B.C.s new drunk driving laws

[JLM]

Is this acceptable? B.C.'s tough new drunk-driving laws kick in Monday - The Newsroom

 

[Cliffy]

Is this acceptable? B.C.'s tough new drunk-driving laws kick in Monday - The Newsroom

Too funny coming from the Campbell (drunk in Hawaii) government. I hope he gets caught by his own law.

 

[JLM]

Too funny coming from the Campbell (drunk in Hawaii) government. He hope he gets caught by his own law.

That would be ironic, but I somehow doubt if that is going to happen- at 12% acceptance I don't think he needs that little encumbrance just now. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[karrie]

First of all, I find it's an unevenly applied law. Where are the tests for people impaired by pain killers, fatigue, etc., on the road. At the levels they are willing to prosecute for with alcohol, it poses no more a threat than those other things.

As for your point Cliffy... My dad drove drunk all his life, and scoffed at the laws put in place to stop it. But when he got pulled over for drunk driving, honestly, his attitude about it did a 180, not just in his respecting the law, but in him actually accepting its value.

 

[JLM]

First of all, I find it's an unevenly applied law. Where are the tests for people impaired by pain killers, fatigue, etc., on the road. At the levels they are willing to prosecute for with alcohol, it poses no more a threat than those other things.

/QUOTE]

You make good valid points Karrie, however I have to disagree on one point, actually it's those people at the low end of the scale who are the most dangerous because they don't take their condition seriously and yet their judgment is impaired. Where as the old codger who is totally sh*t faced and following the white line at 20 kmh, with one eye shut, is aware of his condition and is being very careful. But you are quite right about the other intoxicants, but by the same token I say if this move in itself saves one life, let's reap the benefits of that and meanwhile maybe steps will be taken to address your other issues in the future.

 

[karrie]

You make good valid points Karrie, however I have to disagree on one point, actually it's those people at the low end of the scale who are the most dangerous because they don't take their condition seriously and yet their judgment is impaired. Where as the old codger who is totally sh*t faced and following the white line at 20 kmh, with one eye shut, is aware of his condition and is being very careful. But you are quite right about the other intoxicants, but by the same token I say if this move in itself saves one life, let's reap the benefits of that and meanwhile maybe steps will be taken to address your other issues in the future.

I never said they didn't pose a threat. Fatigue, painkillers, etc., are all hazards. I can understand with my wording why you took that from it though.

But, I will add... when a driver went thr wrong way down a one way and hit my friends head on, breaking his neck, crushing her ankle, and breaking their child's arms, he was not blowing 0.05. He was that **** faced codger with one eye on the line. He just picked the wrong line to follow carefully.

 

[Cliffy]

First of all, I find it's an unevenly applied law. Where are the tests for people impaired by pain killers, fatigue, etc., on the road. At the levels they are willing to prosecute for with alcohol, it poses no more a threat than those other things.

As for your point Cliffy... My dad drove drunk all his life, and scoffed at the laws put in place to stop it. But when he got pulled over for drunk driving, honestly, his attitude about it did a 180, not just in his respecting the law, but in him actually accepting its value.

I don't drink so the law means not much to me, but I have seen first hand the damages done, so I am in full support of getting drunks off the road. I just think, as with all laws, that they are too arbitrarily applied to be that good. Like you say, it doesn't target people who are intoxicated on other drugs, so it is also discriminatory.

 

[JLM]

I don't drink so the law means not much to me, but I have seen first hand the damages done, so I am in full support of getting drunks off the road. I just think, as with all laws, that they are too arbitrarily applied to be that good. Like you say, it doesn't target people who are intoxicated on other drugs, so it is also discriminatory.

I think as with most things you have to start somewhere, and probably as time goes by some fine tuning will come into effect.

I never said they didn't pose a threat. Fatigue, painkillers, etc., are all hazards. I can understand with my wording why you took that from it though.

But, I will add... when a driver went thr wrong way down a one way and hit my friends head on, breaking his neck, crushing her ankle, and breaking their child's arms, he was not blowing 0.05. He was that **** faced codger with one eye on the line. He just picked the wrong line to follow carefully.

So besides being drunk he was also being stupid- Book 'im Danno. :lol::lol::lol:

 

[lone wolf]

Ontario has had 0.05 immediate suspensions for a couple of years or so now and people still don't seem to be getting the message. I think if they went for absolute zero tolerance, fines could pay deficits but drinkers will still drive. Probably mandatory blood testing would be the best measure to detect drugs. There comes a time to over-ride invasion of privacy laws - especially when one has to be licensed to drive.

 

[Spade]

Use the following site to see what 0.05 means.
R U Pissed? - Online Breathalyzer Test and Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Level Calculator - Hangover Cures

By the way, while driving today, I saw that every pub had a parking lot. Wouldn't it be more effective, if parking lots near taverns were prohibited?

 

[karrie]

Use the following site to see what 0.05 means.
R U Pissed? - Online Breathalyzer Test and Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Level Calculator - Hangover Cures

By the way, while driving today, I saw that every pub had a parking lot. Wouldn't it be more effective, if parking lots near taverns were prohibited?

Did you know you're allowed to leave your vehicle parked in those lots? Being in proximity to your car doesn't mean you have to drive it. lol.

 

[JLM]

Ontario has had 0.05 immediate suspensions for a couple of years or so now and people still don't seem to be getting the message. I think if they went for absolute zero tolerance, fines could pay deficits but drinkers will still drive. Probably mandatory blood testing would be the best measure to detect drugs. There comes a time to over-ride invasion of privacy laws - especially when one has to be licensed to drive.

I absolutely agree with you there. When I think of one innocent child or anyone else being killed, I don't really give a rat's ass about the "rights" of an impaired driver. The message I take out of it is if you are driving don't drink ANY intoxicating beverage. If you follow that your rights won't be challenged.

Use the following site to see what 0.05 means.
R U Pissed? - Online Breathalyzer Test and Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Level Calculator - Hangover Cures

By the way, while driving today, I saw that every pub had a parking lot. Wouldn't it be more effective, if parking lots near taverns were prohibited?

Yep, and it would be even more effective if taverns near parking lots were prohibited. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[#juan]

I never said they didn't pose a threat. Fatigue, painkillers, etc., are all hazards. I can understand with my wording why you took that from it though.

But, I will add... when a driver went thr wrong way down a one way and hit my friends head on, breaking his neck, crushing her ankle, and breaking their child's arms, he was not blowing 0.05. He was that **** faced codger with one eye on the line. He just picked the wrong line to follow carefully.

I do drink. Like a lot of people, I use alcohol as a social lubricant and at 71 years old I haven't yet ran into a problem with the law. The new laws seem to be a bit uneven. For the last thirty or forty years, if you could blow .05 to .07, you were in good shape. I think Campbell is a hypocrite of the first order. The price of booze goes up every day and now the price of getting caught has climbed to astronomic levels. I don't, in any way, want to encourage drunk driving but serious drunks are more than just people sipping themselves slightly over the limit. What these new laws are going to do is add to the problems of people who up till now, have not been a problem. The drunk driving problem is not the guy who has a couple drinks after work. The problem is people who have a problem stopping at two drinks. I daresay, if we could automatically arrest all those who had a couple drinks after work, we would lock up a sizable part of our population.

 

[Sparrow]

Have no problem with the law, but my question is will it change what happens to REPEAT offenders. Also will the sentences for killing one or more people be increased? Many go to jail for a few years and when they come out they continue their old habits.

 

[Kreskin]

This and the HST are the public stealing campaigns of the BC Liberals.

 

[JLM]

I do drink. Like a lot of people, I use alcohol as a social lubricant and at 71 years old I haven't yet ran into a problem with the law. The new laws seem to be a bit uneven. For the last thirty or forty years, if you could blow .05 to .07, you were in good shape. I think Campbell is a hypocrite of the first order. The price of booze goes up every day and now the price of getting caught has climbed to astronomic levels. I don't, in any way, want to encourage drunk driving but serious drunks are more than just people sipping themselves slightly over the limit. What these new laws are going to do is add to the problems of people who up till now, have not been a problem. The drunk driving problem is not the guy who has a couple drinks after work. The problem is people who have a problem stopping at two drinks. I daresay, if we could automatically arrest all those who had a couple drinks after work, we would lock up a sizable part of our population.

I can see your points, but what would you say if you knew this new law saved one child's life...................would it be worth it? Better to either hire a cab or take the booze home to drink it.

This and the HST are the public stealing campaigns of the BC Liberals.

So it's okay if we keep losing our innocent citizens because some drunken a&&hole insists on driving?

 

[Kreskin]

I can see your points, but what would you say if you knew this new law saved one child's life...................would it be worth it? Better to either hire a cab or take the booze home to drink it.



So it's okay if we keep losing our innocent citizens because some drunken a&&hole insists on driving?

This won't stop the drunken asshole from driving. It's designed to cost people money for not being legally impaired, and most won't have any recourse but to dole out cash to the government.

 

[talloola]

Too funny coming from the Campbell (drunk in Hawaii) government. I hope he gets caught by his own law.

yup, I'll never forget that incident, our drunken premier, what a joke, and no one even flinched, just
let him carry on, as I said before, if that had been the NDP premier, campbell and his cronies, along with
the lawyers, and police, would have had him thrown out of office, just like they did with that trumped up
fake charge that did ended Clarke's premiership.

 

[JLM]

This won't stop the drunken asshole from driving. It's designed to cost people money for not being legally impaired, and most won't have any recourse but to dole out cash to the government.

I think that's the whole point- you can't be legally impaired behind the wheel. It's very simple- Don't drink and drive and there won't be a problem. :smile:

 

[Kreskin]

I think that's the whole point- you can't be legally impaired behind the wheel. It's very simple- Don't drink and drive and there won't be a problem. :smile:

Then they should put their own money where their mouth is and ban all liquor sales at restaurants. The presumption that everyone (or even anyone) takes a taxi or bus to and from a restaurant doesn't pass the laugh test.