BC thinking about watering down new drunk driving rules | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

BC thinking about watering down new drunk driving rules

caboose483 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The "legal" limit is NOT .08 in Ontario. It is .05 BAC.

A corresponding analogy is the difference between varying degrees of reckless driving. Up to a certain point, reckless driving acts are only considered to be Careless Driving and subject to non-criminal provincial regulatory sanctions. Exceed that point though, and the reckless driving acts will be deemed to be Dangerous Driving and dealt with under the federal Criminal Code with accordingly harsher penalties. Both Careless Driving and Dangerous Driving are illegal acts, but the applicability of each requires a specific threshold to be met.

The same goes with varying levels of impairment. The .05 BAC level is the non-criminal regulatory level of per se deemed impairment set by the province. The .08 BAC level is the "criminal" threshhold of per se deemed impairment.

Each level represents a different degree of negligence on the part of the impaired operator. Marginal negligence or poor judgment should never be sufficient to criminalize a person. Criminalization should be saved for those whose actions go well into what we know to be wrong.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
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.
Click to expand...

The overall gist of that article suggests two thing - increased criminalization by dropping the CC threshold to 05 BAC would be detrimental, and sanctions imposed outside of the Criminal Code are faster and provide more effective deterrents. That suggests an endorsement of what Ontario is doing for lower level impairment, while reserving more costly criminal court resources and greater criminal penalties for the higher levels of impairment.

“Public safety is best served by dealing with drivers whose blood alcohol is below 80 outside the Criminal Code,” Canada Safety Council’s past president Emile Therien told the committee on February 25. “Criminalizing at 50 will compromise Canada’s fight against impaired driving.”

A recent survey of crown prosecutors and defense counsels found impaired driving cases are taking longer and longer to process: convictions can take up to a year or more.

Therien said delays will only increase if criminal charges were laid below the current level. The reason, he explained, is that people challenge a criminal charge due to the severe consequences of a conviction. No one wants a criminal record. Outside the Criminal Code, consequences are much more sure and immediate, which creates a much more effective deterrent.
Click to expand...
 
turbodish said:
The "legal" limit is NOT .08 in Ontario. It is .05 BAC.

A corresponding analogy is the difference between varying degrees of reckless driving. Up to a certain point, reckless driving acts are only considered to be Careless Driving and subject to non-criminal provincial regulatory sanctions. Exceed that point though, and the reckless driving acts will be deemed to be Dangerous Driving and dealt with under the federal Criminal Code with accordingly harsher penalties. Both Careless Driving and Dangerous Driving are illegal acts, but the applicability of each requires a specific threshold to be met.

The same goes with varying levels of impairment. The .05 BAC level is the non-criminal regulatory level of per se deemed impairment set by the province. The .08 BAC level is the "criminal" threshhold of per se deemed impairment.

Each level represents a different degree of negligence on the part of the impaired operator. Marginal negligence or poor judgment should never be sufficient to criminalize a person. Criminalization should be saved for those whose actions go well into what we know to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Interesting if true.
 
turbodish said:
The overall gist of that article suggests two thing - increased criminalization by dropping the CC threshold to 05 BAC would be detrimental, and sanctions imposed outside of the Criminal Code are faster and provide more effective deterrents. That suggests an endorsement of what Ontario is doing for lower level impairment, while reserving more costly criminal court resources and greater criminal penalties for the higher levels of impairment.
Click to expand...

Which is where I don't agree with it, based on two points; you're just overloading a DIFFERENT court system, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms position that I've held all along.
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...halyzers-to-recalibrate-to-06/article1806476/
Click to expand...

The error built into the roadside breathalyzer was precisely why the original 12 hour suspension was created.

There was enough doubt in the machine that a driver had a choice of either having a 12 hour license suspension (no record, no confiscation without trial, etc) or go down to the station and get a proper test to see if the driver was over .08. In that case Due Process was followed and the driver had the right to make a choice. It was fair and reasonable.

..Tom
 
eastcoast_gsx said:
Waiting for a cab... that's an impoundable offense.

Well, more of an ego thing.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_north/comoxvalleyrecord/news/110726434.html

Imagine, as a purveyor of the law, someone has the nerve to ask you what their rights are, especially since you are sworn to uphold them...
Click to expand...

This case isn't a new situation. You can be for being drunk and standing next to your car, let alone pushing it. It's been that way for years.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/649805
 
While in some countries the penalty for driving while intoxicated can be death (yes, death), in Uruguay intoxication is a legal excuse for having an accident while driving. "Please believe me officer, I really was drunk."

Among the Abipone people of Paraguay, individuals who abstain from alcohol are thought to be "cowardly, degenerate and stupid."


http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/FunFacts/WouldYouBelieve.html

enjoy the article
 
Last edited:
hey, ive been hearing a lot of stuff about breathalyzers and the new laws in british columbia, like how if you get caught under the influence they can impound your car, give you a crazy expensive ticket, suspend your license and put a breathalyzer in your car, that you have to breath into for you to be able to even get the car started :O i personally would never wanna deal with that, id much rather just spend a little and buy myself a personal breathalyzer (bractrack), i got mine from http://www.missionpossiblespy.com never have to worry again :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom