119 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Some of the attitudes towards drinking and driving displayed in this forum are pretty disgusting.

The arguments used to justify it are meaningless - the facts are pretty clear. If you drink and drive you are more dangerous on the road and more likely to cause an accident that can have a huge impact not only on your life, but others too. It's such a selfish, needless thing to do.

Matt.

Some of the attitudes towards driving displayed in this forum are pretty disgusting.

The arguments used to justify it are meaningless - the facts are pretty clear. If you drive you are more dangerous on the road and more likely to cause an accident that can have a huge impact not only on your life, but others too. It's such a selfish, needless thing to do. Please walk or take a bus.

[AnonAnnie2]

Tougher drunk-driving laws hurt bars, restaurants

Business down ‘dramatically’as drivers fear going over limit

Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz1173HhW2A

Bar patrons are drinking less, or not at all.

Drinking establishments are reporting business is down “dramatically” — anywhere from 10 to 40 per cent since British Columbia’s tougher anti-drinking laws went into effect last week.


The general feeling is “people are being very cautious,” fearing if they go over the .05 per cent blood alcohol level they risk having their car impounded, said Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Association.

“People are scared. They don’t know what it takes for them to reach .05, so while they might go out they won’t drink or certainly not as much. It’s impacting restaurants in terms of sales,” said Tostenson, adding that how much revenue is down as a result of the new law won’t be known for another month.

".......Attorney-General Mike de Jong said the threshold of .05 has been in place for more than three decades — it’s the penalties that have changed.
New penalties start with a three-day driving ban and $200 fine for anyone caught with a blood alcohol concentration of more than .05 — up from the previous 24-hour suspension.

Those who blow more than .08 face a 90-day driving ban, a $500 fine and mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device — regardless of criminal charges that may be laid.

“......Two weeks ago, if you drove a car after drinking and had an alcohol level over .05, you could be issued a temporary suspension. What’s new is the seriousness of the penalty, no doubt about it,” said de Jong.

......The potential loss of your vehicle and loss of your licence has registered with the public — and that is what was intended.

“It’s almost saying zero tolerance,” he said. “There’s a perception that there’s a certain percentage of people who will be over 0.5 per cent with a single drink.”


Read more: http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz1173CSFB6

[rjag]

Some of the attitudes towards driving displayed in this forum are pretty disgusting.

The arguments used to justify it are meaningless - the facts are pretty clear. If you drive you are more dangerous on the road and more likely to cause an accident that can have a huge impact not only on your life, but others too. It's such a selfish, needless thing to do. Please walk or take a bus.

Thats too funny, thanks for the Friday humour

[sebberry]

Wow, I didn't think entire countries would have such laws.

But I do know that many cities in many, many, many countries have much stricter laws than what federal regulations allow.

In El Salvador, you get marched in front of the firing squad, and you don't walk away from it.

[dirtydeeds]

Some of the attitudes towards drinking and driving displayed in this forum are pretty disgusting..

No one on this thread had condoned drinking and driving? Reality is that after 1 or 2 drinks you can be hit with fines and punishment that is extreme to anything else comparable. If they started impounding vehicles for talking and texting on cell phones we would see how that went over?

the arguments used to justify it are meaningless - the facts are pretty clear. If you drink and drive you are more dangerous on the road and more likely to cause an accident that can have a huge impact not only on your life, ..

I don't see how anyone has justified it? There is just concern over the power of the police and the superintendent of Motor Vehicles with their ability to be judge jury and punishment without recourse? With any other violation you have the opportunity to defend yourself before paying your fine.
Back to topic, it will affect business and servers
I enjoy your posts but I think you missed the point others were trying to make?

[sebberry]

There is just concern over the power of the police and the superintendent of Motor Vehicles with their ability to be judge jury and punishment without recourse? With any other violation you have the opportunity to defend yourself before paying your fine.

The new speed, race and stunting laws in BC also completely skirt the justice system and turn the police into judge, jury and executioner. And you don't actually have to be engaging in a race to lose your car for three days, on the spot, with no recourse.

[Matt R.]

No, I got the point - too much of Big Brother messing with a few pints before driving home. My point was that peoples 'right' to drink and drive do not, and should not, trump my/your right to get home to my/your family safely after work.

Cell phones, sleeping - these things too are dangerous when behind the wheel. How busy are people that they can't just drive without doing 5 other things at the same time? These infractions should be dealt with harshly as well.

Some quotes. (parenthesis mine)

"I wonder how many collisions caused by alcohol were caused by a driver who blew between .05 and .08. Probably not many" (one is too many, I'd wager it's been more than one)

"Why should the normal person who can have 1 or 2 drinks" (the presumption here is that after 2 drinks of whatever you are still as good to drive as if you'd had zero??)

"One family that owns 8 bars/restaurants saw their business decline by huge numbers" (Does that mean before most of their guests were drinking and driving? Sounds like it.)

"Please walk or take a bus" (I get the sarcasm, in fact it's my specialty, but the advice is good, especially if you've had more than one drink.)

"after 1 or 2 drinks you can be hit with fines and punishment that is extreme to anything else comparable" (more extreme than having a couple pints and getting into an accident and killing someone?)

The over-all tone of some of the comments is that it's okay to drink and drive - a little bit. That's the part I take exception to, and also the notion that we have some sort of divine right to drive. Part of our societal contract we sign by enjoying a drivers license is that if you can't play by the rules, there are going to be consequences.

Do what you want at home, but when you start impacting other peoples lives you should be ready to accept some responsibility.

Matt.

[victorian fan]

Went to Christies last night around 7:30. They parking lot was full and we had to park down the street.

[Mike K.]

It's bizarre how much we "drive" to pubs in this city. Europeans are much more willing to walk or ride their bikes to pubs.

Drinking and driving in Europe, at least from what I experienced, is much more taboo than it is here.

[sebberry]

I'm one of those who drives to the pub, but I don't drink.

[Phil McAvity]

I'm not so concerned with whether or not the legal limit is 0.05 or 0.08 nearly as much as i'm troubled by the fact our civil liberties keep getting eroded by Big Brother. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that counterattack road checks are themselves, illegal. That's right, the cops themselves are breaking the law every time they stop someone and ask them if they've had anything to drink at a road check. In order to detain and/or question someone, the police must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law and without that, the police themselves are breaking the law. I called a cop on this one night because I refused to answer his question whether or not I had been drinking at a road check (I hadn't, but that wasn't the point) and told him that he has no grounds to stop me and ask me that. After talking with me briefly he told me I could go. This all comes under section nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned", which is exactly what counterattack road checks do. On top of that, every time I see a road check all I can think of is 1984. They are so very Orwellian.

It sure would be nice if more people were aware of the law and stood up for it.

[pontcanna]

It's bizarre how much we "drive" to pubs in this city. Europeans are much more willing to walk or ride their bikes to pubs

We have a car culture in North America that results from wide open spaces and long distances...unless you live downtown, your "local" is likely 5 miles away and poorly served by public transit. In many large European cities, people don't own cars at all, take the subway/bus/taxi home.

It's why I like having 4 brewpubs (plus numerous regular pubs) within walking distance

[Mike K.]

I'm not so concerned with whether or not the legal limit is 0.05 or 0.08 nearly as much as i'm troubled by the fact our civil liberties keep getting eroded by Big Brother. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that counterattack road checks are themselves, illegal...

Driving in this province is a privilege, not a right. The moment you turn the keys and start driving down a public road you agree to anything the issuer of the license supports which includes being subjected to roadblocks anywhere in the province.

The reason the cop let you go is because he couldn't smell alcohol on your breath and he didn't want to hold up traffic.

[victoriagal]

I dont condone drinking and driving, but i do really wish we had a better transportation system in place. I always leave my car at home but feel pretty frustrated that at 10pm on a friday night i have to wait an hour for a bus in my area, or as recently happened, realized i missed the bus didnt want to wait an hour, called a cab, only to have the cab never show. While i was in Europe it was great and i never had to worry, pubs were in residential locations, or there was a bus/subway station within walking, or the best, bikes u could rent and then drop off at the location u needed to end up in.

I think the main reason people drink and drive is because its easier, we should work on changes to the transit system as much as the laws.

[Mike K.]

I dont condone drinking and driving, but i do really wish we had a better transportation system in place. I always leave my car at home but feel pretty frustrated that at 10pm on a friday night i have to wait an hour for a bus in my area, or as recently happened, realized i missed the bus didnt want to wait an hour, called a cab, only to have the cab never show. While i was in Europe it was great and i never had to worry, pubs were in residential locations, or there was a bus/subway station within walking, or the best, bikes u could rent and then drop off at the location u needed to end up in.

Yikes, one hour for a bus? How far out of the city centre do you live?

[http]

Driving in this province is a privilege, not a right. The moment you turn the keys and start driving down a public road you agree to anything the issuer of the license supports which includes being subjected to roadblocks anywhere in the province.

The reason the cop let you go is because he couldn't smell alcohol on your breath and he didn't want to hold up traffic.

Sure, driving is a privilege. But that's a red herring. Completely unrelated to the fact that police officers are not permitted to arbitrarily detain ANYONE. Nothing in the Motor Vehicle Act trumps this. Without a crime or moving violation, they've got nothing. My tax dollars and yours are better spent having them test the sirens on their threat display muscle cars than manning a roadblock.

Saying roadblocks are legal because "you agree to whatever ICBC says when you get your license" misses the mark. Having a licence doesn't mean the police have a right to detain me arbitrarily. Driving a car doesn't mean the police have a right to detain me arbitrarily.

[dirtydeeds]

I have noticed a huge change at Curling and Golf clubs, no one is staying for a beer afterwards anymore. With the curling clubs i am worried that without that income maybe we will lose another recreational facility. Safe transport options have to be looked at more

[sebberry]

I'm not so concerned with whether or not the legal limit is 0.05 or 0.08 nearly as much as i'm troubled by the fact our civil liberties keep getting eroded by Big Brother. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that counterattack road checks are themselves, illegal. That's right, the cops themselves are breaking the law every time they stop someone and ask them if they've had anything to drink at a road check. In order to detain and/or question someone, the police must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law and without that, the police themselves are breaking the law. I called a cop on this one night because I refused to answer his question whether or not I had been drinking at a road check (I hadn't, but that wasn't the point) and told him that he has no grounds to stop me and ask me that. After talking with me briefly he told me I could go. This all comes under section nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned", which is exactly what counterattack road checks do. On top of that, every time I see a road check all I can think of is 1984. They are so very Orwellian.

It sure would be nice if more people were aware of the law and stood up for it.

I don't disagree that this is the law, however are you sure you are applying it correctly in this case? ie, is it merely your opinion that roadblocks fall under this detention or has this been supported by previous case law, etc..?

[VicHockeyFan]

I'm not so concerned with whether or not the legal limit is 0.05 or 0.08 nearly as much as i'm troubled by the fact our civil liberties keep getting eroded by Big Brother. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that counterattack road checks are themselves, illegal. That's right, the cops themselves are breaking the law every time they stop someone and ask them if they've had anything to drink at a road check. In order to detain and/or question someone, the police must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that someone has broken the law and without that, the police themselves are breaking the law. I called a cop on this one night because I refused to answer his question whether or not I had been drinking at a road check (I hadn't, but that wasn't the point) and told him that he has no grounds to stop me and ask me that. After talking with me briefly he told me I could go. This all comes under section nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, "Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned", which is exactly what counterattack road checks do. On top of that, every time I see a road check all I can think of is 1984. They are so very Orwellian.

It sure would be nice if more people were aware of the law and stood up for it.

I agree, it's BS. A lawyer friend of mine told me once that ICBC and the police heavily advertise roadblocks so that they can win the point in law that the roadblocks are not arbitrary, they are to be expected.

Ya, I told a cop at a roadblock once it was none of his business where I was coming from or going to. He actually took it fairly well. Another time I told a cop that I was coming from "work". He asked me where I worked and I told him that was none of his business. That cop didn't take that so well, but he never did get the answer from me, after a very long discussion about whether or not he had a right to ask me that question, or at least whether I was obliged to answer...

[Mike K.]

Saying roadblocks are legal because "you agree to whatever ICBC says when you get your license" misses the mark. Having a licence doesn't mean the police have a right to detain me arbitrarily. Driving a car doesn't mean the police have a right to detain me arbitrarily.

Well, it doesn't miss the mark, it is what it is. If you don't want to be stopped at arbitrary roadblocks, don't drive a vehicle.

As long as we drink and drive -- which is illegal beyond the legal limit -- there will be roadblocks.

I'm not unaware of privacy and our freedoms. I stand in the way of anything that clamps on my freedoms or pushes us further down a slippery slope but something needs to give if our society cannot eradicate drunk driving.

The questions drivers are asked are arbitrary. Sometimes they ask where you've been. Sometimes they ask how you're doing. Other times they shine a light in your eyes and wave you off without saying a word. If you know your rights and you know you don't need to explain where you've been or where you're going stick to your guns and refrain from answering. You have that right.

Roadblocks also serve a purpose of finding individuals who are driving without licenses; are driving an unsafe vehicle; have too many passengers; have no insurance; have passed their graduated licensing curfew/are obeying all restrictions; and the list goes on.