80 mg/l > 50 mg/l of EtOH

[hedo2002]

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).

Yes well, I assume our breathalyzers when first introduced weren't as accurate as today's. Now in Denmark they may very well do roadside screening same as we do here. However, here if you fail a roadside screening device, (The reading is over .08, current standard), then you either provide a breath sample to a breathalyzer with a trained breath tech, either on a breathalyzer in a RIDE van, or you are transported to the station, (more common that ride spot checks).

Now there is no talk of lowering the limit here to .02, so not an equal comparison. As for the person on a riding mower, that is an equal comparison. If someone here were operating a riding mower, etc on public property, here then they too would be arrested and charged with impaired operation.

After having seen, and had to deal with the devastating results of impaired driving, I have no issue with lowering the limit. I have arrested people who blew .09, yet could barely stand, as well as one fellow who blew .286 and .295, and I wasn't convinced as I transported him for the test if he would fail or pass.

Another misconception is the "natural alcohol" causing people to record a low reading. This is a myth. I have witnessed hundreds of people register a .00. The only people who will register a detectable reading, are those who have consumed the night before, or an alcoholic whose BAC is always present.

 

[nobbie48]

Yes well, I assume our breathalyzers when first introduced weren't as accurate as today's. Now in Denmark they may very well do roadside screening same as we do here. However, here if you fail a roadside screening device, (The reading is over .08, current standard), then you either provide a breath sample to a breathalyzer with a trained breath tech, either on a breathalyzer in a RIDE van, or you are transported to the station, (more common that ride spot checks).

Now there is no talk of lowering the limit here to .02, so not an equal comparison. As for the person on a riding mower, that is an equal comparison. If someone here were operating a riding mower, etc on public property, here then they too would be arrested and charged with impaired operation.

After having seen, and had to deal with the devastating results of impaired driving, I have no issue with lowering the limit. I have arrested people who blew .09, yet could barely stand, as well as one fellow who blew .286 and .295, and I wasn't convinced as I transported him for the test if he would fail or pass.

Another misconception is the "natural alcohol" causing people to record a low reading. This is a myth. I have witnessed hundreds of people register a .00. The only people who will register a detectable reading, are those who have consumed the night before, or an alcoholic whose BAC is always present.

There's the joke where the comic says "If I can pass the driving test while blowing over .08 why can't I be allowed to drive while blowing over .08?"

My skin and bones wife rarely drinks and even a few sips on an empty stomach will get her head spinning but I think she would be well under any reasonable limit and could legally drive.

I knew a guy, call him Buddy, that had a few with every meal without showing any signs of impairment. Unfortunately for him, one day he stopped at beer joint for lunch and there was a RIDE just down the block. There was nothing wrong with his driving but he was legally drunk and lost his licence.

One of the problems facing the cops is that if there was a separate set of rules for each individual it would be chaos at RIDE stops and in court. My wife would be guilty with a BAL of .02 but Buddy could be innocent at .09. Every special interest group in the country would demand their own set of standards.

"I have a new car with better than average brakes and tires so should be allowed more leeway as my car compensates for the BAL overage."

The perfect system would be a comprehension / reaction test instead of a BAL. Under the present system a driver who drowses off, crosses the centreline and kills a few people gets a careless charge that disappears in six years. Some seniors couldn't pass an ability test stone sober and wide awake. How bad does dementia have to get before the licence gets pulled?

Throw in narcolepsy, diabetes, hypoglycemia and the like and all traffic cops would have to be doctors to do a proper evaluation.

The DUI is a criminal charge that lasts forever. New marijuana laws could make things more complex with combined readings.

In some ways the old tests, walk a straight line, touch your nose, count backwards might be better indicators.

My point is that this isn't a simple problem.

 

[nobbie48]

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?

Cell phone / texting is a bigger issue so why not clamp down on those problems instead?

Answer: Too many votes at stake.

 

[GreyGhost]

There's the joke where the comic says "If I can pass the driving test while blowing over .08 why can't I be allowed to drive while blowing over .08?"

My skin and bones wife rarely drinks and even a few sips on an empty stomach will get her head spinning but I think she would be well under any reasonable limit and could legally drive.

I knew a guy, call him Buddy, that had a few with every meal without showing any signs of impairment. Unfortunately for him, one day he stopped at beer joint for lunch and there was a RIDE just down the block. There was nothing wrong with his driving but he was legally drunk and lost his licence.

One of the problems facing the cops is that if there was a separate set of rules for each individual it would be chaos at RIDE stops and in court. My wife would be guilty with a BAL of .02 but Buddy could be innocent at .09. Every special interest group in the country would demand their own set of standards.

"I have a new car with better than average brakes and tires so should be allowed more leeway as my car compensates for the BAL overage."

The perfect system would be a comprehension / reaction test instead of a BAL. Under the present system a driver who drowses off, crosses the centreline and kills a few people gets a careless charge that disappears in six years. Some seniors couldn't pass an ability test stone sober and wide awake. How bad does dementia have to get before the licence gets pulled?

Throw in narcolepsy, diabetes, hypoglycemia and the like and all traffic cops would have to be doctors to do a proper evaluation.

The DUI is a criminal charge that lasts forever. New marijuana laws could make things more complex with combined readings.

In some ways the old tests, walk a straight line, touch your nose, count backwards might be better indicators.

My mom watched an old man get out of his car and walk with a cane towards a store. He was entirely unable to raise his leg enough to climb the curb. He tried for a few minutes and then shuffled towards a ramp. Even if he is mentally competent (which I doubt as he tried to climb the curb in the first place) he would be completely unable to react in a useful way in the face of adverse circumstances.

I still maintain that a portion of the driving test should be in a simulator where you are placed in adverse situations and have to react. If you can't deal with adverse situations, driving school or no license for you. My aunt retook her license at 80 and they had her do four right turns and passed her. wtf was that, challenge them in situations that actually happen where lives are at risk. I think you should do the simulator test everytime you renew the license. They don't need a full motion simulator. A computer, 3 or 4 monitors (or a vr headset), steering wheel and software that has been around for 20+ years is sufficient.

 

[fastar1]

The problem with a competence test is people become experts at passing the test and not necessarily any better at driving. It's like the VW diesel thing, or some university students. Their only goal is to pass the test, everything else can be ignored.

Unless there were a set of different tests that changed regularly, but then people would protest the test they were given as being unfair compared to all the others. It's hard to derive justice from an evaluation that isn't standard.

 

[hedo2002]

Even the old heel to toe, touch your nose etc, are really great indicators. As I said the alcoholic I arrested with a BAC of .286 and .295, was able to perform the test better than others I had arrested at 1/4 those levels. He was initially stopped as he had crossed the center line, (barely), three times within about a km.

His BAC was still on the way up no idea how high it would have went before it plateaued. We were required, as per guidelines back then to transport him to hospital for observation, as his BAC was closing in on .300, which would render most unconscious, and was considered the threshold for alcohol poisoning.

We are never going to have a fail safe system, best we can do is set it a level that is reasonable for the "average person"

 

[GreyGhost]

Aunt Kathy has a new sound bite (from the traditional territory of many indigenous peoples. wtf is that about?).

from cp24.com
"TORONTO - Ontario plans to introduce new penalties for drug-impaired drivers ahead of the legalization of recreational marijuana next July.
Premier Kathleen Wynne says there will be zero tolerance for youths aged 21 and under, novice drivers and all commercial drivers in Ontario who have a detectable presence of drugs or alcohol in their system.
The province will increase all monetary penalties and suspensions for impaired driving offences."

It will be interesting to see how "detectable presence" gets defined. I think it's a good idea for younger and novice drivers. Commercial is where it gets interesting, many people are over 0.00 the morning after drinking. How long after you stop drinking does it take to get down to undetectable levels? I would rather have a reasonable level for commercial drivers (I am OK with it being lower than the standard level as they are being paid to drive, maybe 0.05? Personally, I would want my cab driver to be stone sober so maybe 0.02 or below?)

EDIT:
Novice drivers include G1/G2/M1/M2. It will be interesting to see if they tie it to vehicle class eg. 40 yo G driver gets M2, gets pulled over driving car with 0.02 BAC, do they get charged or not?

 

[redridernl]

Aunt Kathy has a new sound bite (from the traditional territory of many indigenous peoples. wtf is that about?).

from cp24.com
"TORONTO - Ontario plans to introduce new penalties for drug-impaired drivers ahead of the legalization of recreational marijuana next July.
Premier Kathleen Wynne says there will be zero tolerance for youths aged 21 and under, novice drivers and all commercial drivers in Ontario who have a detectable presence of drugs or alcohol in their system.
The province will increase all monetary penalties and suspensions for impaired driving offences."

It will be interesting to see how "detectable presence" gets defined. I think it's a good idea for younger and novice drivers. Commercial is where it gets interesting, many people are over 0.00 the morning after drinking. How long after you stop drinking does it take to get down to undetectable levels? I would rather have a reasonable level for commercial drivers (I am OK with it being lower than the standard level as they are being paid to drive, maybe 0.05? Personally, I would want my cab driver to be stone sober so maybe 0.02 or below?)

EDIT:
Novice drivers include G1/G2/M1/M2. It will be interesting to see if they tie it to vehicle class eg. 40 yo G driver gets M2, gets pulled over driving car with 0.02 BAC, do they get charged or not?

So you think someone driving a tractor trailer hauling tens of thousands of pounds should be given more leeway than a cab driver?

 

[GreyGhost]

So you think someone driving a tractor trailer hauling tens of thousands of pounds should be given more leeway than a cab driver?

No, sorry I wasnt clear. I believe all commercial drivers should get the same limit (again, likely lower than non-commercial drivers although I don't know what the actual number should be). 0.00 is a tough (and possibly unrealistic) limit, that's why my initial thoughts are the commercial limit should be something above 0.00 and below 0.05. Likely something like 0.02.

For someone like a tow truck driver that works many varied hours, 0.00 would essentially be a life of abstinence (which would cost the province a fortune in tax revenue).

 

[Baggsy]

G1, G2, M1, M2 etc are already 0.000000000000000000000%

If the courts are already clogged with 11b's what will the law improve?
Dismissal rates?

 

[TorontoBoy]

The contradiction of the Ontario Government is blatant. Zero tolerance for pot, but a bit of alcohol, though under 0.05 is Ok? Both are regulated substances, so the law should be the same. Zero is zero.

My old Russian/Ukranian neighbours want no part of the pot legalization, but think it is ok to drink a little and drive. There is a still a social acceptance for alcohol but not (yet) for pot.

 

[GreyGhost]

The contradiction of the Ontario Government is blatant. Zero tolerance for pot, but a bit of alcohol, though under 0.05 is Ok? Both are regulated substances, so the law should be the same. Zero is zero.

My old Russian/Ukranian neighbours want no part of the pot legalization, but think it is ok to drink a little and drive. There is a still a social acceptance for alcohol but not (yet) for pot.

There is also a better understanding of numerical concentration of alcohol correlated to impairment in the average person.

Apparently the feds are working on a cheek swap test for THC concentration. Not sure if they are doing the corresponding work to figure out what the hell the numbers mean in terms of inability to drive.

Based on what I have seen, it is not zero tolerance for pot at this time if you have a full license and are not a commercial driver. I don't think they know what they are going to do. They are praying that the fed work gets complete in time.

 

[GreyGhost]

MADD continues their tradition.

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada CEO Andrew Murie praised the province for its proposed laws and said he hopes other provinces follow Ontario's example. The group has been calling for a zero tolerance approach to drivers who get behind the wheel with any drugs or alcohol in their system."

It is not mothers against drunk driving, it is the complete abstinence society. It may have started out with good intentions, but it has been off the rails for years.

 

[TorontoBoy]

When I was living in Japan there was a zero tolerance for alcohol. Zero, and police are strict. When going out, they just designate a driver. This rotates. It is not that difficult. This is just a cultural norm that they have adopted and approve. If you wish to drink then ride a bicycle, as apparently drunk riding is ok in Japan.

 

[fastar1]

"OK Google, find me the fastest bicycle route home via Japan"

 

[nobbie48]

MADD continues their tradition.

"Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada CEO Andrew Murie praised the province for its proposed laws and said he hopes other provinces follow Ontario's example. The group has been calling for a zero tolerance approach to drivers who get behind the wheel with any drugs or alcohol in their system."

It is not mothers against drunk driving, it is the complete abstinence society. It may have started out with good intentions, but it has been off the rails for years.

IIRC the founders of MADD walked away from the organization years ago. Basically a Women's Christian Temperance League.

BTW don't eat poppyseed bagels as opiates can be detected in tiny amounts. Zero is zero, right?

 

[Iceman]

The government is screwing all this up royally. And why am I not surprised that they think they need to raise the fines/penalties etc.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

 

[GreyGhost]

The government is screwing all this up royally. And why am I not surprised that they think they need to raise the fines/penalties etc.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

Until we switch to a fine based on income scale (or similar), the dollar values don't matter. A $500 fine for someone on minimum wage is devastating, many people getting DUI just dropped $2000 at the bar on bottle service, who cares about another $500?

Alternatively, speed the process up and keep the cars if convicted. Trial within two weeks of charge. Vehicle stays in impound until trial. If you get convicted the province keeps the car. That would make many high-income people rethink their decisions (especially if the car was leased). The prosecutors don't prepare anything for trial, the whole system is just ridiculously behind. There is no fundamental reason this whole thing couldn't happen quickly (and something like two weeks or a month gives you time to retain a lawyer and scrabble for a defense).

 

[nobbie48]

Until we switch to a fine based on income scale (or similar), the dollar values don't matter. A $500 fine for someone on minimum wage is devastating, many people getting DUI just dropped $2000 at the bar on bottle service, who cares about another $500?

Alternatively, speed the process up and keep the cars if convicted. Trial within two weeks of charge. Vehicle stays in impound until trial. If you get convicted the province keeps the car. That would make many high-income people rethink their decisions (especially if the car was leased). The prosecutors don't prepare anything for trial, the whole system is just ridiculously behind. There is no fundamental reason this whole thing couldn't happen quickly (and something like two weeks or a month gives you time to retain a lawyer and scrabble for a defense).

I forget what Scandinavian country it is but they have geared to income fines. The cops let junkers blast by unhindered while they wait for a fatter fish in a MB / Porsche / BMW. Corporate VIP's can get 5 figure fines for what would be a beer money hit for the peon.

Impound until trial??? Like HTA 172???

We have to get away from money money money penalties. The money goes to the government and they buy bad drugs with it. Then while stoned they pass more stupid laws.

Seriously, we have to get away from using money as a reward / punishment.

 

[GreyGhost]

Impound until trial??? Like HTA 172???

In my theoretical scenario where they get to keep your car if convicted, if they gave it back to you before trial, most people would hide it or otherwise make it unavailable for seizure. If you didn't get convicted, they should give you the vehicle back for free (you didn't do anything wrong, let the government pay for the improper charge). It's just an idea on how to try to even out the pain among citizens. Again, this only works if the trial date is very shortly after the charge.

Even geared to income is problematic as many super rich people have little declared income and huge net worth. Net worth is far to complicated to assess. Losing the vehicle you were driving eliminates all of the hassle of establishing net worth or income, or whatever other metric is based on ability to pay.