Drunk driving laws

Kreskin
#1
First of all, I rarely drink and it's been decades since I drove drunk (that's when it was fashionable). Although the new proposed laws won't/don't affect me, they are a slight-of-hand tax grab where the cops will become the taxmen. What a freakin joke.

The police will be able to ruin your life without an appeal. Something like automatic fines that add up to about $3500 and a driving suspension, without a court hearing.

What bugs me more than anything is the fake righteousness of this, when in reality it is nothing more than a new method to collect taxes.

On the Kreskin middle-finger scale, I give this one 4-fingers.
 
Ron in Regina
#2
Without a court hearing? Is this a provincial or federal thing you're describing?
Currently, DUI's are Federal. Is this something that a province is tacking on?
 
talloola
#3
I'm sure you are right, and their reasoning for doing this
isn't for the betterment of society, but for me it 'is' for
the betterment of society, and any drinker who is behind
the wheel should be hauled out on his ass, and kept off
the road, as it is no different than walking around the
streets with a loaded gun with a hair trigger.

I'm p****d off because drinking is an accepted
part of society, no different than clothes, or food or any
other normal part of everyday living. It is sad that our
society has developed in that way, so at least 'something'
is happening that is intelligent and does attack this
weakness in our human race, and might bring to light, the
idiocy of drinking, and how weak people really are, and
can't seem to get through a normal day without downing
something with alchohol content.

My midnight sermon, now I'm going to hit the sack, after a cup
a decaf green tea.
 
Kreskin
#4
This legislation stinks so much I'm voting for the drunk drivers.
 
wulfie68
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

The police will be able to ruin your life without an appeal. Something like automatic fines that add up to about $3500 and a driving suspension, without a court hearing.

This sounds distinctly unconstitutional. Driving is a priviledge and not a right, but nothing in our society can be just arbitrarily removed without some form of due process. And like Ron said, DUI/Impaired driving/however you choose to call it, is a Criminal Code offense, thus there's not a whole lot extra the provinces are really allowed to do with it.
 
eh1eh
#6
We have this in Ontario already.
Unconstitutional. Yep. They can suspend your license, impound your car for a week all without even pressing charges or having any evidence other than the officers opinion of your condition. You do not need to blow over the limit as stated in the laws of the province.
 
JLM
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

First of all, I rarely drink and it's been decades since I drove drunk (that's when it was fashionable). Although the new proposed laws won't/don't affect me, they are a slight-of-hand tax grab where the cops will become the taxmen. What a freakin joke.

The police will be able to ruin your life without an appeal. Something like automatic fines that add up to about $3500 and a driving suspension, without a court hearing.

What bugs me more than anything is the fake righteousness of this, when in reality it is nothing more than a new method to collect taxes.

On the Kreskin middle-finger scale, I give this one 4-fingers.

I'm inclined to agree, but by the same token, I think lives will be saved by it. I think it may be a good place to start but I do feel some fine tuning is in order. I would suggest that the alleged offender be given the option of having penalties delayed until such time as a court hearing can take place, but in doing so would risk an even greater penalty if found guilty. While I respect all human rights I think the right to life and being free of fear from untimely death or serious injury trumps all other rights.
 
CDNBear
#8
Can somebody please expand on this?

I can easily understand Kreskins feelings here, but what are the facts of the matter?
 
JLM
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Can somebody please expand on this?

I can easily understand Kreskins feelings here, but what are the facts of the matter?

I sure wouldn't presume to know all of them, but from what I can gather, apparently there has been a spike in drunk driving infractions in B.C. and despite all previous efforts the fatalty rate is not improving fast enough if at all. Add to that the horrendous costs to B.C. tax payers in enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders. Another factor is the pressure being brought to bear by MADD.
 
CDNBear
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I sure wouldn't presume to know all of them, but from what I can gather, apparently there has been a spike in drunk driving infractions in B.C. and despite all previous efforts the fatalty rate is not improving fast enough if at all. Add to that the horrendous costs to B.C. tax payers in enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders. Another factor is the pressure being brought to bear by MADD.

That's all weel and good JLM, but to what legal precedent is Kreskin referring?

I see a whole lot of emotion, but no substance.
 
JLM
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

This legislation stinks so much I'm voting for the drunk drivers.

Do you really think they should get encouragement?
 
TenPenny
#12
Under the new rules, drivers who blow over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample at the roadside will immediately be banned from driving for 90 days, hit with a $500 fine, and their vehicle will be impounded for 90 days. They could also face criminal charges.
Drivers who blow once within a "warn" range between .05 and .08, within five years, will immediately be banned from driving for three days and be fined $200. The second instance will earn them a seven-day ban and $300, and a third, a 30-day ban and $400 fine.
Moreover, drivers who blow once in the "fail" range or three times in the "warn" range in a three-year period will have to participate in a rehabilitative Responsible Driver program.
Here's where it gets costly. In these cases, the driver will be hit with a $500 "administrative penalty," be banned for driving for 90 days, will have to pay a $250 driver's licence reinstatement fee, and will be billed about $700 for towing expenses and 30-day vehicle impoundment.
Also, they will pay $880 for the rehabilitative program, and pay $1,420 for the ignition interlock device, which they must use for one year. The device tests the driver's breath for alcohol every time they drive.
All told, one fail on a roadside screening device will cost the driver roughly $3,750, and they may still face an impaired driving charge on top of that. The government says drivers will be able to contest their roadside prohibition by paying $100 for a written review or $200 for an oral review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.
 
CDNBear
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Under the new rules, drivers who blow over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample at the roadside will immediately be banned from driving for 90 days, hit with a $500 fine, and their vehicle will be impounded for 90 days. They could also face criminal charges.
Drivers who blow once within a "warn" range between .05 and .08, within five years, will immediately be banned from driving for three days and be fined $200. The second instance will earn them a seven-day ban and $300, and a third, a 30-day ban and $400 fine.
Moreover, drivers who blow once in the "fail" range or three times in the "warn" range in a three-year period will have to participate in a rehabilitative Responsible Driver program.
Here's where it gets costly. In these cases, the driver will be hit with a $500 "administrative penalty," be banned for driving for 90 days, will have to pay a $250 driver's licence reinstatement fee, and will be billed about $700 for towing expenses and 30-day vehicle impoundment.
Also, they will pay $880 for the rehabilitative program, and pay $1,420 for the ignition interlock device, which they must use for one year. The device tests the driver's breath for alcohol every time they drive.
All told, one fail on a roadside screening device will cost the driver roughly $3,750, and they may still face an impaired driving charge on top of that. The government says drivers will be able to contest their roadside prohibition by paying $100 for a written review or $200 for an oral review by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

Thanx Ten Penny...

Do you have link? I'm not questioning your veracity, I just like to see the law as it is written, to make a finding of my own.
 
DurkaDurka
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post

I'm sure you are right, and their reasoning for doing this
isn't for the betterment of society, but for me it 'is' for
the betterment of society, and any drinker who is behind
the wheel should be hauled out on his ass, and kept off
the road, as it is no different than walking around the
streets with a loaded gun with a hair trigger.

I'm p****d off because drinking is an accepted
part of society, no different than clothes, or food or any
other normal part of everyday living. It is sad that our
society has developed in that way, so at least 'something'
is happening that is intelligent and does attack this
weakness in our human race, and might bring to light, the
idiocy of drinking, and how weak people really are, and
can't seem to get through a normal day without downing
something with alchohol content.

My midnight sermon, now I'm going to hit the sack, after a cup
a decaf green tea.

You act like drinking is new to society. .

So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?
 
lone wolf
#15
Don't drink and drive. A taxi is great D/L insurance.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../30/c7167.html
Last edited by lone wolf; Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:25 AM..Reason: Link, phone, coffee....
 
JLM
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Thanx Ten Penny...

Do you have link? I'm not questioning your veracity, I just like to see the law as it is written, to make a finding of my own.


CBC News - British Columbia - B.C. to toughen impaired driving penalties
 
JLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You act like drinking is new to society. .

So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?

Which is what the cops give you (to prove your innocense) when they provide the opportunity to blow the breathalyzer.
 
DurkaDurka
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Which is what the cops give you (to prove your innocense) when they provide the opportunity to blow the breathalyzer.

Breathalyzers are not necessarily a gold standard of guilt though, human error can occur when administering the test, the device might not be calibrated correctly etc. Point is; courts should be the only body that determines guilt in such cases.
 
lone wolf
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

Breathalyzers are not necessarily a gold standard of guilt though, human error can occur when administering the test, the device might not be calibrated correctly etc. Point is; courts should be the only body that determines guilt in such cases.

In Criminal Code or Provincial offences you would be right. Under HTA, I'm not so sure. Any place where you are required to be licensed works under a different set of rules.
 
talloola
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You act like drinking is new to society. .

So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?

blowing over the limit isn't innocent.
the courts are so overstuffed with these drunk drivers now, they
should make sure on the spot device is accurate.
Take three breathalizer tests 'on the spot, that would show accuracy.
Get it done at the scene.

You know the simplest way to solve these problems, IS don't drink and drive at all.
It is very easy.
Last edited by talloola; Apr 30th, 2010 at 10:50 PM..
 
talloola
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by DurkaDurka View Post

You act like drinking is new to society. .

So in the case of impaired driving, it's guilty until proven innocent?

I've seen the death and destruction from drunk driving for
many many years, saw lots of it as a teenager, I would not
do it then, and will not do it now.

I had friends and relatives who drove while drunk, some of
them have been dead for many years as a result.

Have no idea why you would think that I think drinking and
driving is new to society.

I have zero tolerance, and our society should be the same.
Good for MADD, I back them 100%
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by talloola View Post

blowing over the limit isn't innocent.
the courts are so overstuffed with these drunk drivers now, they
should make sure on the spot device is accurate.
Take three breathalizer tests 'on the spot, that would show accuracy.
Get it done at the scene.

You know the simplest way to solve these problems, IS don't drink and drive at all.
It is very easy.

You got that right. I've been thinking the cops should pack two breathalyzers calibrated by different people and then if a suspect challenged the reading on one he could blow into the other. Not sure how practical this would be but it could eliminate that hassle.
 
Kreskin
#23
The same old drunks will be driving out there, with or without licenses. 33% of those killing people while dui are teenagers. They won't stop. To address the real issue they should raise the driving age to 20 and fire the repeat offenders in prison.

Instead, the government wants cash and will send the cops out to collect new taxes. A deceitful piece of work by the Province of BC.
 
JLM
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

The same old drunks will be driving out there, with or without licenses. 33% of those killing people while dui are teenagers. They won't stop. To address the real issue they should raise the driving age to 20 and fire the repeat offenders in prison.

Instead, the government wants cash and will send the cops out to collect new taxes. A deceitful piece of work by the Province of BC.

That would work really well....................if people quit drinking at age 20.
 
Kreskin
#25
With all the harping about using public transit and going green, why the hell are the giving immature lousy drivers the chance to kill people, when they could be on a bus or train? Hell, the government will spend millions trying to sell transit versus cars. Just stop them from driving in the first place. Solves all of those problems.
 
lone wolf
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

With all the harping about using public transit and going green, why the hell are the giving immature lousy drivers the chance to kill people, when they could be on a bus or train? Hell, the government will spend millions trying to sell transit versus cars. Just stop them from driving in the first place. Solves all of those problems.

Short of poking their eyes out, how do you stop a determined drunk from getting behind the wheel?
 
Kreskin
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Short of poking their eyes out, how do you stop a determined drunk from getting behind the wheel?

Exactly, so how does fining people below the legal limit going to save lives?
 
lone wolf
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Exactly, so how does fining people below the legal limit going to save lives?

It's not. It's a cash grab - legalized robbery - unless the law is changed to zero permissible.
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Exactly, so how does fining people below the legal limit going to save lives?

I don't think it will do anything to change the hardcore drinker/driver, but it just might persuade the guy who has two or three drinks with his dinner in a restaurant to settle for coffee instead.
 
lone wolf
#30
What kind of message do lawmakers send when they up fines for alcohol offences yet extend the Liquor Store hours and issue ever increasing numbers of liquor licences?