B.C.s new drunk driving laws
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
Isn't that the way with any new law? Pot and LSD used to be legal until someone in government realised how dangerous it was to have people thinking for themselves. I can't figure out the cocaine thing though, as many lawyers, judges and politicians are wired to the stuff.
:joker:Just for shytes and giggles:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...sg=AFQjCNGw0ByBkkj3MxsalI9ZjLOsg8fryg&cad=rja
Check out El Salvador.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&sourc...sg=AFQjCNGw0ByBkkj3MxsalI9ZjLOsg8fryg&cad=rja
Check out El Salvador.
What I'm saying is that the government is creating criminals by changing laws. A guy that stops at the pub for an hour and has two drinks was not even considered impaired until the government decided to change the laws. Where did you get the idea the roads were full of carnage and mayhem caused by drinking drivers?
Approximately 4,000 a year killed across Canada in alcohol related accidents.
If a man had two drinks in an hour on a full stomach he still probably wouldn't be impaired.
The Criminal Code is federal and the threshold for a conviction is.08. Lower limits are set by the povinces but don't carry criminal liability. The provinces can set penalties for whatever limits they want in addition to any that are already allowed for under the Criminal Code.
Impairment is somewhat subjective, it very rare that everyone is on their game 100% of the time they are involved in any activity. The .08 limit is an arbitrary number, some people are quite capable at or above this level while others are very well oiled below it. And then some countries did, and may still have a .04 limit for flying an aircraft. It is rumoured that a certain French airline's flight deck crew meals included a glass of wine until not so long ago. That being said, fatigue, which usually leads to distraction, inattention to task, fixation or tunnel vision, has been identified as causal factors in far more accidents than impairment by intoxicants of any and all kinds. We only have means to measure BAC, the only other sure fire way to measure impairment by other factors or intoxicants is through self incrimination.
Actually a number of tests over the years have shown that even a single drink causes some level of impairment. Of course, it all has a great deal to do with body weight and the ability of the body to cope with alcohol. Some people can handle more than others.
You are certainly right about the slaughter on our roads. Drunk driving not only kills thousands a year, but also injures many more and causes incredible amounts of property damage, not to mention the higher rates for automobile insurance due to idiots that aren't smart enough to call a taxi.
I don't necessarily trust statistics. If after any accident alcohol is found in a vehicle, a passenger has been drinking, a pedestrian who is hit has been drinking, even though the driver has not, they are all classified as "alcohol being a factor". Of course this is interpreted as "alcohol related". This is to drive an agenda, but in reality it is wrongheaded. It is the chronic double limit driver or young buck out for a good ol' time that are the hazard, as statistcs show ;-). Targeting everyone and saddling the two to three drink after work tippler with expecially draconian penalties is going to meet with the law of unintended consequences, clogged court dockets and cases dismissed because they couldn't be heard in reasonable time. The chronics will also have their cases dismissed and be back on the road.
I've taken a number of driver improvement courses over the years through employers, often involving people from groups like the AMA. Most stats that I have seen related to alcohol impairment show that one drink can actually help reaction time if it affects it at all but it does drastically deteriorate after that (and as mentioned things like body weight, the amount a person has had to eat, how physically exhausted and their state of mind all affect the degree of effect the alcohol has).
This law isn't something that will affect me one way or the other: I don't live in BC and as I've aged I've come to a point where I either drink or drive, not both (if I am driving its soft drinks or water). I do think it is interesting how MADD and other groups have managed to lobby so successfully on this issue and how public perception of impaired driving has changed since I was in my teens (I'm 41) when it was more socially acceptable.
And it's changed even more from when I was in my teens. When I was in my 20s I hardly drove anywhere without a beer. We'd go hunting with a loaded rifle and beer right on the front seat. ONe other thing has changed too though, you didn't see as much idiocy among young people then with kids screaming around in vehicles- we all did stupid things but we didn't get the idea we were superman either. Of course most of society wasn't into drugs in those days. That's probably the main difference.
That isn't that tough.
In Bavaria, in the 1960's, if you were caught driving impaired, you went to jail (no exceptions) for 10 days. Your car was impounded for 30 days (it didn't matter who the care belonged to, it was impounded. If it was a rental car, too bad, you paid for 30 days rental, on top of everything else). You also paid a fine of $125.00 (keep in mind the salaries of the early 60's).
2nd offense, 30 days in jail, the car was impounded for 3 months, and you paid a $1,000.00 fine.
3rd offense, 1 year in prison, the vehicle was confiscated, you permanently lost the right to drive, no vehicle could be registered at your address (including to your wife, kids, parents, etc), $10,000 fine.
4th offense, a minimum of 5 years in prison (with no parole) and confiscation of the vehicle you were driving.
In most of Europe, they take drunk driving VERY seriously. In Sweden and Norway for example, drinking even one beer and then driving will get you into jail.
It's about time that drunk driving be treated as what it really is. Attempted murder. There should be a minimum of 90 days in jail for even driving impaired, much less drunk.
And it's about time society really crack down on the irresponsible fools that do this.
No human being is NOT impaired at .08. You can not present any evidence that backs up this totally silly and irresponsible statement.
In Bavaria, in the 1960's, if you were caught driving impaired, you went to jail (no exceptions) for 10 days. Your car was impounded for 30 days (it didn't matter who the care belonged to, it was impounded. If it was a rental car, too bad, you paid for 30 days rental, on top of everything else). You also paid a fine of $125.00 (keep in mind the salaries of the early 60's).
2nd offense, 30 days in jail, the car was impounded for 3 months, and you paid a $1,000.00 fine.
3rd offense, 1 year in prison, the vehicle was confiscated, you permanently lost the right to drive, no vehicle could be registered at your address (including to your wife, kids, parents, etc), $10,000 fine.
4th offense, a minimum of 5 years in prison (with no parole) and confiscation of the vehicle you were driving.
In most of Europe, they take drunk driving VERY seriously. In Sweden and Norway for example, drinking even one beer and then driving will get you into jail.
It's about time that drunk driving be treated as what it really is. Attempted murder. There should be a minimum of 90 days in jail for even driving impaired, much less drunk.
And it's about time society really crack down on the irresponsible fools that do this.
No human being is NOT impaired at .08. You can not present any evidence that backs up this totally silly and irresponsible statement.
No human being is NOT impaired at .08. You can not present any evidence that backs up this totally silly and irresponsible statement.[/QUOTE said:
Excellent post Bob. Another thing the more rabid of the anti-drinking hoards are missing is that drunk driving has actually been decreasing over the last couple decades without applying new laws. The proposed new laws will no doubt show an immediate increase
but as you've said, clogged court dockets will make the whole thing a farce.
I agree with stiffer penalties for drunk drivers, but I also think that drugs, even prescription drugs should eventually be included in the definition of impairment. People should just use some good sense and know it is much better to take a cab, have a DD , walk or just stay home when you know you are going to be drinking. Most prescription drugs come with warning labels about not operating machinery and a car is machinery. There again common sense.
I don't believe it is just those young people who go out drinking and/or drugging and/or joy riding. There are older folks who tend to do so too, you know, the type who never grew up.
Just my .02 worth
Mysti
I don't believe it is just those young people who go out drinking and/or drugging and/or joy riding. There are older folks who tend to do so too, you know, the type who never grew up.
Just my .02 worth
Mysti
I don't care what the laws or courts do to change the existing law and make it tougher.
Anyone who drinks and drives, even after one drink, deserves whatever he/she gets.
There is still that mentality that won't go away yet, awe I only had 2 drinks, I'm fine.
DON'T HAVE ANY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE, PERIOD. 0 TOLERANCE, if you're concerned that the
government will make more money from this law, don't drink and drive, that will end it, won't it.
I don't care how much money the government makes from this change, people are still drinking and
getting into vehicles to drive somewhere.
Don't blame it on governments because there are parking lots outside of drinking establishments, and
don't use others decisions to make excuses for you to drink and drive.
There was a party at our neighbours the other night, the people were obviously full of alchohol, when
the party was over, all the cars were gone, hmmmm, guess they all had designated drivers with them?
It has taken many generations to bring us to this point where we accept drinking as a normal, even cool
part of our lives, the movers
and shakers, the cool crowd, be polite now, and offer your guests a drink, make sure you have some
alchohol in the cabinet, wouldn't want to be caught without it. Well, there are many like us, we don't
give it a second thought, a glass of wine with special dinners, and that's about it, we tried having the
supposedly healthy glass of wine every evening, but got sick of it, grape juice does just the same.
People like us, don't give a crap about any excuses others give about new laws not being fair, tax the
booze higher and higher, and fine the drivers more and more, go for it, I love it.
It is so engrained in us, that we squirm anytime someone threatens to tinker with it.
Anyone who drinks and drives, even after one drink, deserves whatever he/she gets.
There is still that mentality that won't go away yet, awe I only had 2 drinks, I'm fine.
DON'T HAVE ANY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DRIVE, PERIOD. 0 TOLERANCE, if you're concerned that the
government will make more money from this law, don't drink and drive, that will end it, won't it.
I don't care how much money the government makes from this change, people are still drinking and
getting into vehicles to drive somewhere.
Don't blame it on governments because there are parking lots outside of drinking establishments, and
don't use others decisions to make excuses for you to drink and drive.
There was a party at our neighbours the other night, the people were obviously full of alchohol, when
the party was over, all the cars were gone, hmmmm, guess they all had designated drivers with them?
It has taken many generations to bring us to this point where we accept drinking as a normal, even cool
part of our lives, the movers
and shakers, the cool crowd, be polite now, and offer your guests a drink, make sure you have some
alchohol in the cabinet, wouldn't want to be caught without it. Well, there are many like us, we don't
give it a second thought, a glass of wine with special dinners, and that's about it, we tried having the
supposedly healthy glass of wine every evening, but got sick of it, grape juice does just the same.
People like us, don't give a crap about any excuses others give about new laws not being fair, tax the
booze higher and higher, and fine the drivers more and more, go for it, I love it.
It is so engrained in us, that we squirm anytime someone threatens to tinker with it.
Talloola
You are obviously a non-drinker but there are millions of people in B.C. who do drink. The majority of drinkers
don't have a problem with one or two drinks after work. The majority of drinkers are responsible and don't get into legal problems
because of their drinking. The new laws and penalties the government wants to impose could change a lot of things. A government should be very careful when they screw around with the majority of people or they find themselves out of office. Out of office is a hell of a good place for this government.
#Juan- I think you've been smoking something funny the past couple of days. One of the advantages of this new system is that it bypasses the courts so will in fact reduce court back logs. Of course I suppose if a guy was really stubborn he could get it heard in court. I suppose there is going to be the rare case of a prick of a cop out of spite laying a charge when the guy in fact wasn't doing ANY drinking, so there does have to be a provision for that sort of thing, but I'd be all in favour if a person wants to go the court route and is proven guilty the penalty doubles. :smile:
You bet Talloola- and quite often these days when I guy says I just had two beers, he's talking 2 pints (40 oz.)
Parking lots outside of pubs don't mean squat. I've parked in one of those lots right beside the beer truck and gone in and had a coffee and a sandwich. It's no longer like the hard core beer parours of the 60s (when they really pissed us off by kicking us out for an hour for supper hour) That was really bad because the poor guy had to weave his way home for supper and then weave his back (probably very sleepy after a big supper) and then weave his way home again at kick out time (but that was early in those days only 1 A.M.) The pub was divided into men's section and Ladies and escorts, and if you were appropriately dressed with a nice young lady you could drink on that side and of course the men's side wasn't fit for Ma Barker. :lol::lol:
#Juan- I really don't think a guy like you describe yourself will ever have a problem. This law is a tool for the cops to use when they encounter people who lack your descretion. :smile:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a well-organized (over 600 chapters), well-funded (IRS Form 990 shows revenue for 2002 of $48,051,441) and dangerous group of well-intentioned zealots — the very same folks who gave us Prohibition decades ago.For many years now, MADD’s agenda has been clear: apply political pressure to get ever-harsher drunk driving laws, law enforcement and punishment.
But what is the final goal? When will we have reached a state when MADD is satisfied that the drunk driving laws are sufficient?
The answer is simple: zero tolerance. No drinking and driving. And, eventually, no drinking. Exaggeration? Paranoia? Let’s look at a little DUI history…..
The original drunk driving laws were simple and fair: Don’t drive under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Then, years ago, law enforcement came up with crude devices to measure alcohol on the breath of drunk driving suspects. But what did, say, a .13% blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) mean?They turned to the American Medical Association which, in 1938, created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents"; at the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".
After some study, these two groups came up with their findings: a driver with .15% BAC or higher could be presumed to be "under the influence"; those under .15% could not. That’s right, .15%. And that recommendation lasted for 22 years. But certain groups of "concerned mothers" were not happy with the low DUI arrest and conviction rates.
Under increasing political pressure, the committees "revisited" the question in 1960 and agreed to lower the presumed level of intoxication to .10%. Had the human body changed in 22 years? Had the AMA been negligent in their earlier studies? Or were politics and law trumping scientific truth?
Well, the arrest and conviction rates shot up, but there were still too many people escaping the DUI net. Then MADD was formed by Candy Lightner (later to quit the organization and become a spokesperson for the liquor industry). Soon after, legislation began appearing in many states that created a second crime: driving with a BAC of .10% or higher.
This new crime did not require the driver to be affected by alcohol: even if sober, he would be guilty if his blood-alcohol was .10%. In effect, it completely ignored the questions of intoxication, driving impairment and individual tolerance to alcohol. And, despite questions of double jeopardy, the individual could be charged and even convicted of both the traditional DUI and the new .10% crimes! This gave police and prosecutors a powerful new weapon, and drunk driving arrests/convictions jumped once again.
This was not good enough. Under increasing pressure from an ever more powerful MADD, in 1990 four states lowered the blood-alcohol level in DUI cases to .08%; others soon followed and, ten years later, federal politicians (with one eye on MADD) passed an appropriations bill in effect coercing all states into adopting the new .08% BAC standard. Since then, Mothers Against Drunk Driving has pressured state legislatures to drop the blood-alcohol level to .05%. In the meantime, they had been successful in getting nearly universal adoption of a .01% BAC standard (termed "ero tolerance") for drivers under 21.
So where are we headed with MADD in apparent control? A federal .05% DUI standard is on the horizon and, in fact, has already been adopted to some extent in a few states. "Zero tolerance" for adult drivers is clearly on MADD’s agenda.
For years now the "DUI crackdown", along with the accompanying loss of constitutional rights, has been justified by the numbers of deaths on the highways caused by drunk drivers. As the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Sitz said, for example, DUI "sobriety checkpoints" appear to violate our Fourth Amendment right to be free of suspicionless stops by the police — but this illegal intrusion on our privacy is "outweighed" by the "carnage" on our highways of 25,000 deaths caused each year by alcohol.
From where did these statistics come? Years ago, the statistics kept on traffic fatalities included a category for "alcohol-caused" deaths. To justify such things as sobriety checkpoints, lowered blood alcohol levels and automatic at-the-scene DUI license suspensions, however, these statistics were subtly changed to "alcohol-related". Not "caused", but related.
This meant that a perfectly sober driver who hit and killed an intoxicated pedestrian, for example, would be involved in an "alcohol-related" incident. Similarly, a sober driver who is struck by another sober driver carrying an intoxicated passenger chalked up another "alcohol-related" death. Further, if the officer believes the driver to be intoxicated but chemical tests show he is not, the death is nevertheless reported as "alcohol-related". In fact, if the tests indicate the presence of any alcohol at all, say .02%, the fatality will be chalked up as "alcohol-related".
In 1999, the federal General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed these figures from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — and issued a report stating that they "raised methodological concerns calling their conclusions into question ". The statistics, the GAO report said, "fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol related fatalities." In other words, the statistics weren’t even valid when applied to alcohol-related fatalities, much less alcohol-caused deaths.
So what are the real numbers? The Los Angeles Times also decided to investigate the validity of these statistics. In 2002, NHTSA’s figures claimed 18,000 deaths on the nation’s highways attributable to drunk driving. The Times found that only about 5,000 of these involved a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger or pedestrian. (Research by other groups, such as "Responsibility in DUI Laws, Inc.", indicate the figure is actually under 3,000.) 5,000. A fraction of the number being used by the government and political pressure groups like MADD.
Despite this irritating little truth, MADD, law enforcement and federal and state governments continue to use the same false statistics to justify the passage of unfair and unconstitutional DUI laws.