Drunk driving laws

[Kreskin]

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.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Without a court hearing? Is this a provincial or federal thing you're describing?
Currently, DUI's are Federal. Is this something that a province is tacking on?

 

[talloola]

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.

 

[Kreskin]

This legislation stinks so much I'm voting for the drunk drivers.

 

[wulfie68]

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.

This sounds distinctly unconstitutional. Driving is a priviledge and not a right, but nothing in our society can be just arbitrarily removed without some form of due process. And like Ron said, DUI/Impaired driving/however you choose to call it, is a Criminal Code offense, thus there's not a whole lot extra the provinces are really allowed to do with it.

 

[eh1eh]

We have this in Ontario already.
Unconstitutional. Yep. They can suspend your license, impound your car for a week all without even pressing charges or having any evidence other than the officers opinion of your condition. You do not need to blow over the limit as stated in the laws of the province.

 

[JLM]

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.

I'm inclined to agree, but by the same token, I think lives will be saved by it. I think it may be a good place to start but I do feel some fine tuning is in order. I would suggest that the alleged offender be given the option of having penalties delayed until such time as a court hearing can take place, but in doing so would risk an even greater penalty if found guilty. While I respect all human rights I think the right to life and being free of fear from untimely death or serious injury trumps all other rights.

 

[CDNBear]

Can somebody please expand on this?

I can easily understand Kreskins feelings here, but what are the facts of the matter?

 

[JLM]

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.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

That's all weel and good JLM, but to what legal precedent is Kreskin referring?

I see a whole lot of emotion, but no substance.

 

[JLM]

This legislation stinks so much I'm voting for the drunk drivers.

Do you really think they should get encouragement? :smile:

 

[TenPenny]

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.
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 written review or $200 for an oral review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

 

[CDNBear]

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.
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 written review or $200 for an oral review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

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.

 

[DurkaDurka]

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.

You act like drinking is new to society. :x.

So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?

 

[lone wolf]

Don't drink and drive. A taxi is great D/L insurance.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2009/30/c7167.html

 

[JLM]

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.

CBC News - British Columbia - B.C. to toughen impaired driving penalties

 

[JLM]

You act like drinking is new to society. :x.

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.

 

[DurkaDurka]

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.

 

[lone wolf]

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.

In Criminal Code or Provincial offences you would be right. Under HTA, I'm not so sure. Any place where you are required to be licensed works under a different set of rules.

 

[talloola]

You act like drinking is new to society. :x.

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.