Want you car impounded come to bc


petros
#31
It's even illegal to ride a handicapped scooter while impaired. WTF makes you think 3250lb more isn't as dangerous with someone who has been drinking and is behind the wheel?
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
winespius
#32
Posts 6 and 28 are spot on...in .what other "free democracy" can you have your property confiscated by the state for not breaking the law...?
The corrupt RCMP must be kicked out of the west asap,,, a national police should not be checking seat belts and giving speeding tickets..
 
TenPenny
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by winespiusView Post

Posts 6 and 28 are spot on...in .what other "free democracy" can you have your property confiscated by the state for not breaking the law...?
The corrupt RCMP must be kicked out of the west asap,,, a national police should not be checking seat belts and giving speeding tickets..

In Ontario, for one. You can have your property confiscated for being charged with breaking the law. (ie, under the so-called 'stunt driving law').

And in NB and many other provinces, you can have your property confiscated if it is 'deemed to be from the proceeds of crime', even if you have not been charged, much less found guilty, of any crime.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's even illegal to ride a handicapped scooter while impaired. WTF makes you think 3250lb more isn't as dangerous with someone who has been drinking and is behind the wheel?

People in the US have been charged for driving a ride-on lawnmower while impaired, and I think there was a recent case around here of a guy charged when he rolled his backhoe over his fence into his neighbor's yard while impaired.
 
winespius
#34
People have been charged with impaired on bicycles and horses ffs...does that make it right?
 
gerryh
+1
#35
I see the alcoholics are still whining about this.
 
winespius
+2
#36
Piss off...you're not an alcoholic until you start going to those meetings...
 
gerryh
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by winespiusView Post

Piss off...you're not an alcoholic until you start going to those meetings...


roflmfao..... ya...ok.
 
lone wolf
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by winespiusView Post

Piss off...you're not an alcoholic until you start going to those meetings...

Naw ... some of the people who attend those meetings use the term "latent alcoholic" even if you've never had an alcoholic beverage in your life....
 
EcoRod
#39
Vehicle impounding should be illegal according to the Canadian Constitution. I was stopped for speeding and disputed it. I won the case and yet had already had my vehicle impounded. I had to pay a towing and impound fee and yet I was not guilty. The Police didn't refund my towing and impound fee.

In Canada a person is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. However we now have this new road traffic law where the Cop on the size of the road is Judge, Jury and Executioner. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What will be the next step in the government's removal of our rights and personal freedoms, and what will be their expedient excuse for introducing it?.

It seems to me there is too much at the discretion of the arresting officer. They often have little or no knowledge of the actual laws. They are simply tax collectors for our predatory government in the so called name of "Road safety". I'm all for driver education to reduce accidents but leaving the motorists fate in the hands of Cop on the roadside is not right.
 
shadowshiv
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by winespiusView Post

People have been charged with impaired on bicycles and horses ffs...does that make it right?

Sure it does. Someone can just as easily run someone over while riding a horse or a bicycle. People can get up to a pretty good clip riding a bike, and if you crash into someone walking you can seriously hurt them, or even kill them. So, yes, they should be charged with impaired just like if they were driving a car.
 
damngrumpy
+1
#41
gerry no I am not whining about not being allowed to drink and drive or speed in BC.
The problem is, there is no recourse under the law to have your day in court or to
defend yourself. We have police in this province especially one that we paid for four
years on salary, who has been convicted of a Crime, and still they can't fire him.
What was the charge? Obstruction of justice, but let us look at the circumstances.
He struck and killed a young man on a motor bike. He left the scene and went a
short distance home to have a drink and return to the accident location. He claims
in court he is an alcoholic and he had to steady his nerves. It is still suspected he
had been drinking so much so, they found him guilty of obstruction of justice for doing
what he did. He also lied.
Same cop being charged with lying in the Vancouver airport case. he is the cop who
tasered the Polish guy.
The difference is, if he were an ordinary citizen, would have his vehicle taken and likely
would lose his transportation and his job, OK, fine. But the cop he gets obstruction of
justice, can't be nailed for drinking because he went home and drank, and returns to the
scene. he kills a bike rider, he gets to stay home and collect his paycheck for four years
and still is on leave paid, and will be until after his perjury case some time later this year.
Everyone in a democracy has the right to defend themselves in court and this is being
changed. to deny that right. This is no longer about drinking driving or speeding its
about the right to a defence.
If found guilty do to the offender whatever they want, but not if they don't have their day
in court.
 
Kakato
#42
They gave him an obstruction of justice because thats all they could do,Alcoholism is classed as a disease now and you cant discriminate on someone that has a disease.
 
Niflmir
+1
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Sure it does. Someone can just as easily run someone over while riding a horse or a bicycle. People can get up to a pretty good clip riding a bike, and if you crash into someone walking you can seriously hurt them, or even kill them. So, yes, they should be charged with impaired just like if they were driving a car.

Why stop there? People can get up to a pretty dangerous speed just by running, lots of people have been injured by collisions with joggers. Let's start charging people with impaired running. Heck, they have to walk before they can run, might as well charge them with impaired walking before they get the chance to injure someone. Driving a car, running, what's the difference if you are drunk?
 
eh1eh
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Why stop there? People can get up to a pretty dangerous speed just by running, lots of people have been injured by collisions with joggers. Let's start charging people with impaired running. Heck, they have to walk before they can run, might as well charge them with impaired walking before they get the chance to injure someone. Driving a car, running, what's the difference if you are drunk?

Even better. Let's prohibit the sale of alcohol. I bet that would work well and solve the problem. LOL
 
Niflmir
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by eh1ehView Post

Even better. Let's prohibit the sale of alcohol. I bet that would work well and solve the problem. LOL

Indeed, people do all sorts of dangerous things in day to day life, and we haven't made it illegal for them to do those things while drunk yet. We must as well nip it in the bud and outlaw alcohol in general.
 
bluebyrd35
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Indeed, people do all sorts of dangerous things in day to day life, and we haven't made it illegal for them to do those things while drunk yet. We must as well nip it in the bud and outlaw alcohol in general.

I still feel that all new cars should be equipped with a device that will not start a car with a person under the influence of .08 plus alcohol. Problem solved. A sober person may drive but not the inebrieted one. If someone who has already been cited for drunk driving in an older car should have to pay to have their car equipped with such a device before driving it again. Drunk driving is not the great story telling joke it used to be. After all, years ago, one merely ended up in the ditch and because of the alcohol content only came out stiff and sore and perhaps a wrecked car. Nowadays, it kills other people. It is no longer a joke, except amongst the mentally deficient or old rednecks.
 
lone wolf
#47
How did they avoid collisions and killing people in daze of yore?
 
L Gilbert
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by grumpydiggerView Post

In British Columbia at .05 A non-criminal law Will confiscate your car for 10 days Give you a $2000 fine And force you To put Alcohol interlock device on your car...............And you cannot Fight the decision With a lawyer and a judge in a court of law......Because the cop is the judge jury and executioner at the roadside...............And you have not Broken Any criminal law..........

Wrong. Even if your blood alcohol level is not over .08, you may be immediately prohibited from driving for 24 hours under section 215 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. To issue this 24-hour prohibition, the cops must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that your ability to drive is affected by alcohol or a drug. The cops may also impound your vehicle for 24 hours. It's a discretionary thing.
Also, if the cops give you a 24-hour prohibition without first testing your blood-alcohol level, you have the right to ask for a breath test. If the breath test shows your blood-alcohol level is not over .05, the cops must end the prohibition. If you ask for a breath test, the cops can use either an approved roadside-screening device (ASD) where they stop you or a breathalyzer at a police station. www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...eside/96318_07 (external - login to view)

Quote:

The British Columbia Liberal government are collecting massive amounts of fines from people that have not technically even broken the law

Wrong again for the same reasons I stated above.
www.cba.org/bc/public_media/automobiles/190.aspx (external - login to view)

Quote:

And don't tell me taking .05 drivers off the road is lowering the traffic fatalities.

Got any stats?
Last edited by L Gilbert; Mar 25th, 2012 at 03:44 PM..
 
B00Mer
#49
Yawn, I'm going for a drive to downtown Vancouver today for a few beer at the Number 5 Orange..

Number 5 Orange Strip Club Hottest Girls in Vancouver (external - login to view)

 
L Gilbert
#50
Yeah? So?
 
B00Mer
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Yeah? So?

Drink responsible... or have your car impounded.. sounds logical to me..

2 refreshing Kokanee.. aagh

 
bluebyrd35
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

How did they avoid collisions and killing people in daze of yore?

Very few cars on the road when the bars closed and cops were thinly placed. Several older folks tell tales about how they rolled their cars, called a tow truck to get them out of ditches or fields and aside from a few dents in the car and a few bruises on the person, little damage was done.

Cars were sturdier and from what I understand 70 MPH not unusual during drive home. Lean heavily on some of todays cars and there is a dent. Who knows, maybe the people were tougher back then as well??
 
Niflmir
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35View Post

I still feel that all new cars should be equipped with a device that will not start a car with a person under the influence of .08 plus alcohol. Problem solved. A sober person may drive but not the inebrieted one. If someone who has already been cited for drunk driving in an older car should have to pay to have their car equipped with such a device before driving it again. Drunk driving is not the great story telling joke it used to be. After all, years ago, one merely ended up in the ditch and because of the alcohol content only came out stiff and sore and perhaps a wrecked car. Nowadays, it kills other people. It is no longer a joke, except amongst the mentally deficient or old rednecks.

I pretty much agree with all of that. But based on what you are saying, you seem to feel that driving a bike drunk would be the great story telling joke that I feel it to be. It is true that you might hurt somebody if you hit a pedestrian with a bicycle, but the likelihood of harm is much reduced. More likely, the cyclist hits a car and dies.

Taking away somebody's license to drive an automobile and/or throwing them in prison because they decided to bike the 6km to their friend's party instead of taking their car seems counter productive and excessive.
 
no new posts