Alberta passes .05% law that was just declared unconstitutional in BC

[damngrumpy]

I have some problems with this law as it is not about getting anyone off the road
who is drunk or otherwise. As some know I have lost a brother to a drunk driver
and I have a grand son who it injured for life because of a drunk. That being said
I see right through this law.
The people who are .08 and over are still driving, and they continue to drive regardless.
The law states that at .08 you are impaired, it doesn't say .05 for criminal purposes,
therefore this is for government popularity so they claim they are doing something
when in fact they are not.
The other problem is the fact that the law strikes at the very heart of our democratic
rights. It does not matter you have a right to defend yourself in a constituted court.
Has anyone thought about the fact that a hired murderer has the recourse of law while
someone who at .05 is not allowed to defend them self. Don't people see something
wrong with that?
Alberta knows the law was partially struck down but like the BC Government they are
too arrogant to care.

 

[JLM]

I have some problems with this law as it is not about getting anyone off the road
who is drunk or otherwise. As some know I have lost a brother to a drunk driver
and I have a grand son who it injured for life because of a drunk. That being said
I see right through this law.
The people who are .08 and over are still driving, and they continue to drive regardless.
The law states that at .08 you are impaired, it doesn't say .05 for criminal purposes,
therefore this is for government popularity so they claim they are doing something
when in fact they are not.
The other problem is the fact that the law strikes at the very heart of our democratic
rights. It does not matter you have a right to defend yourself in a constituted court.
Has anyone thought about the fact that a hired murderer has the recourse of law while
someone who at .05 is not allowed to defend them self. Don't people see something
wrong with that?
Alberta knows the law was partially struck down but like the BC Government they are
too arrogant to care.

Wouldn't the simplest and safest thing to do would be to just amend the law to 0.05?

 

[PoliticalNick]

Wouldn't the simplest and safest thing to do would be to just amend the law to 0.05?

Most of the statistics actually point to the fact that most injuries and fatalities involving drunk driving are by people who are around twice the legal limit. Depending on the source they cite between .12 and .16. The amount of incidents involving drivers who are under .05 is about 3% of all accidents involving alcohol.

This is a publicity and propaganda based law that will create some huge issues.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Wouldn't the simplest and safest thing to do would be to just amend the law to 0.05?

Good point. Any court challenge that succeeds is really forcing the government into redefining the limit at which someone is considered impaired. Studies have shown that most people are impaired in some manner when the level of alcohol in the bloodstream reaches .03%. Most countries have laws reflecting this. In fact the .08% limit used by Canada and the US is relatively high compared to the majority of nations around the world.

Blood alcohol content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chiliagon]

So I gotta ask if the legislators in Alberta are unaware or just plain stupid. They have just passed a bill that enacts almost the same .05% drunk driving law that was only a few days ago struck down as unconstitutional in the BC Supreme Court. Are these morons thinking it would not be unconstitutional in a different province? Do they think the Charter of Rights does not apply in Alberta.

The National post doesn't like this law and seems to have facts to prove this isn't effective in targeting those drivers that are a danger to others.

Lorne Gunter: Alberta’s drunk driving law targets the wrong drivers | Full Comment | National Post

it's clear you didn't really research this before you commented, well now you've just made yourself look dumb.

maybe look into it a little further and see that the stuff that the BC courts found unconstitutional aren't in the Alberta bill.

so no, Alberta's Govt isn't stupid! they're actually pretty damn Smart!

 

[JLM]

Good point. Any court challenge that succeeds is really forcing the government into redefining the limit at which someone is considered impaired. Studies have shown that most people are impaired in some manner when the level of alcohol in the bloodstream reaches .03%. Most countries have laws reflecting this. In fact the .08% limit used by Canada and the US is relatively high compared to the majority of nations around the world.

Blood alcohol content - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would clearly seem to me that since your attachment shows that impairment of concentration starts at 0.03 then that should be the level of impairment that should be deemed illegal for driving. :smile:

 

[Cannuck]

Wouldn't the simplest and safest thing to do would be to just amend the law to 0.05?

It might be the simplest but it wouldn't be the safest. People driving at or below 0.08 are not the problem. The police should be focusing on on the real problem which are those people 2 and 3 times the legal limit. That takes a little effort and it requires the cops take time away from generating revenues.

It would clearly seem to me that since your attachment shows that impairment of concentration starts at 0.03 then that should be the level of impairment that should be deemed illegal for driving. :smile:

I wonder if many people would support that principal if it extended to other areas. For example, I saw a study done in Australia which suggested that shift workers lose enough sleep on shift changes to impair them to the same level as a BAC of 0.08. How many people do you think support criminal charges against tired shift workers that drive?


http://www.sleepoz.org.au/files/fact_sheets/AT08 - Shift Work.pdf

 

[JLM]

It might be the simplest but it wouldn't be the safest. People driving at or below 0.08 are not the problem. The police should be focusing on on the real problem which are those people 2 and 3 times the legal limit. That takes a little effort and it requires the cops take time away from generating revenues.

It's been clearly shown that at a level of 0.03 concentration is - everyone over that level should be charged to ensure safety from impaired drivers.
ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_contentmpaired

 

[Cannuck]

It's been clearly shown that at a level of 0.03 concentration is - everyone over that level should be charged to ensure safety from impaired drivers.
ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_contentmpaired

Should shift workers be charged as well given that their impairment is greater than that of someone with a BAC of 0.03?

 

[JLM]

Should shift workers be charged as well given that their impairment is greater than that of someone with a BAC of 0.03?

I don't have the figures to bear that out so it will have to be a decision made by someone in the know.

 

[Cannuck]

I don't have the figures to bear that out so it will have to be a decision made by someone in the know.

http://www.sleepoz.org.au/files/fact_sheets/AT08%20-%20Shift%20Work.pdf

That will get you started. Just google "shift work impairment sleep". There is tons of info out there. Once you've done a little reading, you can answer the question.

Clearly, to be intellectually consistent, you must support criminalizing shift workers driving. Once you agree to that, then we can work on the parents of newborns.

 

[Spade]

Advice to police.
Don't charge shift workers with impaired driving; put them to sleep. Then, if they want to contest your actions, hell, it's a "free" country.

 

[taxslave]

I'm am allfor getting intoxicated individuals out from being behind the steering wheel. Having said that, I really don't understand why anyone would think tinkering with the limits of blood alcohol levels is going to do the trick. Even if it was made absolute zero, there would still be a certain segment of the population that would do it anyway. No matter how hard you try, you can never legislate away criminal behaviour. People are going to do what they are going to do.

Zero tolerance on the other hand is a different story. Use the laws as they are currently on the books and increase the consequences for breaking those laws. It is the consequences and not the laws themselves that act as a deterent.

It is not designed to get drunks off the road. Most cronics will drive(or attempt to) regardless of the law. The tinkering with limits is just a vote buying feel good law. Also a good revenue generator.

 

[JLM]

http://www.sleepoz.org.au/files/fact_sheets/AT08 - Shift Work.pdf

That will get you started. Just google "shift work impairment sleep". There is tons of info out there. Once you've done a little reading, you can answer the question.

Clearly, to be intellectually consistent, you must support criminalizing shift workers driving. Once you agree to that, then we can work on the parents of newborns.

That's # 714 on my list of concerns right now. But being intellectually consistent is better than being retardedly consistent! :lol:

 

[SLM]

It is not designed to get drunks off the road. Most cronics will drive(or attempt to) regardless of the law. The tinkering with limits is just a vote buying feel good law. Also a good revenue generator.

Yes, I know. But they promote it as if it is, and the public laps it up like the government is doing something.

 

[JLM]

Yes, I know. But they promote it as if it is, and the public laps it up like the government is doing something.

If there is a way of getting rid of impaired driving by alcohol, then fix the problem once and for all and then go on to other problems. Personally I doubt if there is any way short of a firing squad to eliminate it but we might decrease it by 90%. :smile:

 

[grumpydigger]

Even more screw ups in British Columbia..........I like the part that says the cops are not really all that concerned , whether anyone was unfairly charged because of a mis-calibrated handheld toy.............

Kind of proves, the reason why they don't want you to go to court and had the right to talk to a lawyer. Roadside breath tests not always accurate: documents | CTV British Columbia

 

[SLM]

If there is a way of getting rid of impaired driving by alcohol, then fix the problem once and for all and then go on to other problems. Personally I doubt if there is any way short of a firing squad to eliminate it but we might decrease it by 90%. :smile:

Eliminate it? No. As I said earlier, you really can't legislate away criminal behaviour. No matter what, you'll always get some people who'll get tanked and climb behind the wheel.

Decrease it? Yes, I think there is a shot at that. But not by tinkering with a few percentage points on what's deemed to be an acceptable blood alcohol level. I think you do so by making the consequences more serious and following through.

 

[Cannuck]

That's # 714 on my list of concerns right now. But being intellectually consistent is better than being retardedly consistent! :lol:

What's #714, safe roads?

 

[JLM]

Eliminate it? No. As I said earlier, you really can't legislate away criminal behaviour. No matter what, you'll always get some people who'll get tanked and climb behind the wheel.

Decrease it? Yes, I think there is a shot at that. But not by tinkering with a few percentage points on what's deemed to be an acceptable blood alcohol level. I think you do so by making the consequences more serious and following through.

And setting the correct parameters. Impairment of concentration starts at 0.03.

What's #714, safe roads?

I already stated that. Lack of sleep due to shift work.