Between .05 and .08 fines

[sns2]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by sns2

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

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]

Originally Posted by sns2

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by gtr

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

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

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]

Originally Posted by roper1

.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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by elk396

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]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by fitzy

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]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

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]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by roper1

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]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

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]

Originally Posted by roper1

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]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

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-questi...yzers-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.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

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]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

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?

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.