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

[Goober]

I agree, that if someone is getting their license suspended and vehicle towed, at your expense at .05, they're basically saying your guilty, so then they should just change the legal limit from .08 to .05. But I think the real moral of this law is, if you have consumed ANY alcohol, don't drive. With the way things are going, it just isn't worth the hassle getting busted. It's pretty simple, it's a choice to consume alcohol, one should just plan ahead.

0.08 falls under the Criminal code - It has been shown that provinces can enact specific penalties under their Jurisdiction, the Traffic Act - Ont has that with cars racing, excessive speeds etc - The BC was thrown out due to the length of time to prove - dispute in a court your innocence. That falls under the Charter as undue delay.

A license is a privilege, not a right. Many Org have been after the Fed Govt to lower the BAC to no avail.

 

[JLM]

I agree, that if someone is getting their license suspended and vehicle towed, at your expense at .05, they're basically saying your guilty, so then they should just change the legal limit from .08 to .05. But I think the real moral of this law is, if you have consumed ANY alcohol, don't drive. With the way things are going, it just isn't worth the hassle getting busted. It's pretty simple, it's a choice to consume alcohol, one should just plan ahead.

If the chart that shows impairment of concentration begins at 0.03 is correct (for anyone, not everyone) then I think 0.03 should be the legal limit. Is there anything that is hard to understand about that? Or should certain people who think the chart doesn't apply to them be made exceptions and be allowed to drive at over 0.03? :lol:

 

[Goober]

If the chart that shows impairment of concentration begins at 0.03 is correct (for anyone, not everyone) then I think 0.03 should be the legal limit. Is there anything that is hard to understand about that? Or should certain people who think the chart doesn't apply to them be made exceptions and be allowed to drive at over 0.03? :lol:

The limit should be 0.00 Alcohol impairs - fact.

 

[JLM]

The limit should be 0.00 Alcohol impairs - fact.

The problem with that is sure as Hell some poor guy who had some cookies with vanilla in them is going to get nailed. I think 0.03 is reasonable.

 

[grumpydigger]

the real moral of this law is that the British Columbia government did not even remotely do their due diligence before implementing it...

Much the same as HST , they just shoved it down our throats without thinking about the consequences........

This is not about getting drunks off the road. because the existing law would do that quite adequately........it's about a nonthinking government taking away rights and freedoms using a civil law.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

the real moral of this law is that the British Columbia government did not even remotely do their due diligence before implementing it...

Much the same as HST , they just shoved it down our throats without thinking about the consequences........

This is not about getting drunks off the road. because the existing law would do that quite adequately........it's about a nonthinking government taking away rights and freedoms using a civil law.

Exactly. It's no different than using a handgun ban to try and combat Gang Shootings or a Long Gun Registry to stop spree shooting. It's a stupid feel good law that distracts from the following reality: We are not holding real drunk drivers to account. We are not holding real criminals to account and we have given Prairie Dogs free reign to murder horses and livestock with their senseless happy go lucky approach to dig holes wherever they damn well please.

Sorry about that, but its been my experience that if you introduce at least one crazy theory in your post you can always plead insanity.


Hehehe Holding real criminals to account..:roll:

 

[petros]

Seizure can be done under certain circumstances. Street racing, cash and property in a drug bust and even these circumvent the charter rights. You cannot be convicted of anything without a court hearing period. They can only hold you for 48 hours before a bail hearing which is part of due process. You need to learn your facts about the charter and due process of law before you make such statements.

With a 24hr road side nobody gets their vehicle seized if you parked where it is legal to park your vehicle for 24hr, if you're unlucky enough to be pulled over in a no parking zone or highway then your vehicle goes bye bye and is impounded not seized.

 

[JLM]

This is not about getting drunks off the road. because the existing law would do that quite adequately........it's about a nonthinking government taking away rights and freedoms using a civil law.

Yeah, right, so why are so many people dying each year from drunks on the road? :lol:

 

[grumpydigger]

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement officer........

all the new law does is allow them to bypass the court system ........why are they scared of producing evidence in a court of law when the accused can defend themselves.

A handheld roadside device produces no evidence that can be produced in a court of law......all it says is pass or fail.....
It's an interesting concept that bypassing the court system makes the roads safer

 

[Chev]

Oh, I wasn't aware of that, how would you prosecute a person who is "most likely" as impaired as a person impaired by alcohol? Could you send me the section of the criminal code?

[/FONT]

One small glass with dinner I'd say no, especially if drank before you eat, time will probably take care of it. As for driving at 0.08 or lower being safe don't kid yourself. Years ago I read an article somewhere that said they were just as dangerous if not more so than the ones who were higher because the ones who are really pissed are quite often taking extra precautions. Your loss of ability to concentrate starts at 0.03.

[/FONT][/FONT]

Thank you JLM for your response.

I think long haul drivers pulling 120,000 lbs are a bit more of a risk than some guy driving a mile home from work.

I’mpretty sure that, from past conversations with some truckers, that log bookscan be (and sometimes are) altered. Truckers are supposedly only legally ableto drive so many hours with so many hours of rest in between. However, thatbeing said, I would seriously rather be surrounded by tractor-trailer unitsthan private vehicles, ETS buses orGreyhound buses (and/or pulling Greyhound trailers) on any road or highway.They may all class themselves as ‘professionaldrivers, but……

 

[JLM]

Perhaps you should ask your local law enforcement officer........

all the new law does is allow them to bypass the court system ........why are they scared of producing evidence in a court of law when the accused can defend themselves.

A handheld roadside device produces no evidence that can be produced in a court of law......all it says is pass or fail.....
It's an interesting concept that bypassing the court system makes the roads safer

Well then, I think it would be wise to get the ones where it says "fail" off the road. Not a great scientific feat! :lol:

 

[Cannuck]

The limit should be 0.00 Alcohol impairs - fact.

So does a lack of sleep. Do you have the same zero tolerance for that and if so, what should the penalty be for a parent of a colicky baby that drives to work and gets caught?

 

[JLM]

I think with the back log of court cases these days where people charged with serious crimes like murder are taking three or four years to get through the system a change is in order which would probably mean "fast tracking" some cases. I don't think every cop is qualified to start rendering decisions on every case, but I do think SOME cops have the potential to take the necessary training to make a decision accompanied by proof like three breathalizer readings on separate machines along with photographs. We have to face the fact that there are simply not enough courtrooms, prosecutors or judges and by the sounds of the economic situation there probably won't be enough money for them for years to come. That to me is the reality of the situation.

So does a lack of sleep. Do you have the same zero tolerance for that and if so, what should the penalty be for a parent of a colicky baby that drives to work and gets caught?

Put in the stocks and have eggs thrown at her and have her baby taken away for two years because she is obviously unable to take care of it.

 

[Cannuck]

That's the funniest part of this. The immediate penalties for being over .08 are deemed unconstitutional but the immediate penalties for being under are not. I'm not sure how that can not be an infringement of the charter.

I believe the solution is to hand out a 12 hour hour suspension to anybody that is believed to be impaired for whatever reason. This suspension should not be public record and ones insurance company should not have access to this info. It should carry no punishment whatsoever except for the inconvenience that comes with the license suspension . If it is believed the the impairment is significant enough to warrant criminal charges then arrest the driver and process him/her like any other suspected criminal. This would provide balance between safer roads and the concept of due process.

 

[TenPenny]

I think with the back log of court cases these days where people charged with serious crimes like murder are taking three or four years to get through the system a change is in order which would probably mean "fast tracking" some cases. I don't think every cop is qualified to start rendering decisions on every case, but I do think SOME cops have the potential to take the necessary training to make a decision accompanied by proof like three breathalizer readings on separate machines along with photographs. We have to face the fact that there are simply not enough courtrooms, prosecutors or judges and by the sounds of the economic situation there probably won't be enough money for them for years to come. That to me is the reality of the situation.

I find it interesting how quickly our fundamental system of justice can be tossed aside by people for the sake of convenience.

 

[Machjo]

Just ban all alcohol consumption except that prescribed by a physician.

Problem solved on the legal front. Then all you have to do is enforce it.

 

[Cannuck]

Put in the stocks and have eggs thrown at her and have her baby taken away for two years because she is obviously unable to take care of it.

Sexist!

 

[JLM]

I believe the solution is to hand out a 12 hour hour suspension to anybody that is believed to be impaired for whatever reason. This suspension should not be public record and ones insurance company should not have access to this info. It should carry no punishment whatsoever except for the inconvenience that comes with the license suspension . If it is believed the the impairment is significant enough to warrant criminal charges then arrest the driver and process him/her like any other suspected criminal. This would provide balance between safer roads and the concept of due process.

That sort of thing has already been happening for years, Sherlock! Have you noticed that it works in bringing down the number of impaired drivers or number of deaths? People are looking for something that actually works. :smile:

 

[Machjo]

I think with the back log of court cases these days where people charged with serious crimes like murder are taking three or four years to get through the system a change is in order which would probably mean "fast tracking" some cases. I don't think every cop is qualified to start rendering decisions on every case, but I do think SOME cops have the potential to take the necessary training to make a decision accompanied by proof like three breathalizer readings on separate machines along with photographs. We have to face the fact that there are simply not enough courtrooms, prosecutors or judges and by the sounds of the economic situation there probably won't be enough money for them for years to come. That to me is the reality of the situation.



Put in the stocks and have eggs thrown at her and have her baby taken away for two years because she is obviously unable to take care of it.

We could look at making the system more efficient, but must still reduce to the best of our ability the risk of wrongful judgements.

 

[petros]

So does a lack of sleep. Do you have the same zero tolerance for that and if so, what should the penalty be for a parent of a colicky baby that drives to work and gets caught?

24hr roadside suspension. It's already being done in SK and other Provinces.