Cops don't like new drinking and driving laws


Kreskin
#1
It's refreshing to know that the police know this is a joke too.

B.C.’s harsh new drunk-driving laws are stretching police resources, says Vancouver Police Union president Tom Stamatakis.

Officers now face the potential for more pursuits and are wasting time waiting for tow trucks and taxis after vehicles are impounded, he says.

“Ultimately, from a front-line police officer’s perspective, we’re ending up not targeting the person that’s responsible for the very serious tragedies that we deal with on an ongoing basis,” said Stamatakis.

“Even if you support the change of regulations, I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.”




Read more: Police union says tough drunk-driving laws targeting the wrong drinkers
 
taxslave
+1
#2
This and the rules against cell phones have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with turning the police into a revenue stream for cash strapped governments now that municipalities get a cut of the take.
 
Unforgiven
+1
#3
All the politicians are lawyers or corporate sycophants. What should we expect from them? From law school onward, they are told over and over that they are special, head and shoulders above the crowd. The cream of the crop. The only people they talk to are other lawyers and corporate sycophants that are either trying to cut the legs out from under them or suck up to them to further their own career. We haven't attracted the best and brightest to the job, we've attracted the slipperiest and the greedy to the job. So we get legislation that fails to address the problem. Generates tons of unspecified cash and gives the legal system leverage over the average person who will plea bargain rather than go broke paying for the lawyer to take it to trial.

Because they have had a drink or two that what was legal not long ago. Those who pound the booze and drive like a maniac do so anyway regardless of the laws and fail to pay. How many times does it take for someone who doesn't give a damn to do some time?

The problem is changing that is a bitch and for the most part, we don't like to do anything difficult and not for our own immediate gratification.
 
Colpy
+2
#4  Top Rated Post
Actually, this is what you get when you let control freaks like MADD dictate policy.
 
bobnoorduyn
#5
Wow, didn't I mention what a goatfest this would probably turn into when the issue was first posted a while back? I just didn't think the police would be against it too, considering is has the potential of boosting their budget. They are right that they are targeting the wrong people, my neighbour was instrumental in instituting impaired driving enforcement in the Maritimes while he was in the force years ago; it is not the social tippler who is the problem, in his experience it is the ones who blow 1.6 and over, (and statisics still back this up). He is thoroughly disgusted that NS has now lowered the threshold to .05, these people are not the problem but now will stretch resourses that won't be available to deal with the real problem.

Quote: Originally Posted by ColpyView Post

Actually, this is what you get when you let control freaks like MADD dictate policy.

The real problem is when we let these people dictate policy, much like the CGC, to name one other. It is often a matter of misplaced anger and retribution. Not only do they target the offender, but they target anyone who looks like him or her. To work through their greif they have to do something they deem as positive to themselves regarless of the scorched earth they leave behind. Anyone who disagrees is labeled indefferent and/or insensitive, and therefore part of the problem. Nobody wants to be tarred with that brush, and possibly become a specific target, so everyone just keeps quiet. Emotionally charged issues always lead to bad policy that threatens to ensnare many innocents in a widely cast net, and the real control freaks in government like it that way.
 
#juan
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

Wow, didn't I mention what a goatfest this would probably turn into when the issue was first posted a while back? I just didn't think the police would be against it too, considering is has the potential of boosting their budget. They are right that they are targeting the wrong people, my neighbour was instrumental in instituting impaired driving enforcement in the Maritimes while he was in the force years ago; it is not the social tippler who is the problem, in his experience it is the ones who blow 1.6 and over, (and statisics still back this up). He is thoroughly disgusted that NS has now lowered the threshold to .05, these people are not the problem but now will stretch resourses that won't be available to deal with the real problem.
The real problem is when we let these people dictate policy, much like the CGC, to name one other. It is often a matter of misplaced anger and retribution. Not only do they target the offender, but they target anyone who looks like him or her. To work through their greif they have to do something they deem as positive to themselves regarless of the scorched earth they leave behind. Anyone who disagrees is labeled indefferent and/or insensitive, and therefore part of the problem. Nobody wants to be tarred with that brush, and possibly become a specific target, so everyone just keeps quiet. Emotionally charged issues always lead to bad policy that threatens to ensnare many innocents in a widely...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
While I wouldn't call MADD freaks, I tend to agree that their emotional onslaught is not bringing a rational solution. Campbell is just a politician jumping on the "hate drunk driver" bandwagon. The government have always been hypocrites in this matter. They love all those lovely taxes that booze brings in but they don't assume any of the responsibility. Making criminals where there were none is just foolish and it will come back and bite them in the ***.
 
petros
#7
What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?
 
JLM
#8
I look at this new legislation as being a valuable tool for the cops to use to remove bad drivers from the road. A smart cop wouldn't sit outside a restaurant waiting to check patrons for sobriety. He would be parked 3 or 4 blocks down the road watching for tailgating, weeving in and out of traffic and drivers cutting off other drivers while changing lanes, failure to yield to pedestrians etc. So that anyone he stops is already guilty of bad driving. Only a fool would turn it into a witch hunt.
 
#juan
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?

No. They don't. What Campbell is doing is widening the net to catch more revenue. Federal law has determined that a blood alcohol
level of point zero eight is evidence of impairment. Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What are these new horrible laws? Why would they be an issue unless you drive drunk. Those whining don't drive drunk do they?

Exactly, if you are out dining the safest way is just to drink coffee and tie into the booze after you get home. Not a difficult solution.
 
petros
#11
Quote:

Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.

They dropped it to .04 in SK years ago. We all died and nobody survived. It was a horrible thing.

Don't drink, toke or take pills (yes pills) before getting behind the wheel.
 
JLM
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

No. They don't. What Campbell is doing is widening the net to catch more revenue. Federal law has determined that a blood alcohol
level of point zero eight is evidence of impairment. Campbell lowered that level to point zero five. As we can see, it is not a reasonable solution. It causes hardships on both sides.

If he can get his revenue from people drinking and driving, all the more power to him, just eases my tax load. (in theory)
 
petros
#13
Once the RFID license plate scanners are installed in all cop cars, traffic revenues are going to skyrocket anyway.

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.
 
Spade
+1
#14
No whine before its time!
Next, the abolition of parking lots at pubs and licenced restaurants. The provision of parking lots is aiding and abetting!
 
#juan
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Once the RFID license plate scanners are installed in all cop cars, traffic revenues are going to skyrocket anyway.

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.

Here is the guy who wants DD penalties to be stiffer:

 
petros
#16
A crack smoker will always blow 0.0..... I for one fully support the lowering and issuing of more 24hr roadside suspension if the suspect fails the roadside dance.

That roadside dance is what pulls the crack smokers like Campbell off the roads and gives police the ability to search vehicles for contraband once again.

I hope that helps paint a bigger picture.
 
bobnoorduyn
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If he can get his revenue from people drinking and driving, all the more power to him, just eases my tax load. (in theory)

The problem with theories is sort of like the MacGyver syndrome, it never works when used in real life. The government has endless streams of revenue, and out here with million dollar fines for fishing infractions, contraband tobacco and such, and our taxes just keep going up. The revenue doesn't cover the costs of increased enforcement.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If you need more than 2 drinks with dinner then you might have a drinking problem.

2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05, and almost certainly over .04. A .04 BAC is likely less of an impairment than spending 12 hours at work and not having eaten in the past six. Maybe the next thing will be having to keep working and eating logs so people can be charged with having unacceptible levels of fatigue and low blood sugar.
 
#juan
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by bobnoorduynView Post

The problem with theories is sort of like the MacGyver syndrome, it never works when used in real life. The government has endless streams of revenue, and out here with million dollar fines for fishing infractions, contraband tobacco and such, and our taxes just keep going up. The revenue doesn't cover the costs of increased enforcement.



2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05, and almost certainly over .04. A .04 BAC is likely less of an impairment than spending 12 hours at work and not having eaten in the past six. Maybe the next thing will be having to keep working and eating logs so people can be charged with having unacceptible levels of fatigue and low blood sugar.

Quote:

2 glasses of wine at dinner is fairly minor, it won't put you over .08, but will likely put you over .05,

Two glasses of wine over an hour and a half with dinner would not put an average sized man over.05 but our government
changing the rules down to that is ridiculous.

I would rather not drive and have four glasses of wine with dinner if felt like it.
 
JLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Two glasses of wine over an hour and a half with dinner would not put an average sized man over.05 but our government
changing the rules down to that is ridiculous.

I would rather not drive and have four glasses of wine with dinner if felt like it.

I never did find a wine that tastes better than root beer.
 
#juan
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I never did find a wine that tastes better than root beer.

JLM I'm disappointed. I though you would have been a connoisseur of fine wines. The rest of the conoisseurs would definitely disagree
with you though.....Lol
 
JLM
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

JLM I'm disappointed. I though you would have been a connoisseur of fine wines. The rest of the conoisseurs would definitely disagree
with you though.....Lol

I certainly wouldn't say connoisseur, although I did make my own wine (from kits) for several years and others who tried it thought it was pretty good. I made red wines as they are supposed to be good for your heart- but then my doctor blew that theory when he pointed out I could get the exact same benefit out of Welsh's grape juice.
 
#juan
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I certainly wouldn't say connoisseur, although I did make my own wine (from kits) for several years and others who tried it thought it was pretty good. I made red wines as they are supposed to be good for your heart- but then my doctor blew that theory when he pointed out I could get the exact same benefit out of Welsh's grape juice.

Not the exact same benefit
 
JLM
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Not the exact same benefit

I'm not sure that "benefit" is quite the right word.
 
taxslave
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I look at this new legislation as being a valuable tool for the cops to use to remove bad drivers from the road. A smart cop wouldn't sit outside a restaurant waiting to check patrons for sobriety. He would be parked 3 or 4 blocks down the road watching for tailgating, weeving in and out of traffic and drivers cutting off other drivers while changing lanes, failure to yield to pedestrians etc. So that anyone he stops is already guilty of bad driving. Only a fool would turn it into a witch hunt.

Unfortunately by making the police Judge, Jury, Executioner it is putting too much power in the hands of a biased person. Lets ay that the cop is your neighbour and hates your dog. He can abuse his power and cost you a fortune and your reputation and there isn't a thing you can do about it since you cannot fight the ticket in court and your car has already been impounded, or it may be a company vehicle you are driving. Who pays? And how do you recover your costs. Might as well just have a computer generate random tickets and mail them out.
In the end it is still just an arbitrary number that does not reflect ability to drive safely. I know several people that are not safe to drive without anything. All this still does nothing to get the chronic drunks off the road.
 
#juan
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Unfortunately by making the police Judge, Jury, Executioner it is putting too much power in the hands of a biased person. Lets ay that the cop is your neighbour and hates your dog. He can abuse his power and cost you a fortune and your reputation and there isn't a thing you can do about it since you cannot fight the ticket in court and your car has already been impounded, or it may be a company vehicle you are driving. Who pays? And how do you recover your costs. Might as well just have a computer generate random tickets and mail them out.
In the end it is still just an arbitrary number that does not reflect ability to drive safely. I know several people that are not safe to drive without anything. All this still does nothing to get the chronic drunks off the road.

What is the leading cause of auto accidents?

10 Leading Causes of Car Accidents, and Tips to Avoid Them
 
JLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Unfortunately by making the police Judge, Jury, Executioner it is putting too much power in the hands of a biased person. Lets ay that the cop is your neighbour and hates your dog. He can abuse his power and cost you a fortune and your reputation and there isn't a thing you can do about it since you cannot fight the ticket in court and your car has already been impounded, or it may be a company vehicle you are driving. Who pays? And how do you recover your costs. Might as well just have a computer generate random tickets and mail them out.
In the end it is still just an arbitrary number that does not reflect ability to drive safely. I know several people that are not safe to drive without anything. All this still does nothing to get the chronic drunks off the road.

Good points.
 
petros
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A crack smoker will always blow 0.0..... I for one fully support the lowering and issuing of more 24hr roadside suspension if the suspect fails the roadside dance.

That roadside dance is what pulls the crack smokers like Campbell off the roads and gives police the ability to search vehicles for contraband once again.

I hope that helps paint a bigger picture.

Punt!
 
Kreskin
#28
Now that this has become a financial disaster for restaurants, this miracle lifesaving legislation isn't quite as popular amongst the ruling elite. Please please, go out and drink (and drive), they ask of you. It would be a perfect world if everyone continued to drink and drive so restaurants kept afloat and the government could collect the fines. Keeping everyone off the roads, except the heavy drunks, is throwing a wrinkle into the plan.

Solicitor general to review B.C.'s tougher drinking-driving laws
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Now that this has become a financial disaster for restaurants, this miracle lifesaving legislation isn't quite as popular amongst the ruling elite. Please please, go out and drink (and drive), they ask of you. It would be a perfect world if everyone continued to drink and drive so restaurants kept afloat and the government could collect the fines. Keeping everyone off the roads, except the heavy drunks, is throwing a wrinkle into the plan.

Solicitor general to review B.C.'s tougher drinking-driving laws

If it comes down to a choice between public safety and restaurants prospering, for me it's a no brainer. I don't think for the vast majority of the population One glass of wine or one bottle of beer is a problem, especially when taken with food. If a person can't enjoy a good meal without getting half swacked, I'd say he/she has problem. Of course I can see the restaurant's angle, a $15 bottle of wine generates $50 or $60 for them. Tough tiddly. Maybe they should be charged with bootlegging/extortion.
 
Kreskin
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If it comes down to a choice between public safety and restaurants prospering, for me it's a no brainer. I don't think for the vast majority of the population One glass of wine or one bottle of beer is a problem, especially when taken with food. If a person can't enjoy a good meal without getting half swacked, I'd say he/she has problem. Of course I can see the restaurant's angle, a $15 bottle of wine generates $50 or $60 for them. Tough tiddly. Maybe they should be charged with bootlegging/extortion.

I would agree if this had anything to do with public safety. It's a public scam that isn't going according to plan.
 

Similar Threads

0
Drinking and Driving
by mt_pockets1000 | Jun 24th, 2010
no new posts