You are wrong. You do not need a BAC at all in order to be charged with impaired driving
JLM is referring to alcohol for impaired. We know that there are other reasons a driver can be impaired ( Non Alcohol) and charged for it.
You are wrong. You do not need a BAC at all in order to be charged with impaired driving
No I'm not wrong. If I am why would they use it?
The Criminal Code of Canada has two distinct offences that directly addresses drinking and driving.[12]
Section 253(1)(a) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or operate or assist in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment, or to have care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment, while that person's ability to operate is impaired by the alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two (vessel is defined to include "a machine designed to derive support in the atmosphere primarily from reactions against the earth’s surface of air expelled from the machine"[13]).
Section 253(1)(b) makes it illegal to operate a motor vehicle or vessel or operate or assist in the operation of an aircraft or railway equipment, or to have care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or railway equipment, while that person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is in excess of 0.08 percent (representing 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
A person may be charged with one or both of the offences under section 253. Related are "refuse (or fail) to comply" offences, which are discussed in more detail below.
Been there done that. As a firefighter, I've attended more highway accidents than I care to count.
No I'm not wrong. If I am why would they use it?
The Criminal Code of Canada has two distinct offences that directly addresses drinking and driving........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)#cite_note-11
A person may be charged with one or both of the offences under section 253. Related are "refuse (or fail) to comply" offences, which are discussed in more detail below.
Sounds funny coming from a guy who thinks it's OK to speed! (It's Monday morning, do you EVER work?)
Fig Newton's laws.
Noooooope! On the spot seizure, summary conviction charges and released only if the Crown figures you're not a threat. You can be held in custody until your day in court.
BULLSH*T Deaths occur at every level of the spectrum from 0.00 to 0.50.
I'm not sure where your argument applies here. Are you saying that 0.01 an individual can be impaired and cause death? If so, I'd like to see some statistics to back this up.
So coffee is from 8-11 and lunch is from 11-2?
Yep, called momentum and directly proportional to the square, hence at 100 the damage is 1.56 times that at 80.
Sounds funny coming from a guy who thinks it's OK to speed!
No that is NOT what I said!
OK to speed? Ya I guess you could say that I believe that speed has little effect as far as causing accidents and in most areas, the speed limit is too low. The number one cause of accidents by a country mile is inattentiveness. Unfortunately, our politicians are taking the easy road and banning the use of cell phones during driving. I'll give you three guesses as to why they chose to focus on that particular distraction.
Okay fair enough. Can you clarify what you meant by the statement I was addressing?
That is absolutely beside the point. Accidents happen at all speeds, but the ones that happen at lower speeds are less severe and more survivable- THAT is why we have speed limits.
The overall road traffic safety of German autobahns is comparable to and in some cases better than that of other European highways. According to the statistics collected by the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group,[9] there were 2.2 road user fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers on German autobahns in 2008. Neighboring countries with available data include Belgium (4.2 in 2007), the Netherlands (2.1 in 2009), Denmark (2.5), Austria (4.2), Switzerland (1.2), and France (1.8). Using the same statistic, 4.5 fatalities have occurred in the United States on motorways.
I was taking issue with Cannuck's statement that deaths only occurred at high levels of intoxication.
Cannuck;1518589 That's not what I said. Nice try though.[/QUOTE said:" Drunk driving deaths invariably involve those that are significantly over the legal limit."
Is our Alzheimers acting up a bit today? :lol:
Ya, that would be nonsense if this wasn't in your link...
Not to mention all the other restrictions and limits, that actually support JLM's position.A hard limit is imposed on some vehicles:
60 km/h
80 km/h
- Buses carrying standing passengers
- Motorcycles pulling trailers
100 km/h
- Vehicles with maximum allowed weight exceeding 3.5 t (except passenger cars)
- Passenger cars and trucks with trailers
- Buses
- Passenger cars pulling trailers certified for 100 km/h
- Buses certified for 100 km/h not pulling trailers
Ya, that would be nonsense if this wasn't in your link...
Not to mention all the other restrictions and limits, that actually support JLM's position.
Speed makes accidents more severe, but speed alone does not cause accidents.
Question - What are the typical weather & road conditions for the majority of accidents causing severe injuries, including accidents causing death.
I was already aware that you didn't understand what you posted. I see now you didn't understand what JLM said either.Actually, it doesn't support his position