05% law may be unconstitutional

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,411
1,377
113
60
Alberta
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.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Simple solution really. You should be allowed to drive impaired but you can't drive over 40 kph, you can't drive on a numbered highway (or cities could have "no drunk" routes on major thoroughfares), and you must have a flashing green light on your car to identify yourself as impaired. The biggest threat to drunk drivers is that they try so hard not to appear drunk. They get on a highway and drive 100 so the "fit in".

I know it sounds stupid but if the goal is actually to make our roads safer, this would do more than the current laws.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Constitutional doesn't mean right. The figures have already indicated the number of traffic deaths are down and THAT should be the bottom line.

If we don't allow anyone to drive, traffic deaths will drop more. Is that the bottom line?

We should not have any rights to proper process, because things might get messy. That seems to be your reasoning.

Think of the children!
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
To hell with .05-.08 and lawyer fodder. When are they going to do something serious about unlicenced bulletproof drunks who keep getting behind the steering wheels of their uninsured vehicles?
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Simple solution really. You should be allowed to drive impaired but you can't drive over 40 kph, you can't drive on a numbered highway (or cities could have "no drunk" routes on major thoroughfares), and you must have a flashing green light on your car to identify yourself as impaired. The biggest threat to drunk drivers is that they try so hard not to appear drunk. They get on a highway and drive 100 so the "fit in".

I know it sounds stupid but if the goal is actually to make our roads safer, this would do more than the current laws.

Yeah, 40 kmh would be really bright, the drunks and some sober people would be rear ending you while others get killed trying to pass you while unsafe.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
It's used regularly for volunteer firefighters in my area.

Probably not for long. They quit it here in Alberta because it means nothing in the highway traffic act and 95% of the population didn't know what it represents anyway.

Yeah, 40 kmh would be really bright, the drunks and some sober people would be rear ending you while others get killed trying to pass you while unsafe.

Then letting seniors drive is not too bright either....driving along at 30 with their left hand turn signal on for 20 kilometres.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Then letting seniors drive is not too bright either....driving along at 30 with their left hand turn signal on for 20 kilometres.

Actually seniors are the safest demographic. My insurance rates dropped considerably after reaching 65!
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Probably not for long. They quit it here in Alberta because it means nothing in the highway traffic act and 95% of the population didn't know what it represents anyway.

I think that in most places, it's not recognized in any official way, and the volunteers are liable if they get in an accident.
Heck, around here, ambulances need permission from the dispatcher to break the speed limit, and in NS, they aren't allowed to go through red lights.