finger scale, I give this one 4-fingers.
Can somebody please expand on this?
I can easily understand Kreskins feelings here, but what are the facts of the matter?
I sure wouldn't presume to know all of them, but from what I can gather, apparently there has been a spike in drunk driving infractions in B.C. and despite all previous efforts the fatalty rate is not improving fast enough if at all. Add to that the horrendous costs to B.C. tax payers in enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders. Another factor is the pressure being brought to bear by MADD.
This legislation stinks so much I'm voting for the drunk drivers.
Under the new rules, drivers who blow over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample at the roadside will immediately be banned from driving for 90 days, hit with a $500 fine, and their vehicle will be impounded for 90 days. They could also face criminal charges.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Drivers who blow once within a "warn" range between .05 and .08, within five years, will immediately be banned from driving for three days and be fined $200. The second instance will earn them a seven-day ban and $300, and a third, a 30-day ban and $400 fine.
Moreover, drivers who blow once in the "fail" range or three times in the "warn" range in a three-year period will have to participate in a rehabilitative Responsible Driver program.
Here's where it gets costly. In these cases, the driver will be hit with a $500 "administrative penalty," be banned for driving for 90 days, will have to pay a $250 driver's licence reinstatement fee, and will be billed about $700 for towing expenses and 30-day vehicle impoundment.
Also, they will pay $880 for the rehabilitative program, and pay $1,420 for the ignition interlock device, which they must use for one year. The device tests the driver's breath for alcohol every time they drive.
All told, one fail on a roadside screening device will cost the driver roughly $3,750, and they may still face an impaired driving charge on top of that. The government says drivers will be able to contest their roadside prohibition by paying $100 for a...
I'm sure you are right, and their reasoning for doing this
isn't for the betterment of society, but for me it 'is' for
the betterment of society, and any drinker who is behind
the wheel should be hauled out on his ass, and kept off
the road, as it is no different than walking around the
streets with a loaded gun with a hair trigger.
I'm p****d off because drinking is an accepted
part of society, no different than clothes, or food or any
other normal part of everyday living. It is sad that our
society has developed in that way, so at least 'something'
is happening that is intelligent and does attack this
weakness in our human race, and might bring to light, the
idiocy of drinking, and how weak people really are, and
can't seem to get through a normal day without downing
something with alchohol content.
My midnight sermon, now I'm going to hit the sack, after a cup
a decaf green tea.
. 
Thanx Ten Penny...
Do you have link? I'm not questioning your veracity, I just like to see the law as it is written, to make a finding of my own.
You act like drinking is new to society.
So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?
Which is what the cops give you (to prove your innocense) when they provide the opportunity to blow the breathalyzer.
Breathalyzers are not necessarily a gold standard of guilt though, human error can occur when administering the test, the device might not be calibrated correctly etc. Point is; courts should be the only body that determines guilt in such cases.
You act like drinking is new to society.
So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?
You act like drinking is new to society.
So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?
blowing over the limit isn't innocent.
the courts are so overstuffed with these drunk drivers now, they
should make sure on the spot device is accurate.
Take three breathalizer tests 'on the spot, that would show accuracy.
Get it done at the scene.
You know the simplest way to solve these problems, IS don't drink and drive at all.
It is very easy.
The same old drunks will be driving out there, with or without licenses. 33% of those killing people while dui are teenagers. They won't stop. To address the real issue they should raise the driving age to 20 and fire the repeat offenders in prison.
Instead, the government wants cash and will send the cops out to collect new taxes. A deceitful piece of work by the Province of BC.
With all the harping about using public transit and going green, why the hell are the giving immature lousy drivers the chance to kill people, when they could be on a bus or train? Hell, the government will spend millions trying to sell transit versus cars. Just stop them from driving in the first place. Solves all of those problems.
Short of poking their eyes out, how do you stop a determined drunk from getting behind the wheel?
Exactly, so how does fining people below the legal limit going to save lives?
Exactly, so how does fining people below the legal limit going to save lives?