Driving ban for life after DUI? Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, ect....


L Gilbert
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I believe that is the level that MADD wants. Some countries if I recall correctly have a BAC of 0.00
Using a bluetooth while driving does cause impairment.

Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

With that in mind, isn't BC the place that yoinks your licence, and impounds your vehicle,
for 24hrs from the roadside without the due process of a court date, judgement, etc...?

Whoops...based upon 0.04ml/l

Both could very well be true.
 
JLM
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Not a problem in your opinion- BAC 0.08 and higher is impaired in Canada.

Many people just miss the point completely.........some people are completely safe and capable at 0.08 while others are sh*tfaced out of their tree. When you set a limit you have to set it for the lowest common denominator and I think that 0.02 would be about right.
 
Goober
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

With that in mind, isn't BC the place that yoinks your licence, and impounds your vehicle,
for 24hrs from the roadside without the due process of a court date, judgement, etc...?

Whoops...based upon 0.04ml/l

Government of Alberta Ministry of Transportation: Strengthening Alberta’s approach to impaired driving
1.What has changed?

The changes introduced include progressive administrative penalties for drivers with blood alcohol levels of .05 or greater, tougher penalties for drivers over .08 and a stronger zero tolerance policy for new drivers.

2.What are the administrative penalties for drivers with a BAC of .05 to .08?

Previously, drivers caught with a blood alcohol concentration of .05 or greater were subject to a 24-hour suspension. Under Alberta’s new rules, these drivers get:
■A roadside sanction of a 3 day licence suspension and 3 day vehicle seizure for the first offence
■A roadside sanction of a 15 day suspension and 7 day vehicle seizure for the second offence plus a mandatory remedial course and may be referred to the Alberta Transportation Safety Board by the Registrar
■A roadside sanction of a 30 day suspension and 7 day vehicle seizure for third and subsequent offences plus a mandatory review by the Alberta Transportation Safety Board and a remedial course

3.What do these changes mean for new drivers?
Alberta requires new drivers to maintain a blood alcohol level of zero. Now, if they are stopped with any blood alcohol level at all, they face an immediate 30 day suspension and 7 day vehicle seizure. Each 30 day suspension will require an additional 1 year in the Graduated Licence Program.

4.How are these changes tougher on drivers caught driving over .08?
■Drivers who are over .08 continue to face criminal charges.
■As an added penalty and to keep our roads safer, their licences are now suspended immediately until their charges are resolved.
■These drivers now face a 3 or 7 day vehicle seizure.
■The use of ignition interlock devices has been expanded. For example, a first conviction nets a full year with the interlock, up from a discretionary six months. A second conviction requires 3 years of interlock and a third conviction requires 5 years of interlock.
 
lone wolf
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes, I think we all know what the law is. The question is whether it should be. Neither MADD nor RIDE have given any me any reason to believe 0.08 should be. I see you are having the same issue they are.

Any you may not really give a damn....
 
Cannuck
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

According to science, 0.05 ml/l is when judgement and motor skills (reaction time, etc.) BOTH become impaired.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the real question is whether this impairment leads to accidents and/or deaths.
 
L Gilbert
#66
Just looked it up: Drinking and Driving
 
Ron in Regina
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I believe that is the level that MADD wants. Some countries if I recall correctly have a BAC of 0.00
Using a bluetooth while driving does cause impairment.

Eating a hamburger, drinking Tim Horton's urine in a to-go cup, smoking a cigarette,
kids fighting in the back seat, fatigue, a pedestrian in short-shorts, can all also cause
distraction and/or impairment. Once we start, where do we stop?
 
L Gilbert
+2
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the real question is whether this impairment leads to accidents and/or deaths.

Obviously, when your judgement and motor-skills are impaired. That begins at 0.05 ml/l. Comprehension problems today?
 
lone wolf
+2
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Eating a hamburger, drinking Tim Horton's urine in a to-go cup, smoking a cigarette,
kids fighting in the back seat, fatigue, a pedestrian in short-shorts, can all also cause
distraction and/or impairment. Once we start, where do we stop?

They're targeting that with Distracted Driving legislation.... Another cash cow
 
L Gilbert
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

They're targeting that with Distracted Driving legislation.... Another cash cow

Called "driving without due care and attention" in BC. That charge may be replaced by "driving in a manner dangerous to the public" if it's serious enough.
 
Goober
+1
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the real question is whether this impairment leads to accidents and/or deaths.

Impaired Driving - Fact Sheets


While Ontario has come a long way, impaired driving remains a serious problem:

•Every year, about 17,000 drivers are convicted of Criminal Code of Canada offences (including impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.08, criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death, manslaughter, dangerous driving and failure to remain at the scene of a collision). It is estimated that approximately three quarters of those convictions are related to drinking and driving.
•Impaired drivers are involved in thousands of traffic collisions every year.
•Drunk driving accounts for almost 25% of all fatalities on Ontario’s roads.
•About 17,000 impaired driving incidents were reported by police in Ontario in 2005. In the same year, 174 people were killed and 3,852 were injured in motor vehicle collisions involving a drinking driver.


Drunk drivers get easy ride in Canada
Robert Solomon, a University of Western Ontario law professor and legal adviser for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada, makes a solid case for a major overhaul of Canada's impaired-driving laws. Federal law is now so distorted by technical defences that police officers often will not lay a criminal charge even if there is evidence, Solomon said last week. This amounts, he said, to de-facto decriminalization of the country's impaired-driving laws.

This is the wrong way for Canada to be headed. The toll taken in lives lost and property damaged by impaired driving is huge.

Drunk driving takes more than three times as many lives a year as homicides. In 2003, alcohol and/or drugs were involved in 1,257 fatalities, 74,181 injuries, and 161,299 property-damage-only crashes. The total financial and social costs were estimated to run to $10.95 billion. This is, or should be, a national disgrace.
 
Cannuck
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Comprehension problems today?

Yes, it would seem you do have comprehension problems today. The study I read a while back suggests that people with BAC between 0 and 0.10 compensate for their impairment in some way and are therefore not part of the problem. I've been asking if there is any statistical evidence that those under 0.10 BAC are a significant problem worthy of our society spending millions of dollars on.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#73
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Impaired Driving - Fact Sheets

Ban motor vehicles! lol
 
Goober
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Ban motor vehicles! lol

Cars are not the problem- Ban people.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes, it would seem you do have comprehension problems today. The study I read a while back suggests that people with BAC between 0 and 0.10 compensate for their impairment in some way and are therefore not part of the problem. I've been asking if there is any statistical evidence that those under 0.10 BAC are a significant problem worthy of our society spending millions of dollars on.

Do you have a link for that study.
 
Cannuck
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Impaired Driving - Fact Sheets

Still can't find any facts I see.

It's quite simple really. What percentage of alcohol related deaths are caused by people with a BAC under 0.10?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Yes, it would seem you do have comprehension problems today.

Nope.
Quote:

The study I read a while back suggests that people with BAC between 0 and 0.10 compensate for their impairment in some way and are therefore not part of the problem.

Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.
 
Goober
#77
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post



1) Is this the same Thread?
2) Can we keep this civil before I have to start flushing chunks of this Thread?

Merging them would be nice. Less confusion for us older members.
Name it Drunk driving - from it is OK to execution, and everything in between.
 
Cannuck
#78
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Do you have a link for that study.

Not handy but I'm sure I could dig it up if need be.
 
CDNBear
+2
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.

Good luck with that.

Facts only matter when he wants them from you, lol.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#80
16. Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits
 
CDNBear
+2
#81
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Not handy but I'm sure I could dig it up if need be.

Please do.

With just your word, we don't have all the facts.

You have zero credibility here.
 
Goober
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Still can't find any facts I see.

It's quite simple really. What percentage of alcohol related deaths are caused by people with a BAC under 0.10?

Look for it yourself.
 
Cannuck
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Nope.Post it then. Besides, a suggestion is just that. Anything can suggest anything almost.

There really is no need for me to post it.

Some people wish to throw other people in jail for driving with a BAC of 0.80. These people should provide evidence that driving with a BAC of 0.80 is sufficiently dangerous enough that it warrants a jail term. It shouldn't be that difficult for you, Goober, Madd or anybody else that wishes to strip others of their freedom to simply show me some data that indicates people with a BAC less than 0.10 are causing lots of accidents.
 
Goober
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There really is no need for me to post it.

So you do not have it.
 
CDNBear
+2
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There really is no need for me to post it.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Good luck with that.

Look who saw that coming, lol.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

There really is no need for me to post it.

Yeah. I expected that comment, too. It means you have no argument and no credibility.

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nope I gave you the read for your childish "Comprehension problems today?" I just clicked on the wrong post by mistake.

That's your story and your sticking with it. Yeah, heard that before.
 
Cannuck
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Look for it yourself.

I have....many times. I can't find it. The only thing I found close was the Australian study.

One really has to wonder why people would support spending millions of taxpayers dollars going after people in the 0 - 0.10 BAC range without seeing any statistics that these people are causing accidents and death.
 
L Gilbert
#88
"There is evidence that even drivers with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level between 0.2 and 0.4 mg/ml are 1.4 times more likely to be involved in crashes than those who have not been drinking. Involvement in fatal crashes is much more likely for drivers with BAC levels over 0.5 mg/ml than in drivers who have not consumed alcohol (Blomberg et al., 2009; GRSP, 2007; Zador, 1991; Zador, Krawchuk, & Voas, 2000)." - 16. Blood Alcohol Concentration Limits

Still waiting for this research mentioned by Cannucklehead
 
Cannuck
#89
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yeah. I expected that comment, too. It means you have no argument and no credibility.

Of course I have an argument. The Australian study is completely irrelevant to my position. You wish to have the legal system deal with people that drive with a BAC of 0.80. I'm merely asking for some statistical evidence that they are a danger to me. Assuming the Australian study did not exist, how would that change my argument or request?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#90
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Of course I have an argument. The Australian study is completely irrelevant to my position. You wish to have the legal system deal with people that drive with a BAC of 0.80. I'm merely asking for some statistical evidence that they are a danger to me. Assuming the Australian study did not exist, how would that change my argument or request?

lmao Anything with a normal IQ and a modicum of logic is a danger to you.
 

Similar Threads

69
B.C.s new drunk driving laws
by JLM | Sep 25th, 2010
57
Drunk driving laws
by Kreskin | May 9th, 2010
28
Drunk Driving Program Goes Too Far?
by karrie | Jun 12th, 2008
no new posts