BC thinking about watering down new drunk driving rules

[twinn]

And for the average person, a couple of drinks over a couple of hours will not put you over .05 BAC and should not be a problem as far as the new laws are concerned.

Couple of drinks not a problem?

Here is what is out of whack with BC and their statements.

They are changing the laws to discoruage drinking and driving--MADD would be more then happy with a zero tolerance policy- we are going down that road.

People are actually embracing the new law and avoiding drinking and driving. Police and politicans should be happy alike as that was the intent of the law.

yet-- they are not, politicans anyway.

its all about revunue, BC is losing a large taxable base by people drinking less, they are also losing on the enforcement side.

Think about this for a minute:

Lets say that the whole population of Canada, decided tomorrow to follow every traffic rule there is- no speeding etc... what would that to do to the $ collected? what about the need for police officers?

whats happening is that people are in general, following the laws, much more then in the past (look at seatbelts and DUI) Police/politicans are now lowering the requirements and increasing penalties under the guise of "public saftey".

 

[Rob MacLennan]

We had an early-warning penalty before. It was the 12-hour suspension, which was little more than a slap on the wrist. It wasn't even a hint of a valuable warning for many. A dedicated drinker could easily take that warning over and over again ad infinitum, and that "valuable warning" provided absolutely no incentive to avoid repeating the behaviour.

The new three-day suspension for a first-timer is tougher than the old 12-hour one, but it's still little more than an early-warning slap on the wrist. The first-timer slap on the wrist only starts to escalate into real penalties if the driver doesn't take heed of that first "valuable warning", and instead becomes a repeat customer.

It was never meant to be a "penalty", it was supposed to be a warning.

It was a warning because the people involved were neither breaking any law, nor functionally impaired to any significant degree. If you want to go by the statistics of who is involved in collisions involving death, then those "normal" people, who are "driving normally" are the most dangerous. They should all have a drink or two in 'em.

 

[turbodish]

It was never meant to be a "penalty", it was supposed to be a warning.

It was a warning because the people involved were neither breaking any law, nor functionally impaired to any significant degree. If you want to go by the statistics of who is involved in collisions involving death, then those "normal" people, who are "driving normally" are the most dangerous. They should all have a drink or two in 'em.

If it was only a warning and not meant to impose a penalty, then why did it come with a 12-hour suspension? Is not a 12-hour suspension a form of penalty?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

If it was only a warning and not meant to impose a penalty, then why did it come with a 12-hour suspension? Is not a 12-hour suspension a form of penalty?

It was a simple codification of a policy that police frequently used, when stopping people in the days before it came into force: Go home and sleep it off. It had no insurance or other licensing repercussions. If there was a qualified driver in the car, then that person could drive the vehicle home. If the person could call someone to get the vehicle, then that person could drive it home. As such, I supported it, as it assisted in raising awareness at a time when it was surely needed.

That time is past.

http://www.occid.org/legislation/fatalstats.html

 

[turbodish]

It was a simple codification of a policy that police frequently used, when stopping people in the days before it came into force: Go home and sleep it off. It had no insurance or other licensing repercussions. If there was a qualified driver in the car, then that person could drive the vehicle home. If the person could call someone to get the vehicle, then that person could drive it home. As such, I supported it, as it assisted in raising awareness at a time when it was surely needed.

Go home and sleep it off? Why?

And if going home to sleep it off was necessary then, that implies that the driver was not in a condition to drive. If so, then escalating repercussions are warranted to curtail repeated behaviour of same, and the previous 12-hour suspensions did absolutely nothing in that regard.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Go home and sleep it off? Why?

And if going home to sleep it off was necessary then, that implies that the driver was not in a condition to drive. If so, then escalating repercussions are warranted to curtail repeated behaviour of same, and the previous 12-hour suspensions did absolutely nothing in that regard.

It did plenty. Check the statistics, that people like MADD are so prone to point out as "their" success. No idea how they can also show that things are falling apart, but that's a flaw in their logic.

As I've said so many times before the problem is in the HIGH BAC end of the scale, not the low.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

It did plenty. Check the statistics, that people like MADD are so prone to point out as "their" success. No idea how they can also show that things are falling apart, but that's a flaw in their logic.

As I've said so many times before the problem is in the HIGH BAC end of the scale, not the low.

Well, they've brainwashed enough people into thinking that you shouldn't be driving if you've had a single drink. Of course, those people will happily start driving while agitated or while running on 3 hours of sleep for 5 days in a row, but as soon as you start driving after a single drink, you're a baby-killer.

 

[turbodish]

It did plenty. Check the statistics, that people like MADD are so prone to point out as "their" success. No idea how they can also show that things are falling apart, but that's a flaw in their logic.

As I've said so many times before the problem is in the HIGH BAC end of the scale, not the low.

Perhaps, but to get to the high end of the BAC scale, you first have to pass through the mid-range.

Besides, the risk elevation factor in the mid-range may be lower than at the higher criminal BAC levels, but it is there nonetheless. Various studies associate a 4 to 10 times greater risk of fatal collision with BAC levels in the .05 to .08 range, as compared to a driver with 0 BAC.

By contrast, cell phone usage while driving is typically associated with a 4 times greater risk of collision. People here constantly scream about drivers on cell phones, yet at the same time defend driving with mid-range BACs that pose just as high and even higher risk of crash as cell phone usage.

 

[mike100]

Perhaps, but to get to the high end of the BAC scale, you first have to pass through the mid-range.

Besides, the risk elevation factor in the mid-range may be lower than at the higher criminal BAC levels, but it is there nonetheless. Various studies associate a 4 to 10 times greater risk of fatal collision with BAC levels in the .05 to .08 range, as compared to a driver with 0 BAC.

By contrast, cell phone usage while driving is typically associated with a 4 times greater risk of collision. People here constantly scream about drivers on cell phones, yet at the same time defend driving with mid-range BACs that pose just as high and even higher risk of crash as cell phone usage.

What is the source of the information this graph is based on?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Perhaps, but to get to the high end of the BAC scale, you first have to pass through the mid-range.

By that logic they should get it out of the way, and just arrest us all for murder right now. J-Walking: The Gateway Crime

What is the source of the information this graph is based on?

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/index.html

 

[Metastable]

J-Walking: The Gateway Crime

LOL!!!!

Turbo - can't you ever be reasonable?

If they wanted to make the BOC .05 then go nuts, I don't drink and drive anyway. However this lame .05-.08 limit is not right. Plus if you look at England, New Zealand and the USA ..... which are countries that have more in common with Canada than others, they are all at .08. Brazil says no tolerance - ya right... that's because it isn't enforced.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

I would like to have a better idea of what that "relative risk" is all about. I think that one got so cooked that it goes way beyond the "Damned Lies" point..

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I would like to have a better idea of what that "relative risk" is all about. I think that one got so cooked that it goes way beyond the "Damned Lies" point..

The studies involve operation of a simulator, rather than real world tests. They fail to take into account that people with a smaller amount of alcohol in their systems will tend to compensate by adjusting things like speed, following distance, etc.. There comes a break point at which this is no longer possible but this tends to be beyond 0.08, not below it. The information is in the link I posted, to the site from which turbodish pulled that graph.

By way of comparison, take a look at table 2.5 and 2.7 on this page: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/orsar/orsar06/chp2_2_06.shtml

That's why I commented that people in normal condition, driving normally, are the dangerous ones.

 

[turbodish]

The studies involve operation of a simulator, rather than real world tests. They fail to take into account that people with a smaller amount of alcohol in their systems will tend to compensate by adjusting things like speed, following distance, etc.. There comes a break point at which this is no longer possible but this tends to be beyond 0.08, not below it. The information is in the link I posted, to the site from which turbodish pulled that graph.

By way of comparison, take a look at table 2.5 and 2.7 on this page: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/orsar/orsar06/chp2_2_06.shtml

That's why I commented that people in normal condition, driving normally, are the dangerous ones.

People may try to compensate, but only if they think they are impaired, and even then their attempts to compensate will be affected by their impairment. Unfortunately, many people don't realize they are driving "impaired" when on their cell phones, and similarly, many alcohol-impaired drivers also fail to realize their actual level of impairment. Where it otherwise, impaired driving crashes wouldn't be a problem.

If the mid-range impaired drivers were able to properly deal with their impairment by compensating, as you claim, then there shouldn't be an increased crash rate at those mid-range BAC levels.

This quote comes from a study http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/Lit/Topics/OWI/FellJ2006a.pdf that looked at real world events and not just lab studies.

A 1988 review of 177 studies clearly documented
significant impairment at .08 BAC (Moskowitz & Robinson,
1988), and a 2000 review of 112 more recent studies
provided even stronger evidence of impairment at .08 BAC
(Moskowitz & Fiorentino, 2000). Together, these two
reviews have summarized the findings of nearly 300 studies
of impairment at low-BAC levels, and the findings are
remarkably consistent. A comprehensive laboratory study
examined driving skills among 168 subjects of both sexes
and various ages and drinking histories. This study not only
confirmed significant impairment in all measures of
performance at a .08 BAC, but also found that impairment
was present in relatively consistent levels across all age
groups, sexes, and drinker types (Moskowitz et al., 2000).

An epidemiological study, which compared data from a
national roadside survey with data from all drivers involved
in fatal crashes over a 2-year period, showed that the risk of
being killed in a single-vehicle fatal crash at .08 BAC is 11 to
52 times greater than at .00 BAC. That same study indicated
that the risk of dying in a single-vehicle crash at .05 BAC
was 4 to 17 times that of drivers at .00 BAC (Zador et al.,
2000).

Also from the same paper, real life outcomes.

4. A summary of the evidence for lowering the BAC
limit to .05 or less
4.1. Effectiveness of .05 BAC laws

Several countries have conducted evaluations of lowering
their illegal BAC limits to .05 or less. A long-term study of
the .05 BAC law in the Netherlands (adopted in 1974)
concluded that it contributed to a sustained decline in the
total number of drinking drivers involved in crashes
(Noordzij, 1994). Another study from France evaluated the
impact of lowering its BAC limit from .08 to .05 in 1996.
Annual alcohol-related crash fatalities fell from approximately
100 before the legal change to 64 in 1997 in the
province of Haute-Savoie, where the study was conducted
(Mercier-Guyon, 1998).

You talk about high BAC drivers being the more serious problem, so look atthis observed outcome of lowering the legal BAC limit from to .05.

as concluded by Smith.
In South Australia, the illegal BAC limit was not lowered
to .05 until 1991. Kloeden and McLean (1994) reported that
the number of nighttime drivers who had been drinking was
reduced by 14.1% following adoption of the law. A second
study of South Australia found that the .05 BAC limit did
not significantly affect the number of fatally injured drivers
who were legally impaired (McLean, Kloeden, McColl, &
Laslett, 1995). However, it did find that the proportion of
impaired drivers at BACs of .15 or greater declined from
1991 to 1993. This last finding supports other Australian
research indicating that the lower BAC limit has a
substantial effect on drivers with BACs higher than .15
(Brooks & Zaal, 1992). It has been estimated that drivers
with BACs higher than .15 are 244 times more likely to be
involved in a fatal crash than drivers with zero BACs
(Simpson, Mayhew, & Beirness, 1996). The recent study by
Zador et al. (2000) found that male drivers aged 21 to 34
with BACs of .15 or higher are 573 times more likely to be
killed in a single-vehicle crash than sober drivers of the
same age. Thus, even though a .05 BAC limit would appear
to be aimed at drivers with moderate BACs, its potential
effect on the behavior of high-BAC drivers has important
traffic safety implications.

Another interesting conclusion in this paper:

In general, the literature reveals that lowering the BAC
illegal limit reduces drinking driver fatal crashes, whether it
is from .10 BAC to .08 BAC or from .08 BAC to .05 BAC
for adults, or from some higher BAC level to .02 BAC (or
lower) for youth. The public does not think people should
drive after two or three drinks. This translates to .05 BAC for
most people. Laboratory research shows that most people's
critical driving skills are significantly impaired at .05 BAC.
The World Health Organization (2004) recommends an
upper limit of .05 BAC for the general driving population
and .02 BAC for young drivers as the best practice at this
time.

 

[turbodish]

LOL!!!!

Turbo - can't you ever be reasonable?

If they wanted to make the BOC .05 then go nuts, I don't drink and drive anyway. However this lame .05-.08 limit is not right. Plus if you look at England, New Zealand and the USA ..... which are countries that have more in common with Canada than others, they are all at .08. Brazil says no tolerance - ya right... that's because it isn't enforced.

This tiered approach to dealing with impaired driving according to different BAC level ranges is the right way to go, and it emulates practice followed in several other countries where lower BAC levels entail administrative sanctions only, and criminal sanctions are reserved for "high end" offenders.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

The reason I was casting doubt on the "relative risk" figures was more about how the category was defined in the first place. It being a simulator study makes the figures even more dubious.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Turbodish, if 0.05 is reflected in a massive amount of studies as a point of significant impairment, then the Criminal Code should be changed to reflect this. They shouldn't fart around with multi-jurisdictional contests at who can be the most restrictive; just get the job done. This is, in fact, what the various Canadian papers that you've posted excerpts from state.

They haven't. They likely won't.

http://safety-council.org/news/arch...eopardize--progress-against-impaired-driving/

"The Canada Safety Council stressed that Canada is making progress in the fight against impaired driving. The problem group is those who drive at levels much over the legal limit. About a third of all impaired driving cases. To the Canada Safety Council, that means the priority should be to ensure remedial programs are part of the sentencing, and are readily available.


Canada’s current impaired driving laws are already among the strictest in the western world, and most countries using a BAC below 80 do not impose penalties as tough as our Criminal Code."

 

[eastcoast_gsx]

Turbodish, if 0.05 is reflected in a massive amount of studies as a point of significant impairment, then the Criminal Code should be changed to reflect this. They shouldn't fart around with multi-jurisdictional contests at who can be the most restrictive; just get the job done. This is, in fact, what the various Canadian papers that you've posted excerpts from state.

They haven't. They likely won't.

http://safety-council.org/news/arch...eopardize--progress-against-impaired-driving/

"The Canada Safety Council stressed that Canada is making progress in the fight against impaired driving. The problem group is those who drive at levels much over the legal limit. About a third of all impaired driving cases. To the Canada Safety Council, that means the priority should be to ensure remedial programs are part of the sentencing, and are readily available.


Canada’s current impaired driving laws are already among the strictest in the western world, and most countries using a BAC below 80 do not impose penalties as tough as our Criminal Code."

All that article says is that they are proud as peacocks about punishment that is not "evidence based"...

They want to screw us over without any regard to proof, or giving us the ability to defend ourselves, not a good future we have in store.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

All that article says is that they are proud as peacocks about punishment that is not "evidence based"...

They want to screw us over without any regard to proof, or giving us the ability to defend ourselves, not a good future we have in store.

Despite the content of that statement, I agree with the conclusions regarding the problem group. Increasing the number of people who are handled by the court system, be it for CCC or HTA offences, increases court load. Court loading reduces the effectiveness of the courts, for example by creating a situation in which 11b filings get people off charges that they ARE guilty of.

The solution is not to cast a wider net and it is not to effectively criminalize ordinary citizens; it's to concentrate on the identified problem group. That would be people who regularly drive, at well over the legal limit.

The phrase that you're sticking on is, "The Canada Safety Council warned that unilateral action to criminalize at a lower threshold would compromise the well thought-out, evidence-based strategy." What they're saying is that mindlessly criminalizing a lower BAC level, in order to 'eliminate the problem', is an action that isn't supported by evidence. It won't work.

 

[caboose56]

This tiered approach to dealing with impaired driving according to different BAC level ranges is the right way to go, and it emulates practice followed in several other countries where lower BAC levels entail administrative sanctions only, and criminal sanctions are reserved for "high end" offenders.

I have no qualms with a tiered approach. However, the legal limit is 0.08. That's what it is here, if you're below 0.08 you are not legally impaired. How is it reasonable to force penalties upon someone who is almost breaking the law? I have no issue with changing the limit to 0.05 and then keeping the current tiered system either, but that hasn't been done. Would you also support pulling people over and giving them tickets for almost speeding?