57 replies to this topic

[sebberry]

As an almost-non-drinker, I'm the last person to even think about drinking and driving, perhaps that's why this stuff bugs me even more.

We already have some pretty strict drink-driving laws that don't seem to be helping much. From what I can see in the media, most of the drunk-driving crashes are caused by people who blow two-three times the legal limit. Do we really need to get tough on those who are blowing less than the limit?

Personally I don't think someone should drive after drinking any amount of alcohol, but I'm afraid that legislation like this will have the police breath and drug-testing stone cold sober drivers too.

http://www.google.co..._3MEqv9WrPnLXGw

BC pledges tough new drunk driving legislation by spring
By Dirk Meissner (CP) – 2 days ago

VICTORIA, B.C. — B.C.'s solicitor general says the province will move to get more drunks off the road with legislation that includes immediate sanctions against impaired drivers.

Solicitor General Kash Heed said Friday that B.C. will soon have among the most aggressive anti-drinking-and-driving laws in the country. The legislation due this spring includes a massive public information campaign aimed at young and new drivers.

"We are going to take assertive steps here in British Columbia to deal with impaired driving on our streets," said Heed.

"We will probably have the most aggressive approach at the end of the day to deal with this."

Heed would not discuss details of the proposed new legislation, other than to say it will give police more power to keep the roads free of impaired drivers.

Since last May, drivers caught with a blood-alcohol level between .05 and .08 in Ontario automatically have their licences suspended for three days.

Manitoba has zero-tolerance for drinking and driving infractions for drivers with five years or less experience.

Andrew Murie, Mothers Against Drunk Driving CEO, said the national organization has been lobbying provincial governments to toughen their penalties for drivers caught with blood-alcohol content levels of .05 per cent.

"Obviously, we'd be supportive of it," he said.

Most provinces use the .05 threshold as a warning tool or to hand out a 24-hour suspension, without laying criminal charges.

Bob Rorison, Metro Vancouver's MADD spokesman, said when Europe and Australia dropped their legally impaired limit to .05, deaths and injuries dropped by 35 per cent.

Rorison said MADD wants governments to adopt laws and policies that keep all drinking drivers off the road.

"It's only laws that change people's habits," he said.

"If people have the habit of drinking and driving - if they are accustomed to that - we want to change their habit of having the so-called 'few beer' and taking to the roads."

Rorison said British Columbians who want to drink at their neighbourhood establishments should plan to walk there or take public transit or taxis.

"We want to lower the deaths and injuries caused by drunk driving," he said.

MADD says four Canadians die every day in drunk driving accidents and 207 people are injured.

The president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police said his organization welcomes changes that make it easier for police to get more impaired drivers off the road.

Deputy Chief Clayton Pecknold, of the Central Saanich Police Department, said police chiefs across Canada have been lobbying the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to make impaired driving laws less complex for police.

It is against the law in Canada to drive with a blood-alcohol content level above 0.08 per cent.

[VicHockeyFan]

You're right Seb. .05 seems a little daft. And indeed they do want to do random breath samples.

[piltdownman]

"It's only laws that change people's habits," he said (Bob Roriso)

So why all their over the top commercials?

They already can give you a 24 hour suspension from a 0.05, do we really need this? Alcohol affects different people and body types differently, this limit simply sets the law at the lowest lush. When I was in University I use to drink alot more than I can now. I could drink a six-pack, without getting a "buzz", now I get that feeling after three or four. Now with this law I can legally drink one, maybe two if I put on another stone. Meanwhile I know certain people that are almost drunk after a single drink. With the 'old' law at least there was supposed to be a level of discretion.

If people abide the new drink driving law it will kill wine sales at restaurants. As this will make sharing a bottle of wine over dinner if your driving criminal. I 'made the mistake' of being truthful to sharing a bottle of wine at dinner at a roadcheck to an overzealous constable. I blew a 'warn' and had my license suspended for 24h. I know my own limit and would say I was stone sober ... yes I realize that unknowingly maybe my reaction time might have been a second slower ... but in that situation under this new law it sounds like I would have been charged, which if convinced would have led to the loss of my job. Is that right?

I also have a problem with these strict drink driving laws when the city doesn't run transit as late as they allow bars to operate. In Vancouver they also have the issue that Taxi's will refuse to take you out to the tricities or out to surrey. Not that I'm against drink driving laws, but I think they must be linked with safe ways for people to get home.

[G-Man]

Why oh why to we continue to force pubs to have massive parking lots?

[sebberry]

You're right Seb. .05 seems a little daft. And indeed they do want to do random breath samples.

I'm a bad allergy sufferer.. half the time it makes my eyes bloodshot. Does that grant the officer the right to make me pee on a test strip at the side of the road now?

What if I have been drinking Iced Tea all night while out with friends and order a piece of chocolate cake that has a bit of liquor in the topping? Will that have me losing my licence now?

Again, while I don't condone any drunk driving, all this law really does is target people who choose to limit their consumption and drink responsibly.

Good points on lack of transit and forced parking lot sizes at bars.

[sebberry]

I had a quick peek at ICBC's collision stats.. there is no seperation between <.08 and >.08 BAC when alcohol is suspected as a factor in a crash.

I have also emailed MADD to see if they have it broken down like that.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is a decision being made with no substance to back it up.

[VicHockeyFan]

I had a quick peek at ICBC's collision stats.. there is no seperation between <.08 and >.08 BAC when alcohol is suspected as a factor in a crash.

I have also emailed MADD to see if they have it broken down like that.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this is a decision being made with no substance to back it up.

I don't think ICBC has a right to any data if there is no criminal charge laid. Even the police would be required to throw out information on readings under .08. I also suspect it is very rare that the police get you all the way to a full breathlizer check and you end up being under, unless there is a very serious accident involving injuries and/or death. Even then they need cause to make you take a test.

[sebberry]

I got a reply from MADD.. all they said was to visit the statistics page of their website

[VicHockeyFan]

I got a reply from MADD.. all they said was to visit the statistics page of their website

THIS (PDF) chart here shows that of drivers that died and were under the influence (had any BAC whatsoever) about 17 or 18% of them were under .08. The vast majority (60% or so) were over .15 and the other 20-25% were between .08 and .15.

[http]

You're right Seb. .05 seems a little daft. And indeed they do want to do random breath samples.

It's not so bad to live in a police state. You can be stopped at any time, for any number of pretex^H^H^H^H^H^Hreasons, but at least the roads are well paved and the hospitals are all properly funded.

[sebberry]

THIS (PDF) chart here shows that of drivers that died and were under the influence (had any BAC whatsoever) about 17 or 18% of them were under .08. The vast majority (60% or so) were over .15 and the other 20-25% were between .08 and .15.

Thanks.

80% of them were over the .08 line yet it's the .05'ers that are getting the most attention now.

Again, I don't condone any drunk driving but I think the priorities are a little messed up here...

[piltdownman]

THIS (PDF) chart here shows that of drivers that died and were under the influence (had any BAC whatsoever) about 17 or 18% of them were under .08. The vast majority (60% or so) were over .15 and the other 20-25% were between .08 and .15.

From the same report, "In contrast, 32% of Canada’s dead drivers were legally impaired, as defined by having a BAC above 0.08%.". So in other words ... if I'm reading things correctly ... in 60% off all accidents resulting in death, alcohol was NOT a factor. And thats if you even believe their selective sampling.

[G-Man]

THIS (PDF) chart here shows that of drivers that died and were under the influence (had any BAC whatsoever) about 17 or 18% of them were under .08. The vast majority (60% or so) were over .15 and the other 20-25% were between .08 and .15.

This is only useful if you include the total amount of drivers that dies in a car accident.

oops see pdm has supplied the answer.

[VicHockeyFan]

Random roadside testing could be rolled out soon


By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service
March 11, 2010 2:03 AM

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching more drunk drivers in other countries.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0hsD50zl4

[VicHockeyFan]

Ex-MP's plea deal miffs MADD


Canwest News Service
March 11, 2010 2:03 AM

MADD, the national advocacy group against drunk driving, has written Ontario's attorney general seeking answers on why charges were dropped against former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer.

"We can't be out there like raging lunatics making accusations when we don't have the facts," said Andrew Murie, executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but his organization has questions about the deal.

Read more: http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0hsDdjfuR

[http]

Random roadside testing could be rolled out soon

By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News Service
March 11, 2010 2:03 AM

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching more drunk drivers in other countries.

http://www.timescolo...l#ixzz0hsD50zl4

I'm all for having less drunk drivers on the road (zero is less, right?) but there's some crazy sophistry going on that you'd expect from high school students, not full fledged adults.

Looking over MADD for some background on their position, I found this PDF - Random breath testing in perspective - July 2009 and was horrified to find that, though it is titled "RANDOM BREATH TESTING (RBT): A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE", the very first section is titled "The Need for RBT in Canada". The paper certainly presents a compelling case that random, warrantless breath testing would improve ... something, but to say these things show a need for R.B.T. is just plain bad argument. It ends with 4 explicit conclusions, and the final one is telling:

4. While RBT legislation would be challenged under the Charter, this should not discourage Parliament from introducing a measure that has dramatically reduced alcohol-related crash deaths around the world.

(emphasis mine) So, even the proponents of this idea know that there's a serious problem with it. I'd call it a show-stopper, and wonder why their lawyers don't. That they want to go ahead anyways suggests that they are misled. A more realistic solution is laid bare by looking at an earlier part of the report:

5. Canada’s federal impaired driving legislation is so technical, time-consuming and frustrating to enforce that it discourages police from laying criminal charges. For example, a British Columbia police survey indicated that almost half of the officers would not lay Criminal Code impaired driving charges, even if they concluded that the driver was legally impaired. This de facto decriminalization of impaired driving partially explains why the 2006 Canadian charge rate for impaired driving, per 100,000 licensed drivers, was less than 38% of the American rate.

As I see it (and apparently, cops and MADD report researchers agree with me), the problems lies with prosecution, not the current inability to test people at random.

I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, cutting off their hands, and kicking their dogs (lightly). But I don't think for one second that their crime should somehow be a special case where Charter rights don't apply.

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm all for having less drunk drivers on the road (zero is less, right?) but there's some crazy sophistry going on that you'd expect from high school students, not full fledged adults.

Looking over MADD for some background on their position, I found this PDF - Random breath testing in perspective - July 2009 and was horrified to find that, though it is titled "RANDOM BREATH TESTING (RBT): A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE", the very first section is titled "The Need for RBT in Canada". The paper certainly presents a compelling case that random, warrantless breath testing would improve ... something, but to say these things show a need for R.B.T. is just plain bad argument. It ends with 4 explicit conclusions, and the final one is telling:

4. While RBT legislation would be challenged under the Charter, this should not discourage Parliament from introducing a measure that has dramatically reduced alcohol-related crash deaths around the world.

(emphasis mine) So, even the proponents of this idea know that there's a serious problem with it. I'd call it a show-stopper, and wonder why their lawyers don't. That they want to go ahead anyways suggests that they are misled. A more realistic solution is laid bare by looking at an earlier part of the report:

5. Canada’s federal impaired driving legislation is so technical, time-consuming and frustrating to enforce that it discourages police from laying criminal charges. For example, a British Columbia police survey indicated that almost half of the officers would not lay Criminal Code impaired driving charges, even if they concluded that the driver was legally impaired. This de facto decriminalization of impaired driving partially explains why the 2006 Canadian charge rate for impaired driving, per 100,000 licensed drivers, was less than 38% of the American rate.

As I see it (and apparently, cops and MADD report researchers agree with me), the problems lies with prosecution, not the current inability to test people at random.

I'm all for locking up drunk drivers, cutting off their hands, and kicking their dogs (lightly). But I don't think for one second that their crime should somehow be a special case where Charter rights don't apply.

It didn't say it would be defeated upon Charter challenge, just that there would be one or more. But if they say that prosecuting now is difficult, imagine how hard the prosecution will be when they have no grounds to test your breath in the first place.

I'm guessing that the random checks will just increase the number of 24-hour suspensions given around here.

[concorde]

First, I don't drink and drive nor to i condone such actions, but this is a little ridicioulous. BC's laws are .08 plain and simple which simply states you are allowed to have 1 or 2 drinks, but thats all. If I get a .079 as far as I am concerned I am legal and they can't do anything about it. Whats next, getting a speeding ticket for doing 75 in an 80 zone?

If you want to make it tougher, crack down on the drunk drivers who get caught. Take away their license for 5 years, automatic jail time, automatic criminal record which will prevent them from obtaining employment, get US customs on board which will ban them from entering the USA or any other country and do the same for foreigners trying to come into Canada. Don't take it out on the guy who has 1, maybe 2 beers and drives. I am tired of hearing "he/she has a criminal record, oh wait, its only drunk driving" which is about the same as saying, ah, its only armed robbery honey

[VicHockeyFan]

Danes told to limit beer to lunch break

By Kenyon Wallace, National Post; With Files From Reuters
April 8, 2010

Hundreds of warehouse workers and drivers at Danish brewer Carlsberg halted work for a second day yesterday to protest a company decision to limit beer drinking at work to lunch breaks.

Under the Copenhagen-based company's old policy, workers were free to help themselves to beer from coolers and refrigerators at any time during the workday. But as of April 1, workers at the world's fourth-largest brewery are allowed to drink beer in the canteen only during lunch breaks.

"Previously, there has been free beer, water and soft drinks everywhere," said Carlsberg spokesman Jens Bekke.

"Yesterday, beers were removed from all refrigerators. The only place you can get a beer in future is in the canteen, at lunch." Mr. Bekke said the strike is motivated by a perceived unfairness whereby company truck drivers retain their right to drink three beers a day while on the job -- outside of lunch hours--whereas warehouse workers do not.

http://www.vancouver...0962/story.html

ICBC, union at odds over ban on lunchtime drinking

By Randy Shore, Vancouver Sun
March 23, 2010

The Insurance Corp. of B.C. has banned its employees from using alcohol during working hours, but the union representing many of ICBC's workers is defending their right to a pint with lunch.

The provincial Crown corporation has issued a directive to all employees forbidding the consumption of alcohol on the job, even during unpaid meal breaks. But that's where the Canadian Office and Professional Employees local 378 draws the line.

http://www.vancouver...4997/story.html

[jdsony]

If I get asked to do a breath test and I haven't been drinking I will refuse. They have no business invading my privacy. I have little respect for the police but perhaps because out of all the times me, my family, and friends have had issues requiring the police they have said "Sorry, we don't have the resources".

Not drinking at all is the most practical option because to most people 0.5% blood alcohol is an unmeasurable number. It's like saying the speed limit is 14 toltars yet all cars are mph/kmh.