05% law may be unconstitutional


JLM
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Simple solution really. You should be allowed to drive impaired but you can't drive over 40 kph, you can't drive on a numbered highway (or cities could have "no drunk" routes on major thoroughfares), and you must have a flashing green light on your car to identify yourself as impaired. The biggest threat to drunk drivers is that they try so hard not to appear drunk. They get on a highway and drive 100 so the "fit in".

I know it sounds stupid but if the goal is actually to make our roads safer, this would do more than the current laws.

Yeah, 40 kmh would be really bright, the drunks and some sober people would be rear ending you while others get killed trying to pass you while unsafe.
 
petros
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Think of the children!

It's a real treat having to raise somebody else's kids after they are orphaned. Give it a try sometime.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I know but nobody uses it anymore.

It's used regularly for volunteer firefighters in my area.
 
Cannuck
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

It's used regularly for volunteer firefighters in my area.

Probably not for long. They quit it here in Alberta because it means nothing in the highway traffic act and 95% of the population didn't know what it represents anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yeah, 40 kmh would be really bright, the drunks and some sober people would be rear ending you while others get killed trying to pass you while unsafe.

Then letting seniors drive is not too bright either....driving along at 30 with their left hand turn signal on for 20 kilometres.
 
petros
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Probably not for long. They quit it here in Alberta because it means nothing in the highway traffic act and 95% of the population didn't know what it represents anyway.

Text it to them while driving.
 
TenPenny
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It's a real treat having to raise somebody else's kids after they are orphaned. Give it a try sometime.

And the only reason this happens is due to drinking and driving.

I understand your point.
 
JLM
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post




Then letting seniors drive is not too bright either....driving along at 30 with their left hand turn signal on for 20 kilometres.

Actually seniors are the safest demographic. My insurance rates dropped considerably after reaching 65!
 
TenPenny
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Probably not for long. They quit it here in Alberta because it means nothing in the highway traffic act and 95% of the population didn't know what it represents anyway.

I think that in most places, it's not recognized in any official way, and the volunteers are liable if they get in an accident.
Heck, around here, ambulances need permission from the dispatcher to break the speed limit, and in NS, they aren't allowed to go through red lights.
 
petros
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

And the only reason this happens is due to drinking and driving.

I understand your point.

It doesn't happen frequently?
 
TenPenny
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It doesn't happen frequently?

Give us the statistics on how many kids were orphaned by drunk drivers, as compared to by all other causes, including illness.
 
petros
#41
1 is too many. Do you think there might be 1?
 
TenPenny
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

1 is too many. Do you think there might be 1?

In other words, you have no idea. Which is what I thought.

Think of the children!
 
JLM
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

If we don't allow anyone to drive, traffic deaths will drop more. Is that the bottom line?

Sober driving is a necessary procedure for society to function in the way we want it to and CAN be done safely. Driving while drinking is not necessary to accomplish that purpose and can not necessarily be done safely.
 
petros
#44
What was it like for you having to deal with 3 teenage girls who lost their dad to a drunk?
 
Cannuck
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think that in most places, it's not recognized in any official way, and the volunteers are liable if they get in an accident. Heck, around here, ambulances need permission from the dispatcher to break the speed limit, and in NS, they aren't allowed to go through red lights.

Many municipalities in Alberta fear that they could get dragged into any law suit involving a driver with a flashing green light if they gave it to the driver and instructed him/her on its use. Municipalities in Alberta are taking more and more control from VFD's and it stems from a law suit in Kweebeck a few years ago that suggested municipalities are responsible for this stuff despite the fact that the MGA says they are not required to do it.
 
TenPenny
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Sober driving is a necessary procedure for society to function in the way we want it to and CAN be done safely. Driving while drinking is not necessary to accomplish that purpose and can not necessarily be done safely.

So, in order to protect us, we should eliminate the rules of justice that allow someone accused of a crime to a fair trial.
I agree, but I want that spread to other offenses - as long as a traffic cop charges you with an offense, you should go to jail and lose your car.

Of course, none of that is to apply to any females charged with any crime of any kind.
 
Cannuck
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Actually seniors are the safest demographic. My insurance rates dropped considerably after reaching 65!

Then by extension, so would drunk drivers be safer.
 
TenPenny
#48
Yes, the senior woman who drove the wrong way on a divided highway here last year, had a head on collision, and killed her next door neighbor was certainly safe, because she never went that fast.
 
petros
#49
Drinkers should go free but all other forms of impaired driving should get the fire hose and the book thrown at them.
Last edited by petros; Dec 1st, 2011 at 09:02 AM..
 
Nuggler
+1
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If laws were outlawed only outlaws would have laws.




if peckers were outlawed, only outlaws would have peckers

if outlaws were outlawed only outlaws wold have outlaws.

if inlaws were outlawed only outlaws would have inlaws.

gooodwan Petros.
 
JLM
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

So, in order to protect us, we should eliminate the rules of justice that allow someone accused of a crime to a fair trial.
I agree, but I want that spread to other offenses - as long as a traffic cop charges you with an offense, you should go to jail and lose your car.

Of course, none of that is to apply to any females charged with any crime of any kind.

So you should lose your car when you are caught fishing without a fishing license? Well I suppose that might prevent you from going fishing!

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Drinkers should go free but all other forms of impairmed driving should get the fire hose and the book thrown at them.

Drunk is just one form of impaired driving, but doesn't preclude from cracking down on other forms.
 
Nuggler
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Give us the statistics on how many kids were orphaned by drunk drivers, as compared to by all other causes, including illness.


c'mon!
 
JLM
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Give us the statistics on how many kids were orphaned by drunk drivers, as compared to by all other causes, including illness.

Drunk drivers CAN be eliminated, illness, so far can't be.
 
petros
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you should lose your car when you are caught fishing without a fishing license? Well I suppose that might prevent you from going fishing!

Vehicle seizure is indeed part of poaching laws.
 
Nuggler
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So you should lose your car when you are caught fishing without a fishing license? Well I suppose that might prevent you from going fishing!

.


If you are caught fishing out of season, fishing without a license, or having out of season or overlimit fish in your possession in Ont. you CAN lose your car. Probably will. Same with hunting.

But, yep, take away a drunk's car and he'll get another. There's a guy lives a mile from me hasn't had a driver's license in 15 years - drives every day. gets caught, pays the fine, and drives again. sometimes he's drunk, sometimes not. Tell me the folks in charge are serious about the law.............right. Put on a RIDE program a couple of times a year and everyone's happy.
 
petros
#56
In SK it's a Summary conviction to drive without a license or insurance.
 
taxslave
+2
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

If you fail the dance, you fail the dance.

Sadly the way it works in B.C. you don't even get invited to the prom much less asked to dance. Which is what the case is all about.
What is needed is a clear and simple law. If .08 is the level of impairment then over is a fine and under is free. If the people want .05 to be the limit fine, make that the line but no ambiguous area where a cop gets to decide if you get a fine or not with no legal recourse. The roadside screening devices have been proven to be inaccurate. Even a speeding ticket is permitted to be fought in court.
 
petros
#58
There are no "drunk driving laws" but their are impaired driving laws with sub sections on drinking. You don't need to have consumed anything to be considered driving while impaired.
 
JLM
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Sadly the way it works in B.C. you don't even get invited to the prom much less asked to dance. Which is what the case is all about.
What is needed is a clear and simple law. If .08 is the level of impairment then over is a fine and under is free. If the people want .05 to be the limit fine, make that the line but no ambiguous area where a cop gets to decide if you get a fine or not with no legal recourse. The roadside screening devices have been proven to be inaccurate. Even a speeding ticket is permitted to be fought in court.

THAT probably makes the most sense.
 
petros
#60
Quote:


The roadside screening devices have been proven to be inaccurate.

And that is why you are given the option of an accurate blood test. If you doubt the roadside BAC thingy get your blood taken.
 

Similar Threads

49
Obamacare Unconstitutional?
by DaSleeper | Jan 22nd, 2011
148
Day of prayer is unconstitutional
by YukonJack | Apr 20th, 2010
5
no new posts