So you figure ability is only impaired unless the number says so? The law says otherwise but you knew that already didn't you?
05% law may be unconstitutional
- Thread starter damngrumpy
- Start date
I would always exercise my rights to remain silent, speak with a lawyer, and not give evidence against myself! This means I won't tell them if I have been drinking or how much. I will call my lawyer and leave a message for him to meet me at the station in the morning (about 8-10 hours after arrest), and I will not blow into their machine or give blood because constitutionally I don't have to!
Police in B.C. can issue an immediate roadside prohibition to an impaired driver with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .05 or higher.
(The BAC is based on a breath sample into a roadside screening device.)
The driver’s vehicle can also be immediately taken off the road and impounded.
Warn range (.05 – .08 BAC)
If your breath sample is between .05 and .08 BAC, you fall into the warn range.
Fail range (more than .08)
If you are over .08 or refuse to provide a breath sample, you fall into the fail range.
How long does the driving prohibition last?
Impaired drivers in the .05–.08 warn range are prohibited from driving for three, seven or 30 days. The prohibition escalates depending on whether it is the first, second or third time a driver is caught within a five-year period.
Drivers over .08 are prohibited from driving for 90 days, and may face criminal charges, too.
Financial costs
Costs related to these offences can add up to an estimated $600 to $4,060—even if it’s the first time a driver is caught
What you have put here is exactly why this is unconstitutional and been declared so by the BCSC. There is no due process of law as required by the Charter. Any other offense under the criminal code or any act can be defended in a court of law BEFORE any sanction or penalty is lawfully imposed. BC has written a statute that is invalid according to the Charter and it has rightfully been struck down. If they want to impose these penalties and sanctions after a hearing before a judge then I'm just fine with it but not before.
The problem here is that we are 45 minutes from the nearest breathalyzer. It's very easy to beat a charge of blowing over because of the delay in between a road side sample and breathalyzer sample. Consequently, the police almost always lay a charge of impaired driving and that is a very subjective thing.
Oddly enough, that's my point. However, some feel that, because of the children, we have to skip that whole chance to be defended in court thing.
But think of the children! Those hundreds of orphans, maybe thousands of them! Every week, millions of orphans! All because we have to allow people to defend themselves!
It's a little different here in Alberta. We are allowed to speed (up to 20% over the limit) and can run stop signs and red lights. The thing to remember is that lights and sirens is only requesting the right of way. People have to yield it before you can proceed through an intersection. So while we have the right to not stop at a stop sign, we still have the responsibility to drive safely and can not take the right of way from somebody. There are other ways in which the HTA doesn't apply. The driver of our tender does not need a class 3 license when driving with lights and sirens but once the fire is out, he/she is not legal to drive the truck back to the hall without the class 3.
In the dozen or so years I've been a VFF, I have yet to see one vehicle yield to us as we leave town and turn onto the highway
Friggin Albertans, probably figure the fire trucks will slow them down.
The small town I lived in, everyone got out of the way of the trucks, and then usually followed them to either watch or offer help.
Do you guys get beer after a fire? It was always the tradition in that town that after a minor fire (say, a chimney fire that was put out with minimal damage), the homeowner dropped a couple of cases of beer over at the firehall as thanks. If you lost anything significant, nobody expected you to give the beer.
Years ago (before my time) we had a truck that the kids used to pass on their bikes.
We had a rancher butcher a couple of cows once and give it to our members. He had two fires in a week and he started both himself so he felt a little stupid. It's not uncommon to have beer bought for you at the pub but ya, that's usually after minor fires.
Before the town was amalgamated, the two villages were, as usual, rivals, and the fire depts moreso. There was actually a fire where the two trucks got into an accident racing each other to be the first to the fire.
But that was the 60s, likely they weren't even sober, anyway.
But that was the 60s, likely they weren't even sober, anyway.
Sort of goes along with my theory that too many safety rules make a job site less safe.