Between .05 and .08 fines

[farmguy]

If your over .05 you have your vehicle towed and we impounded, but is there a fine with that also?

[260 Rem]

Sounds good to me. Hope a fine is included. From what little I’ve heard about this initiative, criminal charges will be discretionary for over .08?

[elkhunter11]

No fine, being penalized by having your vehicle towed and impounded is already excessive, considering that you do not have the right to a trial to defend yourself.

[roper1]

.05 has always bothered me. Lots of folks .05 drive better than complete teetotallers.

[Newview01]

.05 has always bothered me. Lots of folks .05 drive better than complete teetotallers.

Yep.

Id bet that a .05 driver has never caused an accident because of the alcohol in the system. Even the .08 drivers are not the problem. It’s the 1.0 and above that are ruining it for the rest of us.

[Scott N]

The main issues I have with this law is that the federal law is .08. If AB wants to penalize drivers for operating a vehicle over .05, they should rally to have the federal law change and lower the BAC to .05.

I'm most opposed to AB's policy due to the fact you have no chance to defend yourself - you will be punished, whether you are guilty or not, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

[elkhunter11]

The main issues I have with this law is that the federal law is .08. If AB wants to penalize drivers for operating a vehicle over .05, they should rally to have the federal law change and lower the BAC to .05.

I'm most opposed to AB's policy due to the fact you have no chance to defend yourself - you will be punished, whether you are guilty or not, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

The police have become the judge and the jury , and they pass sentence, our right to a trial has been taken from us. We are one step closer to being a police state. Yet our government awards terrorists millions, because some foreign government supposedly violated their rights.

[Scott N]

The police have become the judge and the jury , and they pass sentence, our right to a trial has been taken from us. We are one step closer to being a police state. Yet our government awards terrorists millions, because some foreign government supposedly violated their rights.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[bobinthesky]

No fine, being penalized by having your vehicle towed and impounded is already excessive, considering that you do not have the right to a trial to defend yourself.


Low hanging fruit... going after criminals is hard!

[58thecat]

No fine, being penalized by having your vehicle towed and impounded is already excessive, considering that you do not have the right to a trial to defend yourself.

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

[fallen1817]

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

Couldn't agree more.

[elkhunter11]

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

Are you going to tell us that every single person accused of impaired driving is guilty? Are you going to tell us that the portable roadside test equipment is always in perfect calibration, and never fails to operate properly? If that is the case, why are people accused of .08 taken in for further testing, and not charged with a criminal offense based solely on the roadside test equipment? Some people have the idea that because the penalty is less, you aren't entitled to a trial, yet you are given a trial for minor offenses like exceeding the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.

[bobinthesky]

The roll of the police is to uphold the law, not to be judge and jury.

[oldgutpile]

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

Couldn't disagree more!
The .05 rule was a "feel-good" law brought in as a vote-getter. Do you really mean to tell anyone that .05 drivers are a hazard? Might as well push back for prohibition days! Ridiculous.
By FEDERAL LAW, I am not impaired until .08. The precedent was already established long ago. Give it a rest.

[58thecat]

Couldn't disagree more!
The .05 rule was a "feel-good" law brought in as a vote-getter. Do you really mean to tell anyone that .05 drivers are a hazard? Might as well push back for prohibition days! Ridiculous.
By FEDERAL LAW, I am not impaired until .08. The precedent was already established long ago. Give it a rest.

Like I said you make a choice and then live with it, really simple stupid but we push the limits every time and when the police do the thinking for us they are the ones who are blamed for our bad decisions...always surrounded with excuses.

Yes faulty equipment, yes a mistake made, yes, yes, yes, but and yes the dreaded but and think real hard about this as I know the facts if we could dig that up would lean way over to the fact that for every 10000 idiots pulled over breaking the law maybe one, yes one was partially innocent...I'll take the odds to keep law and order to,our streets because if not the streets would run amuck with common folk being overwhelmed by criminals...think about it, hard.

:scared0015:

[58thecat]

Are you going to tell us that every single person accused of impaired driving is guilty? Are you going to tell us that the portable roadside test equipment is always in perfect calibration, and never fails to operate properly? If that is the case, why are people accused of .08 taken in for further testing, and not charged with a criminal offense based solely on the roadside test equipment? Some people have the idea that because the penalty is less, you aren't entitled to a trial, yet you are given a trial for minor offenses like exceeding the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.

Like I mentioned earlier, I know a few scumbags that were guilty and hired a scumbag lawyer that combed over everything, twisted everything to the point the court handed down a lesser sentence, looser forked out 10K to the scumbag lawyer and moved on, guilty as hell.

Police are going to police, for the most part protect us from many bad decisions that we common folk tend to make everyday, just some really cross the line and then in comes the police to put things back into prospective...someone has to do the thinking for stupid!

[elkhunter11]

Like I said you make a choice and then live with it, really simple stupid but we push the limits every time and when the police do the thinking for us they are the ones who are blamed for our bad decisions...always surrounded with excuses.

Yes faulty equipment, yes a mistake made, yes, yes, yes, but and yes the dreaded but and think real hard about this as I know the facts if we could dig that up would lean way over to the fact that for every 10000 idiots pulled over breaking the law maybe one, yes one was partially innocent...I'll take the odds to keep law and order to,our streets because if not the streets would run amuck with common folk being overwhelmed by criminals...think about it, hard.

:scared0015:

Those roadside testing devices are not as accurate as many people assume they are.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lawyer-questions-accuracy-of-b-c-breathalyzers-1.745362

As far as punishing innocent people to ensure that fewer guilty people get away without punishment I doubt that Donald Marshall, and David Milgaard would agree. And those people did have a trial, so imagine how many more innocent people would be have been sentenced, if everyone that was accused was sentenced without a trial.

[sns2]

I would be very interested in hearing from any of the police officers that may read this thread.

[Hillbilly 12]

We truly must be the laughing stock of the world. Once again if there were real laws there wouldn't be many repeat offenders. There would be a crazy amount of innocent lives saved from repeat offenders. You can't stop anyone from doing an offence the first time, but you could stop it so there isn't a second.

[58thecat]

I would be very interested in hearing from any of the police officers that may read this thread.

If I was one I wouldn't, dammed if you do and dammed if you don't....they got a job to do and do it well, no explanations needed to justify there side...we as the people need to get better at being accountable for our actions and stop pointing fingers, laying blame and coming up with excuses for our bad decisions.


Had a fella the other day mention he got a ticket for not coming to a complete stop...man he was torqued, had a rant, a true rant, we all listened, most jumped on his rant and rolled...I asked if he came to a complete stop....ahhhh we'll sort of...I said guilty...and said your just torqued because it cost ya a mitt full of cash and now you go home to face the real music...all on you buddy....I got caught a few times too...hate facing the music...so to avoid the song and dance I try to be better and sure as heck don't give the cops a hard time for doing thier job.

[260 Rem]

Seems pretty simple to me ... the breathalizer is an unbiased scientific instrument. It is going to reveal if you have alcohol in your blood. Want to quibble over the degree of its accuracy at a roadside stop, you can always insist on a blood sample being tested. The “letting police be judge and jury” is a cop out argument most appealing to anti’s.

[260 Rem]

I would be very interested in hearing from any of the police officers that may read this thread.
And maybe even another thread hearing from folks affected by drunk drivers.

[Hillbilly 12]

And maybe even another thread hearing from folks affected by drunk drivers.

X2

[58thecat]

And maybe even another thread hearing from folks affected by drunk drivers.

That would be a very sad thread, we all know the outcome to bad decisions as such...imagine having to be the officer to deliver the bad news...so let's keep it here quibbling over so called rights, bad decisions, little to know accountability...bury the potential bad outcome to driving impaired.:(

[TylerThomson]

..

[Hillbilly 12]

That would be a very sad thread, we all know the outcome to bad decisions as such...imagine having to be the officer to deliver the bad news...so let's keep it here quibbling over so called rights, bad decisions, little to know accountability...bury the potential bad outcome to driving impaired.:(

I say burry the offenders. When you cause a wreck and hurt or kill people drunk, that's the end of you. In need of a real justice system.

[elkhunter11]

Seems pretty simple to me ... the breathalizer is an unbiased scientific instrument. It is going to reveal if you have alcohol in your blood. Want to quibble over the degree of its accuracy at a roadside stop, you can always insist on a blood sample being tested. The “letting police be judge and jury” is a cop out argument most appealing to anti’s.

You don't have the legal right to insist on a blood sample if they are going to suspend your license and impound your vehicle for .05. If the officer decides that you are over .05, you are accused, convicted and sentenced on the spot. As for quibbling over the amount, of course the exact amount is worth quibbling over, if you are .05 you are guilty .04 you are innocent, so accuracy is very important. Nobody should accept being punished for being guilty if they are in fact innocent.

[Hillbilly 12]

..

Wait didn't your post just get deleted?, just try and do us a favour and find a liberal outdoorsmen forum. Thanks. The death penalty should be for drunk drivers who cause harm or death.

[elkhunter11]

That would be a very sad thread, we all know the outcome to bad decisions as such...imagine having to be the officer to deliver the bad news...so let's keep it here quibbling over so called rights, bad decisions, little to know accountability...bury the potential bad outcome to driving impaired.:(

By all means punish the people that have been found guilty in a court of law, and punish them harshly, but don't punish people until they have been found guilty in a court of law. As for our rights, of course they are worth quibbling for, would you rather lie in a country where people have no legal rights? Our government seems anxious to deny us our rights in order to rake in quick easy cash, but then they go easy on people that are convicted of actual criminal activities.

[sns2]

Wait didn't your post just get deleted?, just try and do us a favour and find a liberal outdoorsmen forum. Thanks. The death penalty should be for drunk drivers who cause harm or death.

Save the jabs about political affiliation. Peoples' opinions on drunk driving are personal. This isn't a party issue. Further, though some may think it, this forum has no official political affiliation or preference.

[sns2]

By all means punish the people that have been found guilty in a court of law, and punish them harshly, but don't punish people until they have been found guilty in a court of law. As for our rights, of course they are worth quibbling for, would you rather lie in a country where people have no legal rights?

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one. Our court systems are filled to overflowing with drunk driving cases that often get off on technicalities as has been stated. I read somewhere that close to 40% of the cases in court are drunk driving related. You are all for cutting gov't costs, and I know you are not in favor of drunks being behind a wheel. Give the cops breathalyzers and road side blood sample kits, and make the blood sample be mandatory if the person blows over .05. I will gladly give blood if I blow over .05.

[elkhunter11]

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one. Our court systems are filled to overflowing with drunk driving cases that often get off on technicalities as has been stated. I read somewhere that close to 40% of the cases in court are drunk driving related. You are all for cutting gov't costs, and I know you are not in favor of drunks being behind a wheel. Give the cops breathalyzers and road side blood sample kits, and make the blood sample be mandatory if the person blows over .05. I will gladly give blood if I blow over .05.

I will gladly provide a blood sample if their machine tells them that I am .05 or over at a check stop, but I am not about to allow a police officer to take blood at a checkstop. If blood is to be taken, it should be in a clean facility, by people that are properly trained to take blood.

[sns2]

I will gladly provide a blood sample if their machine tells them that I am .05 or over at a check stop, but I am not about to allow a police officer to take blood at a checkstop. If blood is to be taken, it should be in a clean facility, by people that are properly trained to take blood.

No biggie, they can take you to the nearest medical clinic/hospital.

I know you are a libertarian in many regards, but the basis of laws is balancing personal freedoms and public good. Drunk driving is indefensible, and I am happy with infringing on the rights of people who blow over .05.

[covey ridge]

You had a choice but chose to pour another drink down the hatch...how do you defend against that....push the drink away....gotta think for yourself or the police will do the thinking for you.

agree^^

[covey ridge]

I would be very interested in hearing from any of the police officers that may read this thread.

I think you will find that they did not write this legislation but are tasked with enforcing it. I doubt if it was the police idea to not have the right to a trial.

[gtr]

I will gladly provide a blood sample if their machine tells them that I am .05 or over at a check stop, but I am not about to allow a police officer to take blood at a checkstop. If blood is to be taken, it should be in a clean facility, by people that are properly trained to take blood.

If you have put yourself in that position, it might be a deterrent to let nurse Ratchet have a go at you.:)

[sns2]

If you have put yourself in that position, it might be a deterrent to let nurse Ratchet have a go at you.:)

Dang straight. I'd let her take a run at Elk's arse to get blood, and I'd let her use a needle the same gauge as a roofing nail:scared0018:

[elkhunter11]

Dang straight. I'd let her take a run at Elk's arse to get blood, and I'd let her use a needle the same gauge as a roofing nail.

You know that I don't drink and drive, and I seldom drink at all, so if their roadside machine tells them that I am .05 or over, there is definitely a problem with the machine. For that reason, I would want to prove myself innocent with a blood test. But if the person taking the blood purposely gets rough and hits a nerve, a completely innocent reaction might occur.:)

[fitzy]

.05 has always bothered me. Lots of folks .05 drive better than complete teetotallers.

Yeah totally. Couple beers to relax and unwind makes driving so much more pleasant until you're singing along to the radio and run over a kid.

[fitzy]

Pretty simple. If you drink don't drive.

I live in a town of 600 people. Closest police station is 10 mins away. -40 last night and we walked 2 blocks home from a party. There was probably no cops out . My wife was probably ok to drive but it's not an option. We left our house with toques and mitts for the walk home.

Why risk it though?

Same as speeding and failing to stop. If you break the law expect to be penalized. If you don't agree with the law then take steps to change it.


I have zero sympathy for anyone getting a DUI there's no excuse.

[covey ridge]

Driving under the influence is a problem that kills. Every time there is fatality or serious injury due to someone being over .08 or showing signs of impairment there is always an outcry that maybe there should be an attempt to get those drunks before they get to that level. There are some that believe that any alcohol is too much to be allowed to drive. I think that the provincial legislation that allows for suspension and seizure of vehicle at .05 is a good compromise between no alcohol allowed and being legally impaired. There is nothing stopping one who has been suspended from getting his own blood level tested.

The argument that some who are at .05 are better drivers than those who do not drink is total BS. No matter how good a driver one is, alcohol does not make one better. I would attribute this argument to those who like to push the limit.

[elk396]

By all means punish the people that have been found guilty in a court of law, and punish them harshly, but don't punish people until they have been found guilty in a court of law. As for our rights, of course they are worth quibbling for, would you rather lie in a country where people have no legal rights? Our government seems anxious to deny us our rights in order to rake in quick easy cash, but then they go easy on people that are convicted of actual criminal activities.

The problem with drinking and driving is, by the time you are down to punishing the drunk driver, he's already wiped out a family. The damage is done. There is no punishment that will ever equal what he has done.There needs to be a deterrent, I know the current law has stopped me from even having a beer and driving, I don't risk it. It's a difficult one to solve, I agree with some f the arguments on both sides. But personally I don't risk having any alcohol before driving. It's not even about getting caught and getting your walking papers for a year, it's about killing someone and doing hard time for it, living with the guilt and it would ruin you totally. I love a good drink, but just make the old lady drive, lol

[fitzy]

Driving under the influence is a problem that kills. Every time there is fatality or serious injury due to someone being over .08 or showing signs of impairment there is always an outcry that maybe there should be an attempt to get those drunks before they get to that level. There are some that believe that any alcohol is too much to be allowed to drive. I think that the provincial legislation that allows for suspension and seizure of vehicle at .05 is a good compromise between no alcohol allowed and being legally impaired. There is nothing stopping one who has been suspended from getting his own blood level tested.

The argument that some who are at .05 are better drivers than those who do not drink is total BS. No matter how good a driver one is, alcohol does not make one better. I would attribute this argument to those who like to push the limit.

For many its the same argument they use to justify speeding.

[covey ridge]

You know that I don't drink and drive, and I seldom drink at all, so if their roadside machine tells them that I am .05 or over, there is definitely a problem with the machine. For that reason, I would want to prove myself innocent with a blood test. But if the person taking the blood purposely gets rough and hits a nerve, a completely innocent reaction might occur.:)

Yes, if you have had nothing to drink you should challenge the instrument. I suppose that could happen, but do you really think it happens all that often?

When asked if they have been drinking most will say something like "a couple beers several hours ago" or "just a glass of wine at supper."

I do not think many will say "yes officer, I got up this morning and poured one and have been drinking till now and I am going to the store for another 40 oz of rum" or "I lost track at a half dozen"

[elkhunter11]

The problem with drinking and driving is, by the time you are down to punishing the drunk driver, he's already wiped out a family. The damage is done. There is no punishment that will ever equal what he has done.There needs to be a deterrent, I know the current law has stopped me from even having a beer and driving, I don't risk it. It's a difficult one to solve, I agree with some f the arguments on both sides. But personally I don't risk having any alcohol before driving. It's not even about getting caught and getting your walking papers for a year, it's about killing someone and doing hard time for it, living with the guilt and it would ruin you totally. I love a good drink, but just make the old lady drive, lol

By the same token, by the time a murderer is punished, the damage is done. The same applies to many other crimes, but I am not willing to give up all of my rights in order to try and save one life. The anti gun people use the same argument to try and ban all private ownership of firearms. It doesn't matter what offense we are charged with, we should be entitled to our day in court. And if the law specifies that .05 should result in a license being suspended, and vehicles be towed and impounded for a specified time, then it should be up to the authorities to provide an accurate test that proves that the driver was .05 or greater in a court of law. If they are going to tow and impound a vehicle before a trial, then reimburse the person for all related expenses if he is found not guilty. It's not like most people would spend the time going to court over the towing and impound fees, but a person should have that option.

[elkhunter11]

Yes, if you have had nothing to drink you should challenge the instrument. I suppose that could happen, but do you really think it happens all that often?

When asked if they have been drinking most will say something like "a couple beers several hours ago" or "just a glass of wine at supper."

I do not think many will say "yes officer, I got up this morning and poured one and have been drinking till now and I am going to the store for another 40 oz of rum" or "I lost track at a half dozen"

If you look at the link that I posted, the roadside machines are not as accurate as many people think, which is likely why the courts don't rely on those machines to lay criminal charges for driving while impaired.
And I could care less how often a machine provides an incorrect reading, if am the one whose license is suspended, and whose vehicle is impounded, because of an error. Innocent people aren't found guilty of murder very often, but if you were Donald Marshall or David Milgaard, you would definitely be upset that it does happen.

[covey ridge]

By the same token, by the time a murderer is punished, the damage is done. The same applies to many other crimes, but I am not willing to give up all of my rights in order to try and save one life. The anti gun people use the same argument to try and ban all private ownership of firearms. It doesn't matter what offense we are charged with, we should be entitled to our day in court. And if the law specifies that .05 should result in a license being suspended, and vehicles be towed and impounded for a specified time, then it should be up to the authorities to provide an accurate test that proves that the driver was .05 or greater in a court of law. If they are going to tow and impound a vehicle before a trial, then reimburse the person for all related expenses if he is found not guilty. It's not like most people would spend the time going to court over the towing and impound fees, but a person should have that option.

I am sure that if you had a test done to prove that you had no alcohol or insignificant alcohol in your system, your vehicle would be returned without impound fees being required. It happens, but not that often.

[roper1]

Yeah totally. Couple beers to relax and unwind makes driving so much more pleasant until you're singing along to the radio and run over a kid.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a beer @ lunch might put the wrong person over, I don't personally know anyone who .05 has them drunk enough to sing. As far as running over pedestrians, I believe sober people do it more.

FTR I don't drink & drive, but I've seen some very poor drivers that don't either.

[roper1]

The argument that some who are at .05 are better drivers than those who do not drink is total BS. No matter how good a driver one is, alcohol does not make one better. I would attribute this argument to those who like to push the limit.

There are no posts here saying .05 makes you a better driver, only that some people @ .05 are actually better drivers than a different person who has drank nothing. Think our elderly & people from countries where they walk a lot.

[elkhunter11]

I am sure that if you had a test done to prove that you had no alcohol or insignificant alcohol in your system, your vehicle would be returned without impound fees being required. It happens, but not that often.

How sure are you about that? Even if was to get in a cab, go to the hospital and ask for a blood test, it might be hours before I could be seen, and even if I was seen right away, and a sample was taken that proved that I was innocent, what legal recourse would I have to recover the cost of the tow, and the impound fees? That is why they are making laws like this, the government knows that we have no way to dispute the charges.

[sns2]

If you can afford to drink, you can afford to take a cab. It's really that simple. Vehicles are missiles. The rest is semantics.

[covey ridge]

How sure are you about that? Even if was to get in a cab, go to the hospital and ask for a blood test, it might be hours before I could be seen, and even if I was seen right away, and a sample was taken that proved that I was innocent, what legal recourse would I have to recover the cost of the tow, and the impound fees? That is why they are making laws like this, the government knows that we have no way to dispute the charges.

If you question the accuracy of the screening test the procedure is to arrange for a regular authorized breath test that is authorized for court purposes. I think it said that in the link you provided? Now if you demand a blood test, it is up to you to arrange that.

I do not know what RCMP procedure is but I can tell you that Calgary Police do the screen and depending on the reading you may be required to take a further test. That further test may concluded that one is over .08 and should be charged or may support your claim that you have not consumed enough to be suspended. Most people who read at least .05 know how much they have had to drink and are willing to comply.

In case you are wondering, one is compelled by law to provide a sample or as many samples that are necessary to determine the amount of alcohol if any that is in the blood.

I agree that no matter which test is being conducted, the equipment need to be maintained and accurate.

I think that the object of all this is an attempt by the Provincial government so prevent further deaths due to impaired driving and not to impose a police state.

From your link:

Bond has pointed out several times that since the law came into effect last September, there has been a 40 per cent reduction in impaired driving deaths, or about 45 lives saved.

[covey ridge]

There are no posts here saying .05 makes you a better driver, only that some people @ .05 are actually better drivers than a different person who has drank nothing. Think our elderly & people from countries where they walk a lot.

So your argument is that some people can handle their booze and some can not and those that can, the law does not apply?

When you get one that blows over a certain amount, how do you know if that person is one that can handle it?

[elkhunter11]

If you question the accuracy of the screening test the procedure is to arrange for a regular authorized breath test that is authorized for court purposes. I think it said that in the link you provided? Now if you demand a blood test, it is up to you to arrange that.

I do not know what RCMP procedure is but I can tell you that Calgary Police do the screen and depending on the reading you may be required to take a further test. That further test may concluded that one is over .08 and should be charged or may support your claim that you have not consumed enough to be suspended. Most people who read at least .05 know how much they have had to drink and are willing to comply.

In case you are wondering, one is compelled by law to provide a sample or as many samples that are necessary to determine the amount of alcohol if any that is in the blood.

I agree that no matter which test is being conducted, the equipment need to be maintained and accurate.

I think that the object of all this is an attempt by the Provincial government so prevent further deaths due to impaired driving and not to impose a police state.

From your link:

Bond has pointed out several times that since the law came into effect last September, there has been a 40 per cent reduction in impaired driving deaths, or about 45 lives saved.

And by the time that I arranged a blood test, The vehicle is towed and impounded, and my license is suspended, whether I am guilty or not. And by the time a blood test is arranged and taken, the elapsed time would make the results worthless in court, even if I was able to challenge this in court, which I am not. That is exactly how this type of law is designed to work. It simply bypasses a persons right to be tried and convicted before sentence is passed,to make things easier and cheaper for the government. In this case sentence being the financial cost of the tow and impound fees. As for the stats, if they are from a government source, they will indicate whatever the government wants them to indicate.

[covey ridge]

FTR I don't drink & drive, but I've seen some very poor drivers that don't either.

^^^^^That is a matter for a different discussion. Alcohol is not the cause of all fatal accidents, but alcohol is determined to be a factor in an unusually high amount of vehicle accident causing death.

[fordtruckin]

Are you going to tell us that every single person accused of impaired driving is guilty? Are you going to tell us that the portable roadside test equipment is always in perfect calibration, and never fails to operate properly? If that is the case, why are people accused of .08 taken in for further testing, and not charged with a criminal offense based solely on the roadside test equipment? Some people have the idea that because the penalty is less, you aren't entitled to a trial, yet you are given a trial for minor offenses like exceeding the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.


I will tell you that .08 is an arbitrary number and just because your below .08 does not mean your not impaired and good to drive. I will also say that PBTs used on the side of the road are regularly calibrated, ours were done monthly, and they help solidify probable cause for an arrest however the unit used back at a jail or station is more complex and detailed providing a much more accurate reading.

But then that’s only what I’ve experienced in training and seen first hand in 4 years of law enforcement. What do I know. I’m just amazed so many people defend drinking and driving when it is responsible for more accidents and fatalities then firearms...

[elkhunter11]

I will tell you that .08 is an arbitrary number and just because your below .08 does not mean your not impaired and good to drive. I will also say that PBTs used on the side of the road are regularly calibrated, ours were done monthly, and they help solidify probable cause for an arrest however the unit used back at a jail or station is more complex and detailed providing a much more accurate reading.

But then that’s only what I’ve experienced in training and seen first hand in 4 years of law enforcement. What do I know. I’m just amazed so many people defend drinking and driving when it is responsible for more accidents and fatalities then firearms...

Nobody here is defending drinking and driving, rather we are protesting the fact that people are being pronounced guilty and punished without the right to a trial. As for your units located at the police station, I agree that they are probably much more accurate, but here in Alberta, we don't have the option of being taken to the station to be tested on more accurate equipment. People are being suspended and their vehicles are being impounded based on the reading of the local roadside unit, which in the case of the study done in B.C. are not accurate. I doubt that these types of laws where people are being denied a trial would go over well in the USA, where you work.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lawyer-questions-accuracy-of-b-c-breathalyzers-1.745362

[vcmm]

I'm 100% against drunk driving. I'm also against giving up anymore of my freedoms. Let's make it fair not a cash cow. Innocent until 100% proven guilty.
Wait until these kind of rules spread into more of your life. What is the point of a legal/justice system then. Let's let the police decide it all.:thinking-006:

[fordtruckin]

I will gladly provide a blood sample if their machine tells them that I am .05 or over at a check stop, but I am not about to allow a police officer to take blood at a checkstop. If blood is to be taken, it should be in a clean facility, by people that are properly trained to take blood.

Your joking right or are you really so asinine to think that’s how a blood draw works. A random officer on the side of the road drawing blood Bahaha I’m definitely going take legal advice from you.....if you want a blood draw an officer will more then happily take you to a medical facility where clean sanitary blood draw kit is already provided and will be filled by a forensic phlebotomist signed sealed and sent off to a crime lab. The whole time maintaining chain of custody. Oh and remember the average male burns alcohol at a rate of .015 an hour so you’ll be going down the whole time.

[elkhunter11]

Your joking right or are you really so asinine to think that’s how a blood draw works. A random officer on the side of the road drawing blood Bahaha I’m definitely going take legal advice from you.....if you want a blood draw an officer will more then happily take you to a medical facility where clean sanitary blood draw kit is already provided and will be filled by a forensic phlebotomist signed sealed and sent off to a crime lab. The whole time maintaining chain of custody. Oh and remember the average male burns alcohol at a rate of .015 an hour so you’ll be going down the whole time.

Is your reading comprehension so limited that you completely overlooked the fact that I was responding to another poster that suggested police officers taking blood samples at roadside check stops?:rolleye2:

So perhaps you should direct your response to that poster instead?

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one. Our court systems are filled to overflowing with drunk driving cases that often get off on technicalities as has been stated. I read somewhere that close to 40% of the cases in court are drunk driving related. You are all for cutting gov't costs, and I know you are not in favor of drunks being behind a wheel. Give the cops breathalyzers and road side blood sample kits, and make the blood sample be mandatory if the person blows over .05. I will gladly give blood if I blow over .05.

[fordtruckin]

Nobody here is defending drinking and driving, rather we are protesting the fact that people are being pronounced guilty and punished without the right to a trial. As for your units located at the police station, I agree that they are probably much more accurate, but here in Alberta, we don't have the option of being taken to the station to be tested on more accurate equipment. People are being suspended and their vehicles are being impounded based on the reading of the local roadside unit, which in the case of the study done in B.C. are not accurate. I doubt that these types of laws where people are being denied a trial would go over well in the USA, where you work.

Who did the study in BC? Because as you mentioned about government studies whoever does the study gets the results to say what they want. And all your .05 and .08 arguing is defending drinking and driving because the only way to get to .05 is to drink alcohol. As I said .08 is arbitrary and just because your above or below it doesn’t necessarily mean your impaired. Except that the government has said per say above .08 they deem that impairment.

The problem with people who drink and drive, no matter how little is they have the mentality of it won’t happen to me. I’m better then that more capable not as susceptible. Tell that to the soccer mom whose van you just hit...

[elkhunter11]

Who did the study in BC? Because as you mentioned about government studies whoever does the study gets the results to say what they want. And all your .05 and .08 arguing is defending drinking and driving because the only way to get to .05 is to drink alcohol. As I said .08 is arbitrary and just because your above or below it doesn’t necessarily mean your impaired. Except that the government has said per say above .08 they deem that impairment.

The point is that the government chose .08 and .05 for numbers, so those are the numbers that they are enforcing. So if they are assessing suspensions and impounding vehicles based n those readings, they need accurate readings, that they can rove in court. In any case, you should have the right to a trial , and not just e sentenced base n an officer taking a reading with a roadside unit.

As to having to drink alcohol to produce a reading of .05, how do yu explain this taken from the link that I posted?

"When tested, the machine showed a reading of 32 (milligrams of alcohol)," said Doroshenko, referring to an RCMP Kamloops note to Davtech, the Ottawa firm that fixes the machine.

"The second test after calibration showed a reading of 172."

"The highest I think we saw, there was one unit from Abbotsford that just issued a fail when the officer tested it for basic functionality at the beginning and then they said 'retired unit'," Doroshenko said.

"He hadn't been drinking at all. It just gave a fail."

And take notice, that this information came from RCMP notes to the company that fixes the machines

[covey ridge]

And by the time that I arranged a blood test, The vehicle is towed and impounded, and my license is suspended, whether I am guilty or not. And by the time a blood test is arranged and taken, the elapsed time would make the results worthless in court, even if I was able to challenge this in court, which I am not. That is exactly how this type of law is designed to work. It simply bypasses a persons right to be tried and convicted before sentence is passed,to make things easier and cheaper for the government. In this case sentence being the financial cost of the tow and impound fees. As for the stats, if they are from a government source, they will indicate whatever the government wants them to indicate.

If you don't trust the screening test ask for the regular test on an authorized instrument that has to be proven every time in court. If you don't trust that you must be one of the ones that the state is out to get. If things get that bad then the state would probably arrange for the blood test to be fixed as well.

The stats from the government source is from the link you provided. In future when you post a link, tell us which parts we should buy into or not:thinking-006:

No one is asking as you say to give up all of your rights to save a single life but death due to drinking is big. I think that willingness to co-operate and a bit of compromise is not a violation of my rights and saving a single life is well worthwhile.

If I was accused with no booze in my system I would retain a lawyer. Sometime innocent people have to hire lawyers. That is the way the system works. I can not understand someone who lives in this country who is always suspicious that the state is out to get them:thinking-006:

[Twist]

The main issues I have with this law is that the federal law is .08. If AB wants to penalize drivers for operating a vehicle over .05, they should rally to have the federal law change and lower the BAC to .05.

I'm most opposed to AB's policy due to the fact you have no chance to defend yourself - you will be punished, whether you are guilty or not, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Well put. This is the crux of my argument against it as well.

[covey ridge]

Nobody here is defending drinking and driving, rather we are protesting the fact that people are being pronounced guilty and punished without the right to a trial. As for your units located at the police station, I agree that they are probably much more accurate, but here in Alberta, we don't have the option of being taken to the station to be tested on more accurate equipment. People are being suspended and their vehicles are being impounded based on the reading of the local roadside unit, which in the case of the study done in B.C. are not accurate. I doubt that these types of laws where people are being denied a trial would go over well in the USA, where you work.


In Alberta you do have the option of being taken to where an authorized instrument is used. Most often that involves being walked to a very large van where an authorized tech has the equipment to do the court authorized test.

[coastalhunter]

Easy to see who is probably all for the LGR "if it just saves one life"

[vcmm]

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiCnIPox7LYAhVDxmMKHR8QA5oQFggyMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FHealth%2Fmysteri ous-syndrome-people-drunk-drinking%2Fstory%3Fid%3D36033416&usg=AOvVaw2QSAyjr807oqeBVgvS_0sX

[Twist]

Easy to see who is probably all for the LGR "if it just saves one life"

Yup.

Or just outright confiscation of firearms.

Or any property for that matter.

We don't sterilize welfare leeches who have 8 kids to get their dope money. The stats are in there. Those kids will likely hit the justice system. The family court system.

What about saving their life?

This just get ridiculous.

[58thecat]

This is still going eh....:sHa_shakeshout:

[C2C3PO]

Just so everyone is clear here, there are only but a few instances where blood would be drawn to satisfy the requirement for blood alcohol readings.

Those instances are typically where a suspect has been involved in a injury collision and is unable to provide consent ( unconscious) or unable to provide a breath test ( injury). The officer is still required to obtain a blood warrant as it is seen by the courts as a last/final solution since they deem it to be an incredibly invasive ( and rightfully so) method of gathering evidence.
You don't have the "right" to request a blood test just because you want one.
While ideally it would be great if you could the realities around the logistics of taking the blood samples is daunting.

I have personally had doctors refuse to take the samples even with a blood warrant because they do not want to be involved in court proceedings (testifying) down the road. Then there is the incredible backlog of tests waiting to be done on evidence sent to the RCMP labs......
These are but a few challenges police face when collecting this type of evidence.

[elkhunter11]

In Alberta you do have the option of being taken to where an authorized instrument is used. Most often that involves being walked to a very large van where an authorized tech has the equipment to do the court authorized test.

So is that option available for ever person who blows .05 , no matter where you are in Alberta, either urban or rural?

[oldgutpile]

Like I said you make a choice and then live with it, really simple stupid but we push the limits every time and when the police do the thinking for us they are the ones who are blamed for our bad decisions...always surrounded with excuses.

Yes faulty equipment, yes a mistake made, yes, yes, yes, but and yes the dreaded but and think real hard about this as I know the facts if we could dig that up would lean way over to the fact that for every 10000 idiots pulled over breaking the law maybe one, yes one was partially innocent...I'll take the odds to keep law and order to,our streets because if not the streets would run amuck with common folk being overwhelmed by criminals...think about it, hard.

:scared0015:

You go on a rant about your own opinions. I was trying to make the point that .05 is NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as being impaired.
If you want to push for zero alcohol, go for it. My statement was that .05 was established as a vote gathering tool. The majority of places in the world recognize .08. I have a problem with the province jumping on the .05 issue, when it has not been proven that .05 is a state of impairment. A very long-established guideline.
This is a police state issue. If you want to continue going on about .05 drivers going out and running over a little kid. coulda, woulda, shoulda!!
When we roll-over to this type of beuracracy, we are opening the gates for more stupid laws to be introduced.
WHAT?!! There are people living here with guns? But what about the children?
Go on. Roll over and take it some more.

[58thecat]

The police face challenges everyday, every shift, funny though how it is the crooks, criminals, people caught breaking the laws that keep the police busy and constantly facing challenges to do what is only right. Amazing.
Have another for the road and see how that works out for ya:snapoutofit:

[fordtruckin]

You go on a rant about your own opinions. I was trying to make the point that .05 is NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as being impaired.
If you want to push for zero alcohol, go for it. My statement was that .05 was established as a vote gathering tool. The majority of places in the world recognize .08. I have a problem with the province jumping on the .05 issue, when it has not been proven that .05 is a state of impairment. A very long-established guideline.
This is a police state issue. If you want to continue going on about .05 drivers going out and running over a little kid. coulda, woulda, shoulda!!
When we roll-over to this type of beuracracy, we are opening the gates for more stupid laws to be introduced.
WHAT?!! There are people living here with guns? But what about the children?
Go on. Roll over and take it some more.

Care to provide some proof for that statement because a quick google search shows that you are wrong.

More countries use .05 BAC as a limit for Impaired driving than .08 BAC. Add in to those that use LESS than .05 BAC and out of 82 countries on the chart including some of the heaviest drinking countries in the world, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Germany etc.. 59 have .05 BAC or LOWER. I even left out those 5 countries where ANY alcohol is illegal.

Oh and I have something to reference.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/blood-alcohol-limits-worldwide/


Oh and here is a study by Austrians lowering the limit from .08 BAC to .05 BAC and its correlation to a reduction in accidents.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/lowering-bac-austria-reduces-alcohol-related-crashes/

Well back to my tinfoil hat and government conspiracies.... :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[Little Valy]

If you can afford to drink, you can afford to take a cab. It's really that simple. Vehicles are missiles. The rest is semantics.

I was just about to post this exact thing
If you're at a bar,pub,restaurant or any place they serve alcohol chances are you are with other people in your group.If they all had something to drink split cab fare,probably cheaper than another round of drinks

[vcmm]

Care to provide some proof for that statement because a quick google search shows that you are wrong.

More countries use .05 BAC as a limit for Impaired driving than .08 BAC. Add in to those that use LESS than .05 BAC and out of 82 countries on the chart including some of the heaviest drinking countries in the world, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Germany etc.. 59 have .05 BAC or LOWER. I even left out those 5 countries where ANY alcohol is illegal.

Oh and I have something to reference.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/blood-alcohol-limits-worldwide/


Oh and here is a study by Austrians lowering the limit from .08 BAC to .05 BAC and its correlation to a reduction in accidents.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/lowering-bac-austria-reduces-alcohol-related-crashes/

Well back to my tinfoil hat and government conspiracies.... :sHa_sarcasticlol:


Is DSA a private non for profit Corporation?

[fordtruckin]

Is DSA a private non for profit Corporation?

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/sites/default/files/PDF_en/bac-research_2002.pdf

[vcmm]

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/sites/default/files/PDF_en/bac-research_2002.pdf

Good Try . What I do is non of your business. Nice cheap shot at elk:snapoutofit:

[Jamie]

This all needs to change. Whats the next Federal law they will see fit to change?
.05 is not the law.. .08 is...
We need a change in all this. I always assumed we were innocent until proven guilty. 10 guilty people going fee is better than one innocent being convicted.

This all MUST change and we need the Feds to support us and take ownership of the laws.

Jamie

[elkhunter11]

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/sites/default/files/PDF_en/bac-research_2002.pdf

I never once argued against the .05 limit, my concern is losing the right to a trial before being pronounced guilty. But then again you are easily confused , as was proven by your asinine assumption that I was suggesting that the police take roadside blood samples.:)

By the way, how do you feel about the accused having the right to a trial?

[Big Lou]

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

[elkhunter11]

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

And yet some people are fine with not having the right to a trial.:rolleye2:

[does it ALL outdoors]

Like I mentioned earlier, I know a few scumbags that were guilty and hired a scumbag lawyer that combed over everything, twisted everything to the point the court handed down a lesser sentence, looser forked out 10K to the scumbag lawyer and moved on, guilty as hell.

Police are going to police, for the most part protect us from many bad decisions that we common folk tend to make everyday, just some really cross the line and then in comes the police to put things back into prospective...someone has to do the thinking for stupid!

Here is a story for you.

Have a friend that was getting something out of his girlfriends SUV last winter and as he was digging around in the hatch when a passing cop decided to see what he was up to. He explained he was getting something out of the back and long story short, was charged with impaired. It didn't matter to the cop that it was bone chilling cold out and if he was going to drive it likely would of been warming it up, but the keys were in his pocket and that's all the cop cared about.

He needed his DL for work and was relieved of his job because he dosent get his DL back until its resolved in court, he is still waiting for his day in court.

If the new law wasn't in place he would of got to keep his licence and job until his court date.

He is being punished for something he did not do BEFORE he has the right to a fair trial, and that is not ok.

It's not allways cut and dry

[elk396]

By the same token, by the time a murderer is punished, the damage is done. The same applies to many other crimes, but I am not willing to give up all of my rights in order to try and save one life. The anti gun people use the same argument to try and ban all private ownership of firearms. It doesn't matter what offense we are charged with, we should be entitled to our day in court. And if the law specifies that .05 should result in a license being suspended, and vehicles be towed and impounded for a specified time, then it should be up to the authorities to provide an accurate test that proves that the driver was .05 or greater in a court of law. If they are going to tow and impound a vehicle before a trial, then reimburse the person for all related expenses if he is found not guilty. It's not like most people would spend the time going to court over the towing and impound fees, but a person should have that option.

thats a fair argument.

[Talking moose]

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

Agreed.

[260 Rem]

Would be nice if the “right to trial” included the obligation to pay for all the costs associated with the trial if found guilty.

[fordtruckin]

Good Try . What I do is non of your business. Nice cheap shot at elk:snapoutofit:

I call it like I see it. Best part is I know I’m not alone in thinking this, I just happened to be the one to say it.


Personally I don’t care what you do. I couldn’t give 2 squirts if you were here today and gone tomorrow. If you get loaded and decide to drive the more power to you super chief but if you hurt or kill someone else because of your arrogance I do care about that and will help however I can to crucify you.

[Wolftrapper]

Here is a story for you.

Have a friend that was getting something out of his girlfriends SUV last winter and as he was digging around in the hatch when a passing cop decided to see what he was up to. He explained he was getting something out of the back and long story short, was charged with impaired. It didn't matter to the cop that it was bone chilling cold out and if he was going to drive it likely would of been warming it up, but the keys were in his pocket and that's all the cop cared about.

He needed his DL for work and was relieved of his job because he dosent get his DL back until its resolved in court, he is still waiting for his day in court.

If the new law wasn't in place he would of got to keep his licence and job until his court date.

He is being punished for something he did not do BEFORE he has the right to a fair trial, and that is not ok.

It's not allways cut and dry

Interesting story indeed.

[fordtruckin]

I never once argued against the .05 limit, my concern is losing the right to a trial before being pronounced guilty. But then again you are easily confused , as was proven by your asinine assumption that I was suggesting that the police take roadside blood samples.:)

By the way, how do you feel about the accused having the right to a trial?

I’m sorry what were we talking about again? I got confused ..... meh waste of time posting replies to you anyhow, I could say the sky is blue grass is green the sun is yellow and you’d find some way to disagree. Personally it’s a slow day and getting your knickers in a knot is the best entertainment option I have. Ooooh squirrel.... wait what were we talking about again?

[Talking moose]

Would be nice if the “right to trial” included the obligation to pay for all the costs associated with the trial if found guilty.

And if found not guilty, should the person who charged him be held accountable for associated costs? (Loss of work, towing, impound....etc.)

[260 Rem]

And if found not guilty, should the person who charged him be held accountable for associated costs? (Loss of work, towing, impound....etc.)
Yes, that would be “the crown” so funds would come out of our tax dollars. The employee of the crown is not held personally liable unless negligence or wrong doing can be proven. But, of course if the funds collected from the guilty were used to pay for the “not guilty” ... pretty good chance no tax dollars would ever be needed.

[vcmm]

I call it like I see it. Best part is I know I’m not alone in thinking this, I just happened to be the one to say it.


Personally I don’t care what you do. I couldn’t give 2 squirts if you were here today and gone tomorrow. If you get loaded and decide to drive the more power to you super chief but if you hurt or kill someone else because of your arrogance I do care about that and will help however I can to crucify you.

Boy you sure like to call other folks names. Pretty childish.

[covey ridge]

So is that option available for ever person who blows .05 , no matter where you are in Alberta, either urban or rural?
Yes

[sns2]

Would be nice if the “right to trial” included the obligation to pay for all the costs associated with the trial if found guilty.

Yes and yes and yes again.

[covey ridge]

Just so everyone is clear here, there are only but a few instances where blood would be drawn to satisfy the requirement for blood alcohol readings.

Those instances are typically where a suspect has been involved in a injury collision and is unable to provide consent ( unconscious) or unable to provide a breath test ( injury). The officer is still required to obtain a blood warrant as it is seen by the courts as a last/final solution since they deem it to be an incredibly invasive ( and rightfully so) method of gathering evidence.
You don't have the "right" to request a blood test just because you want one.
While ideally it would be great if you could the realities around the logistics of taking the blood samples is daunting.

I have personally had doctors refuse to take the samples even with a blood warrant because they do not want to be involved in court proceedings (testifying) down the road. Then there is the incredible backlog of tests waiting to be done on evidence sent to the RCMP labs......
These are but a few challenges police face when collecting this type of evidence.

In addition to a warrant being required to draw blood the person drawing the blood has to do so without using an alcohol based product for sterilizing the draw site.

[sns2]

One of the things I find really annoying about these conversations is that whenever anyone argues in favor of a law, the crows come out and start accusing people of being in favor of taking our guns away. If that is you, grow up.

[covey ridge]

Yes and yes and yes again.

On he surface that would seem to be right but fear of not being able to pay would infringe on that right. The right to a trial is not just for those who can afford to loose.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I was under the impression they were going to crack down even further on impaired driving. Manditory jail time should be the new incentive not be an idiot. It looks like the fun is just beginning depending on how they go about driving while high on pot. The legal cut off limit is going to be so low a person could test positive up to twelve hours or more after smoking even half a spliff. Should get interesting. Theoretically speaking, if a person does any strenuous activity such as jogging many hours after smoking even days depending on many factors and has to do a drug test that person could test positive or possibly way over the limit. Lots of trouble looming in coming months.

[fordtruckin]

Boy you sure like to call other folks names. Pretty childish.


Sorry did I hurt your feelings because I said I don’t give a rip about you unless you hurt or kill someone? Yep still don’t care. But your right about the name calling thing....Superchief... will go down in history as the biggest AO name calling slam in history... I’d love to stay and chat but I gotta go, mommy’s calling me for dinner. She made my favorite grill cheese with the crusts cut off.

[covey ridge]

Drunk driving is indefensible, and I am happy with infringing on the rights of people who blow over .05.

I would rather infringe on the so called rights of those who blow over .05 than allow the guy that blew .05 infringe on some else's right to life.

The law in this case allows the Police to take certain action without trial.

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I'm against impaired driving but with all these odd laws being put in place it does leave a lot of room for malicious human behaviour. Say you flipped that cop off days prior or how about the one law discussed where they can charge you for being impaired hours after you are in your residents. I'd like to think that our rcmp use wise judgement with the power they are granted but I have my doubts when it comes to human nature and personal opinions. They are being given to much authority in my opinion.

[elkhunter11]

I would rather infringe on the so called rights of those who blow over .05 than allow the guy that blew .05 infringe on some else's right to life.

The law in this case allows the Police to take certain action without trial.
Even if that .05 reading was in error and the correct reading was actually.03? That is the point of a trial, to establish the facts, rather than rely on unproven accusations. Countries where people are not allowed a trial are called police states, if you prefer that situation, you can always move to a police state, and let the government do whatever it chooses on your behalf.

[elkhunter11]

One of the things I find really annoying about these conversations is that whenever anyone argues in favor of a law, the crows come out and start accusing people of being in favor of taking our guns away. If that is you, grow up.

Let's not forget about the dodo birds that accuse anyone rhat doesn't agree with the law of supporting impaired driving.:rolleye2:

[sns2]

Let's not forget about the dodo birds that accuse anyone rhat doesn't agree with the law of supporting impaired driving.:rolleye2:They are two separate issues, Elk. There is an infraction category for derailing, and that is what it is. The OP started a thread about drunk driving, not firearm laws.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[elkhunter11]

They are two separate issues, Elk. There is an infraction category for derailing, and that is what it is. The OP started a thread about drunk driving, not firearm laws.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


So where does the post below fall?:thinking-006:

I’m sorry what were we talking about again? I got confused ..... meh waste of time posting replies to you anyhow, I could say the sky is blue grass is green the sun is yellow and you’d find some way to disagree. Personally it’s a slow day and getting your knickers in a knot is the best entertainment option I have. Ooooh squirrel.... wait what were we talking about again?

[kevinhits]

Pretty simple. If you drink don't drive.

I live in a town of 600 people. Closest police station is 10 mins away. -40 last night and we walked 2 blocks home from a party. There was probably no cops out . My wife was probably ok to drive but it's not an option. We left our house with toques and mitts for the walk home.

Why risk it though?

Same as speeding and failing to stop. If you break the law expect to be penalized. If you don't agree with the law then take steps to change it.


I have zero sympathy for anyone getting a DUI there's no excuse.

I wish all our parties were 2 blocks away in the city....It would always be a great walk home:)

[kevinhits]

Sorry, playing devil's advocate here again....Lets say one driver is going home, has a couple of drinks and between .05 and .08. Driver on the other side is distracted, had zero to drink and crosses the middle line and hits head on...Does the media classify this collision as "alcohol involved collision"?

[covey ridge]

Sorry, playing devil's advocate here again....Lets say one driver is going home, has a couple of drinks and between .05 and .08. Driver on the other side is distracted, had zero to drink and crosses the middle line and hits head on...Does the media classify this collision as "alcohol involved collision"?

They probably will. I know of a case where a drunk stopped for a stop sign and was rear ended by a sober guy. When the police arrived the drunk was very drunk and was charged with impaired and the other guy was charged with careless driving. The drunk pleaded guilty but the guy that rear ended him took his case to court claiming that the drunk was not a credible witness.

[kevinhits]

Interesting story indeed.

This is not the first story I have ever heard over my 45 years....What ****es me off is I could pull over on the side of the road and sleep it off...NO DRIVING...but have my god damn keys on me and get an impaired...That is some bull****....:angry3::angry3:

[kevinhits]

They probably will. I know of a case where a drunk stopped for a stop sign and was rear ended by a sober guy. When the police arrived the drunk was very drunk and was charged with impaired and the other guy was charged with careless driving. The drunk pleaded guilty but the guy that rear ended him took his case to court claiming that the drunk was not a credible witness.

I was talking about a head on collision and what the media reports...Yes, alcohol was involved, was under .08, but other sober driver was distracted and hit head on....Do you count that as an "alcohol involved accident"?

[Wolftrapper]

This is not the first story I have ever heard over my 45 years....What ****es me off is I could pull over on the side of the road and sleep it off...NO DRIVING...but have my god damn keys on me and get an impaired...That is some bull****....:angry3::angry3:

Why drive at all? You would have been driving drunk I presume in this scenario to pull off the road somewhere.
Life's tough.

[kevinhits]

Why drive at all? You would have been driving drunk I presume in this scenario to pull off the road somewhere.
Life's tough.

Maybe someone wants to do the right thing....Ever think of that scenario!!!

I was in that spot many years ago and I was smart enough not to continue on OH holy one....

EDIT: your an idiot!

[Talking moose]

Go to a bar. Get drunk. Go out to truck in parking lot and sleep it off with keys in your pocket. The charge? Care and control. Kinda stupid if you ask me.

[kevinhits]

Go to a bar. Get drunk. Go out to truck in parking lot and sleep it off with keys in your pocket. The charge? Care and control. Kinda stupid if you ask me.

x2 ....If you are going to change any laws for drinking and driving, this would be one to look at....

[Dewey Cox]

Worse yet, start the car so you don’t freeze to death, and go to sleep in the back seat.
I have done this, but thanks to the lack of rural policing I didn’t get arrested.
Funny, I don’t regret breaking that law.

[kevinhits]

Worse yet, start the car so you don’t freeze to death, and go to sleep in the back seat.
I have done this, but thanks to the lack of rural policing I didn’t get arrested.
Funny, I don’t regret breaking that law.

x2....I did the same but I had the command start so I could warm up and the truck would shut off after 15 minutes.

[Talking moose]

x2....I did the same but I had the command start so I could warm up and the truck would shut off after 15 minutes.

I’d suggest hiding the keys somewhere nearby and use command start. No keys no charge. Good idea for winter bar parking lot napping. Lol

[sns2]

I think everyone has had the opportunity to express themselves. All sides have been expressed. It has also generated complaints that are valid. Now is a good time to wind this one up before it gets away on us.