80 mg/l > 50 mg/l of EtOH

[micelli.i]

According to the most recent & available Statistics Canada, impaired driving has been decreasing steadily over the years. Here's the link.

Despite the notorious court backlogs, the Federal Minister of Justice wants to decrease the EtOH limit from 80 mg/ml to 50 mg/ml. Here's a link.

I watched a CP24 News interview this morning with a police officer. His experience is 2:1 or 3:1 in terms of drivers at RIDE being just under 80 mg/ml to those over (and criminally charged with impaired).

So, to recap: fewer ppl drink and drive AND our courts are backlogged with drinking/driving cases, yet our federal government wants to decrease the EtOH limit, so to catch more ppl?

Would I be wrong to conclude this is yet another cash grab? To the police officers on this site, what's your experience?

 

[Matt Rain]

Just don't drink and drive FFS. Plan your drinking around your driving and vice-versa. It's not that hard.

Zero sympathy. 80mg/100ml is a ****ton of alcohol for the average person.

Make the legal limit as low as possible and make the penalties even harsher. People still do not take the laws seriously.

 

[hedo2002]

Well back in my day on patrol, was before the .05, but thee were plenty over the .08, but we "usually" didn't lay a charge until they hit 1.0 so you had a "cushion" for the courts to see you weren't dinging them when there may have been a question. I would estimate that about 80% of those I dinged, were usually still on their way up, (first reading say 110, second reading 120).

I subscribe if your going for a full meal then A glass of wine or a single drink/beer is ok, (when I am in my cage), when on the bike it is simple ZERO consumption period, full stop.

BUT, as pointed out on the talk radio shows this morning rather hypocritical, for the Trudeau Government to want to reduce the BAC levels but are legalizing another intoxicant, (weed), at the same time.

 

[Evoex]

Well back in my day on patrol, was before the .05, but thee were plenty over the .08, but we "usually" didn't lay a charge until they hit 1.0 so you had a "cushion" for the courts to see you weren't dinging them when there may have been a question. I would estimate that about 80% of those I dinged, were usually still on their way up, (first reading say 110, second reading 120).

I subscribe if your going for a full meal then A glass of wine or a single drink/beer is ok, (when I am in my cage), when on the bike it is simple ZERO consumption period, full stop.

BUT, as pointed out on the talk radio shows this morning rather hypocritical, for the Trudeau Government to want to reduce the BAC levels but are legalizing another intoxicant, (weed), at the same time.

They are simply legalizing it to tax it. Think of it in those terms and its par for the course a la Liberal.

You are correct. I did some co-op stuff with TPS back in the day and one memorable night was a tag along to Traffic Divisions Ride Check @ 401/Dixon

Long story short they ended up charging a women who admitted to 3 glasses of wine at dinner, they took her car away and she had to wait out in the blizzard for a ride from Oakville. I think she blew double the limit or something close to it.

(Off topic) Later they pulled over a group of 4 in an SUV, of whom the driver had an open warrant for arrest for Murder from Albania! They detained them while ETF cleared the vehicle and RCMP decided if they were interested or not. I'll never forget these guys in leather jackets and ripped jeans being made to wait alongside the RIDE truck while the snow piled on their heads. In the end by the time the feds said they wanted to pick him up we had just lost sight of the tail lights down the highway. I believe the Sergeant happily told them to "go get him if you want him".

Good times.

 

[micelli.i]

I guess everyone missed my point. Drinking & driving offences are decreasing. Courts are backlogged. The Jordan decision made it clear that unless there's something out of the ordinary, 18 months is the cut off for summary offences (i.e. over 80) on a 11(b) application.

Yet our government is bent on decreasing the BAC from 0.08 to 0.05. Why? If they're so bent, why not just make any alcohol consumption and driving, unlawful? Why do a half a** job?

 

[Matt Rain]

80 mg/l > 50 mg/l of EtOH

[...] why not just make any alcohol consumption and driving, unlawful? Why do a half a** job?

Agreed. Apologies for getting riled up. A close relative is a multiple DUI offender so the whole topic is a sensitive one.

 

[GreyGhost]

why not just make any alcohol consumption and driving, unlawful? Why do a half a** job?

Because money. Can you imagine the plummeting revenue of restaurants and tax losses? I am not arguing for or against this idea, but it would cut the revenue of many restaurants in half.

Personally, I am all for an additional higher level (keep .08 and add .15 or so). If you get convicted of the higher level, mandatory 10 year license suspension, get caught driving during that time, spend the rest of the decade in jail. There is never any excuse for driving with that much booze in you. A lot of the DUI charges seem to be extreme DUI (and/or repeat DUI).

 

[micelli.i]

Because money. Can you imagine the plummeting revenue of restaurants and tax losses? I am not arguing for or against this idea, but it would cut the revenue of many restaurants in half.

Fair enough. Then why mess with something that is not broken? Like Hedo pointed out, weed will become legal next year, and that is hypocritical in itself given the tough stance on EtOH.

Living in Toronto, I have the "luxury" of public transportation. But for those who live in Aurora, Newmarket, etc., it's not going to be pretty once the new max. limit will come in effect.

 

[GreyGhost]

Fair enough. Then why mess with something that is not broken?

I am treating this announcement as more political pandering where politicians make changes so they can boast about how much they are helping and leaving a trail of unanticipated destruction in their wake. I think changing to .05 without some real backing is a stupid idea. Of course less BAC is better, but he didn't pick 0.05 by reviewing scientific studies (or heaven forbid actually conducting one), it was a number that was pulled out of someones *** as a nice round number to create laws around.

The changes regarding impaired driving to include drugs/sleep deprivation etc are an interesting process. Setting limits for each individual mechanism of impairment is not feasible. It actually may be better to go back to first principles and go back to the station and play a driving simulation with a few predefined scenarios in it. If you can pass the driving test, you don't get the ticket (but maybe they can still issue a 12 hour suspension as something you did alerted police to you?). If you fail the test, you were impaired (or suck too much to be able to drive) and you get the ticket (or maybe a requirement to retake the G2 exit test?). At the beginning, a chain between 2 trees was used for speed enforcement. The chain would be pulled tight and if you stopped before you hit it you were good to go. If you hit the chain, you were guilty of speeding.

 

[iFly55]

The only problem I have with zero tolerance laws, are people who get dinged with 0.01 BAC after they responsibly try to sleep it off.

 

[PrivatePilot]

The fact that weed will be legal is irrelvant IMHO - there are still going to be limits on ones level of usage before you're not legal anymore, same as booze.

My question about the 0.05 vs 0.08 change is if it's statistically measureable - is there science proving that there's a big enough difference to bother?

Don't take this as being a personal endorsement for DUI - to the contrary I'm very much against such, but I always question things from a science based standpoint.

And like others, when in the cage I'll have a single beer with dinner, but on the scoot - it's nada, none, zero.

 

[Blackfin]

BUT, as pointed out on the talk radio shows this morning rather hypocritical, for the Trudeau Government to want to reduce the BAC levels but are legalizing another intoxicant, (weed), at the same time.

These two issues are not related in the way you're implying.

Hypocritical is a guy being busted and convicted of possessing and/or smoking a joint and after court proceedings, the cop enjoying a beer with his buddies while watching a Jays game and the judge a snifter of brandy in his chambers or a fine Merlot over dinner after a long day of convicting others.

Getting behind the wheel while under the influence (of alcohol, prescription medication, pot etc) is a separate issue from the intoxicants themselves.

 

[nobbie48]

I guess everyone missed my point. Drinking & driving offences are decreasing. Courts are backlogged. The Jordan decision made it clear that unless there's something out of the ordinary, 18 months is the cut off for summary offences (i.e. over 80) on a 11(b) application.

Yet our government is bent on decreasing the BAC from 0.08 to 0.05. Why? If they're so bent, why not just make any alcohol consumption and driving, unlawful? Why do a half a** job?

I can't cite the source but recall some stats that indicated regular observation led to more DUI arrests than ride checks.

As far as the new law talk I can't help but wonder of Justin is floating another trial balloon to see which way the wind is blowing. Going with the common consensus is easier than actually leading the country.

Re the restaurants, 20+ years ago when they beefed up the laws we had our usual Christmas (Seasonal) Dinner at a decent local eatery and the staff was all over us trying to get us to drink up. We're all saying no licence - no job.

 

[fastar1]

My question about the 0.05 vs 0.08 change is if it's statistically measureable - is there science proving that there's a big enough difference to bother?

Who needs evidence when we already know the courts are clogged and weed is about to be legalized? That's everything we need to know to scream "cash grab" and "hypocrisy". Unless you can think of more tangential 'evidence' to fit the predetermined conclusion, of course.

CASH GRAB!

HYPOCRISY!

 

[PrivatePilot]

I can'tAs far as the new law talk I can't help but wonder of Justin is floating another trial balloon to see which way the wind is blowing. Going with the common consensus is easier than actually leading the country

Yeah, it's terrible when leaders actually ask the people they're working for what they'd like versus just making unilateral declarations based on their own beliefs and opinions.

 

[statsman]

I doubt this is a tax or rather a fine grab on the part of the government.
One need only look at the poor way our governments handle the money they already get.
This is more likely a PR stunt to show how seriously the government approaches this problem.
As pointed out, the problem itself is already diminishing.
The federal Liberals are constantly floating these trial balloons with the public.
If the voters like the idea, the Libs will do it as there are votes in it.
If the public hates the idea, it vanishes.

 

[nobbie48]

Yeah, it's terrible when leaders actually ask the people they're working for what they'd like versus just making unilateral declarations based on their own beliefs and opinions.

What most people would like is unlimited credit. What they need is restraint.

People are generally stupid.

 

[robmack]

Reducing the limit will nab more innocent people and not necessarily reduce drinking-related accidents. Case in point. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most restrictive drinking and driving laws on the books (0.02%). One pint of beer consumed in an evening will put most women and could put many men over the legal limit (depends on a lot of factors). Authorities found that the measurement equipment has significant errors at the level they are testing. Some people have a natural alcohol level high enough to blow over the limit without ever having consumed a drop of alcohol. They even found that the fumes resulting from using windshield wiper fluid, if inhaled by the driver even within the compartment, can trigger the equipment and falsely implicate the driver.

 

[hedo2002]

Reducing the limit will nab more innocent people and not necessarily reduce drinking-related accidents. Case in point. The Scandinavian countries have some of the most restrictive drinking and driving laws on the books (0.02%). One pint of beer consumed in an evening will put most women and could put many men over the legal limit (depends on a lot of factors). Authorities found that the measurement equipment has significant errors at the level they are testing. Some people have a natural alcohol level high enough to blow over the limit without ever having consumed a drop of alcohol. They even found that the fumes resulting from using windshield wiper fluid, if inhaled by the driver even within the compartment, can trigger the equipment and falsely implicate the driver.

Please post up the studies, not peoples opinions, on your comments about the Scandinavian countries, particularly the one on second hand wiper fluid vapors, especially given that here in Canada, the vast majority of breath tests are conducted at the station, involving travel times from the scene of the arrest to the station and the fact that two readings must be taken at least 15 minutes between tests. That would have to be some pretty potent wiper fluid..lmao
P

 

[robmack]

Tests are performed on-site not back at the station. I don't have published studies or references for you. The wiper fluid story was anecdotal, told to me when I was living in Oslo by friends. Norwegians I spoke with were understandably upset at the time limits dropped, as the law exceeded the capabilities of the equipment that enforced the law. There were chemicals that biased the sensors in the roadside equipment, leading to false positives. Innocent people were caught up just as guilty people. This was some time ago and must probably breathalyzers are much better now.

The tolerance for drunk driving there is zero. In 2010, there was a man who operated a riding mower while allegedly drunk. The incident happened on a school property. He was found guilty of drunk driving, lost his license and fined NKr 50,000 (CA$10,000).