05% law may be unconstitutional


taxslave
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

A flashing green light on a vehicle already means First Responder or VFD member on their way to an emergency.

Where?
We are not permitted to even use 4 way flashers when responding or go over the sped limit(in theory). When responding with lights and sirens rules of the road still apply. Firetrucks and ambulances must stop at red lights and make sure the road is clear before proceeding, same at 4 way stops.. Ambulances can do a maximum of 20k over the speed limit. Pile up a firetruck and expect to get the same fine you would in your own car.
 
petros
#62
each province is different. Google (external - login to view)
 
TenPenny
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

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.

You're given the option of a blood test, before they seize your car?

Really?
 
JLM
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You're given the option of a blood test, before they seize your car?

Really?

How many cars were seized before the blood test was administered? Link please.
 
TenPenny
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

How many cars were seized before the blood test was administered? Link please.

Are you saying that you're allowed a blood test before the cars are seized?


The numbers are right there in the link that Petros posted with the statistics on orphaned children.
 
petros
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

You're given the option of a blood test, before they seize your car?

Really?

Highways and streets are parking lots for disgruntled impaired drivers who fail the dance or roadside BAC thingy?
 
#juan
#67
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

'drinking and driving' is not against the law.

Driving while impaired, or with a blood alcohol level over .08, is.

Absolutely right. But not .05!!
 
PoliticalNick
+1
#68
Some people seem to be missing the point here. The ruling has simply stated, as it should, that penalties under the law require due process and cannot be handed out without a chance for a defense. He is merely following the constitution regarding our rights and in the process saving the government's bacon. Imagine the lawsuit from somebody who gets a 90 day suspension and loses their job only to be found not guilty in court.

The other part of this, as I mentioned earlier, is the legal limit in BC is .08 so imposing a penalty for anything less is the same as getting a speeding ticket for doing 5k under the posted limit. If you are ok with this then please feel free to accept and pay your tickets for doing 45 in a 50 zone. I imagine though that every 1 of you would be rushing to court to fight that ticket.

DUI is a serious problem but the solution is tough and severe penalties for those actually convicted after due process of law, not penalizing people who haven't broken the law or who haven't had their day in court.
 
lone wolf
#69
My problem with 0.0 to .08 is these aren't the idiots to whom it can't happen and they're too drunk to walk. We had three kids killed a couple of years ago (on Fathers Day) by a falling-down-drunk who just mowed down the lot of them and kept going for another couple of miles until he hit a house.

www.thesudburystar.com/Articl...6&archive=true (external - login to view)
 
petros
#70
Is there a difference between someone's ability being impaired by alochol or a drug and being over 0.8?

Law says you can be busted with just the ability impaired or the BAC being over 0.08.

If ability is impaired by just one drink or toke it is impaired and that is that.
 
TenPenny
+3
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Some people seem to be missing the point here. The ruling has simply stated, as it should, that penalties under the law require due process and cannot be handed out without a chance for a defense. He is merely following the constitution regarding our rights and in the process saving the government's bacon. Imagine the lawsuit from somebody who gets a 90 day suspension and loses their job only to be found not guilty in court.

But think of all the orphaned children that will be spared if we simply jail anyone accused of being impaired, without worrying about this silly 'due process' stuff.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+1
#72
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But think of all the orphaned children that will be spared if we simply jail anyone accused of being impaired, without worrying about this silly 'due process' stuff.

I'd like examples of people who have caused accidents or killed anyone while between .05 and .08.
 
karrie
+2
#73
This is yet another example of how people are unwilling to be rational about the fact that someone is taking a risk behind the wheel, and have instead bought into the propganda that this is THE WORST risk anyone could ever take behind the wheel, and these people deserve any kind of punishment and judgement society can throw at them, including the removal of their rights to due process. Well guess what... speed kills more people every year, but no one's willing to lose their license for 10k/h over are they?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#74
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Well guess what... speed kills more people every year, but no one's willing to lose their license for 10k/h over are they?

Well actually Karrie, if you take speed while driving you're technically impaired
 
Colpy
#75
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Is there a difference between someone's ability being impaired by alochol or a drug and being over 0.8?

Law says you can be busted with just the ability impaired or the BAC being over 0.08.

If ability is impaired by just one drink or toke it is impaired and that is that.


Yes, but there has to be a reasonable line.....everyone is impaired in some fashion sometime when they get behind the wheel.....by being tired, or ill, or emotional stress such as anger, or by the presence of other passengers, or taking cough medicine, or over-the-counter pain medication, or allergies...........or by inexperience....

There is no such thing as a perfect unimpaired driver.

And I think the .08 threshold is a good one.

BTW, my limit for driving is 3 beer over a couple of hours.........and I have NEVER exceeded that.
 
JLM
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Absolutely right. But not .05!!

It IS now!

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_SoldierView Post

Stiffer penalties for real drunk drivers would be better. Instead they institute a law that is akin to the long gun registry, while hardcore drunk drivers get light sentences.

What is stopping that from happening. How about .05 = $1000 fine, .06 = $2000 fine, .07 = $3000 fine and so on? I've seen enough misery in my life from drinking and driving, before age 30 I probably drove more miles drunk than sober and luckily got away with just a few minor mishaps. With todays vehicles, crowded highways, idiot drivers, IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT. Within the past couple of years we saw a little 4 year old girl killed near Vancouver because some bitch thought she could drink and drive.
 
petros
#77
impaired Driving (external - login to view)

What does "impaired driving" mean?

impaired driving means driving a car, truck, boat, snowmobile, aircraft, train or other motor vehicle when the ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or drugs.

A person can be convicted of the criminal offence of impaired driving when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's impairment. Evidence might show, for example, that the person was driving very slowly or too fast, was not driving in a straight line, could not manage simple physical tasks, had slurred speech or bloodshot eyes or had breath that smelled of alcohol. A person who is actually impaired by alcohol can be convicted of impaired driving, whether or not the person's blood alcohol content was over the "legal limit."

Operation while impaired

253. Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 253; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 59.

Criminal Code of Canada - Impaired Driving,* Over 80, & Refusal (external - login to view)
 
TenPenny
#78
Yes, most of us know the law.

If the police demand it, you must:
  1. blow into the ASD.
  2. go with the police and give breath or blood samples for further analysis.
You must do these things unless you have a reasonable excuse not to. If you refuse to do them, you are committing an offence.

What is a reasonable excuse?
Courts are strict about what a reasonable excuse is. You may have a reasonable excuse if the police don’t let you speak to a lawyer in private before requiring you to give samples. But you must assert or claim your right to a lawyer. This means that when the police tell you your rights under the Charter, you must say you want to use, or exercise, those rights and speak to a lawyer. The legal issues are complicated and the best warning is this: if the police demand you take a breathalyzer test, talk to a lawyer before doing so. Then, follow the lawyer’s advice.

Police in B.C. can issue an immediate roadside prohibition to an impaired driver with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .05 or higher.
(The BAC is based on a breath sample into a roadside screening device.)
The driver’s vehicle can also be immediately taken off the road (external - login to view) and impounded.

Warn range (.05 – .08 BAC)

If your breath sample is between .05 and .08 BAC, you fall into the warn range.
Fail range (more than .0

If you are over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample, you fall into the fail range.
How long does the driving prohibition last?

Impaired drivers in the .05–.08 warn range are prohibited from driving for three, seven or 30 days. The prohibition escalates depending on whether it is the first, second or third time a driver is caught within a five-year period.
Drivers over .08 are prohibited from driving for 90 days, and may face criminal charges, too.
Financial costs

Costs related to these offences can add up to an estimated $600 to $4,060—even if it’s the first time a driver is caught
 
petros
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Yes, most of us know the law.


If the police demand it, you must:

  1. blow into the ASD.
  2. go with the police and give breath or blood samples for further analysis.

Police in B.C. can issue an immediate roadside prohibition to an impaired driver with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .05 or higher.
(The BAC is based on a breath sample into a roadside screening device.)
The driver’s vehicle can also be immediately taken off the road and impounded.

You may have found it but did you read it?
Is it written in stone they'll take your car?
What do you blow in if you've smoked a joint?
 
TenPenny
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You may have found it but did you read it?
Is it written in stone they'll take your car?
What do you blow in if you've smoked a joint?

You're not very good at reading, are you?

They can do so.

It does not say they must, and I never claimed that it said so.

Think of the children! How many orphans was it again? Oh, the huge manatee!
 
petros
#81
So you figure ability is only impaired unless the number says so? The law says otherwise but you knew that already didn't you?
 
TenPenny
#82
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So you figure ability is only impaired unless the number says so? The law says otherwise but you knew that already didn't you?

I have no idea why you think I claimed that or thought that. Stick to your rocks.
 
PoliticalNick
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Yes, most of us know the law.

If the police demand it, you must:

  1. blow into the ASD.
  2. go with the police and give breath or blood samples for further analysis.
You must do these things unless you have a reasonable excuse not to. If you refuse to do them, you are committing an offence.

What is a reasonable excuse?
Courts are strict about what a reasonable excuse is. You may have a reasonable excuse if the police don’t let you speak to a lawyer in private before requiring you to give samples. But you must assert or claim your right to a lawyer. This means that when the police tell you your rights under the Charter, you must say you want to use, or exercise, those rights and speak to a lawyer. The legal issues are complicated and the best warning is this: if the police demand you take a breathalyzer test, talk to a lawyer before doing so. Then, follow the lawyer’s advice.

I would always exercise my rights to remain silent, speak with a lawyer, and not give evidence against myself! This means I won't tell them if I have been drinking or how much. I will call my lawyer and leave a message for him to meet me at the station in the morning (about 8-10 hours after arrest), and I will not blow into their machine or give blood because constitutionally I don't have to!

Quote:

Police in B.C. can issue an immediate roadside prohibition to an impaired driver with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .05 or higher.
(The BAC is based on a breath sample into a roadside screening device.)
The driver’s vehicle can also be immediately taken off the road (external - login to view) and impounded.

Warn range (.05 – .08 BAC)

If your breath sample is between .05 and .08 BAC, you fall into the warn range.
Fail range (more than .0

If you are over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample, you fall into the fail range.
How long does the driving prohibition last?

Impaired drivers in the .05–.08 warn range are prohibited from driving for three, seven or 30 days. The prohibition escalates depending on whether it is the first, second or third time a driver is caught within a five-year period.
Drivers over .08 are prohibited from driving for 90 days, and may face criminal charges, too.
Financial costs

Costs related to these offences can add up to an estimated $600 to $4,060—even if it’s the first time a driver is caught

What you have put here is exactly why this is unconstitutional and been declared so by the BCSC. There is no due process of law as required by the Charter. Any other offense under the criminal code or any act can be defended in a court of law BEFORE any sanction or penalty is lawfully imposed. BC has written a statute that is invalid according to the Charter and it has rightfully been struck down. If they want to impose these penalties and sanctions after a hearing before a judge then I'm just fine with it but not before.
 
Cannuck
#84
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.

The problem here is that we are 45 minutes from the nearest breathalyzer. It's very easy to beat a charge of blowing over because of the delay in between a road side sample and breathalyzer sample. Consequently, the police almost always lay a charge of impaired driving and that is a very subjective thing.
 
TenPenny
#85
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

What you have put here is exactly why this is unconstitutional and been declared so by the BCSC. There is no due process of law as required by the Charter. Any other offense under the criminal code or any act can be defended in a court of law BEFORE any sanction or penalty is lawfully imposed. BC has written a statute that is invalid according to the Charter and it has rightfully been struck down. If they want to impose these penalties and sanctions after a hearing before a judge then I'm just fine with it but not before.

Oddly enough, that's my point. However, some feel that, because of the children, we have to skip that whole chance to be defended in court thing.

But think of the children! Those hundreds of orphans, maybe thousands of them! Every week, millions of orphans! All because we have to allow people to defend themselves!
 
Cannuck
#86
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Where?
We are not permitted to even use 4 way flashers when responding or go over the sped limit(in theory). When responding with lights and sirens rules of the road still apply. Firetrucks and ambulances must stop at red lights and make sure the road is clear before proceeding, same at 4 way stops.. Ambulances can do a maximum of 20k over the speed limit. Pile up a firetruck and expect to get the same fine you would in your own car.

It's a little different here in Alberta. We are allowed to speed (up to 20% over the limit) and can run stop signs and red lights. The thing to remember is that lights and sirens is only requesting the right of way. People have to yield it before you can proceed through an intersection. So while we have the right to not stop at a stop sign, we still have the responsibility to drive safely and can not take the right of way from somebody. There are other ways in which the HTA doesn't apply. The driver of our tender does not need a class 3 license when driving with lights and sirens but once the fire is out, he/she is not legal to drive the truck back to the hall without the class 3.

In the dozen or so years I've been a VFF, I have yet to see one vehicle yield to us as we leave town and turn onto the highway
 
TenPenny
#87
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It's a little different here in Alberta. We are allowed to speed (up to 20% over the limit) and can run stop signs and red lights. The thing to remember is that lights and sirens is only requesting the right of way. People have to yield it before you can proceed through an intersection. So while we have the right to not stop at a stop sign, we still have the responsibility to drive safely and can not take the right of way from somebody. There are other ways in which the HTA doesn't apply. The driver of our tender does not need a class 3 license when driving with lights and sirens but once the fire is out, he/she is not legal to drive the truck back to the hall without the class 3.

In the dozen or so years I've been a VFF, I have yet to see one vehicle yield to us as we leave town and turn onto the highway

Friggin Albertans, probably figure the fire trucks will slow them down.

The small town I lived in, everyone got out of the way of the trucks, and then usually followed them to either watch or offer help.

Do you guys get beer after a fire? It was always the tradition in that town that after a minor fire (say, a chimney fire that was put out with minimal damage), the homeowner dropped a couple of cases of beer over at the firehall as thanks. If you lost anything significant, nobody expected you to give the beer.
 
Cannuck
#88
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Friggin Albertans, probably figure the fire trucks will slow them down.

The small town I lived in, everyone got out of the way of the trucks, and then usually followed them to either watch or offer help.

Years ago (before my time) we had a truck that the kids used to pass on their bikes.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Do you guys get beer after a fire? It was always the tradition in that town that after a minor fire (say, a chimney fire that was put out with minimal damage), the homeowner dropped a couple of cases of beer over at the firehall as thanks. If you lost anything significant, nobody expected you to give the beer.

We had a rancher butcher a couple of cows once and give it to our members. He had two fires in a week and he started both himself so he felt a little stupid. It's not uncommon to have beer bought for you at the pub but ya, that's usually after minor fires.
 
TenPenny
#89
Before the town was amalgamated, the two villages were, as usual, rivals, and the fire depts moreso. There was actually a fire where the two trucks got into an accident racing each other to be the first to the fire.

But that was the 60s, likely they weren't even sober, anyway.
 
Colpy
#90
Lower blood-alcohol limits make for dangerous roads | Full Comment | National Post
 

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