When are people just going to realize if your going to drive/ride then don't drink period? It's a pretty easy thing to do.
When are people just going to realize if your going to drive/ride then don't drink period? It's a pretty easy thing to do.
That's some nice MADD rhetoric. Let me say that I don't support drinking and driving. I'm always the DD when my crowd heads out as I'm unable to consume alcohol for an undetermined time due to medical reasons. Everyone knows someone who evaded a R.I.D.E checkpoint or came home after a few too many. Leave the city limits and you'll see this is a much common practice. There's a big difference between someone at or near the legal limit and the people blowing 3 or 4 times. But everyone is different and a subjective shot in the dark blood alcohol level of 0.08 is foolish.
Countless people drive home intoxicated everyday yet our roads are not carnage nor are drunk driving fatalities a common occurance. I encourage people to actually push through the MADD bs and examine the stats. According to Stats Can in 2004 815 people were killed in crashes involving a "drinking" driver, over 2200 were killed in falls, over 900 were killed through accidentally poisoning/exposure. Any death is a tragedy, but the amount of people dying due to drunk driving amounts to .3% (point 3) of the total fatalities yearly in Canada. I'll reiterate, you are almost 3 times as likely to die from a fall as you are from drunk driving. If you avoid drinking and driving yourself you are even less likely to fall victim as 60% of all drinking and driving fatalities are the drivers themselves. It should be noted that the stat indicated drivers who had any alcohol in their system, not necessarily at criminal rates, was alcohol even a factor in some of the fatalities? If someone had a single beer and crashes is the alcohol automatically to blame?
Drunk driving legislation is an interesting backwards concept. In most cases, you really haven't committed a physical crime, yet you are charged and face high penalties.
A suspect is usually charged with two charges, 'driving while impaired,' and 'driving with blood alcohol over .08'. If the Crown is unable to prove that you were actually demonstrating intoxication while driving (and a danger to the public), they have the over .08 blood alcohol charge to pursue even though you may not actually have been intoxicated or posing a risk. Both crimes carry the same penalty, you cannot however be found guilty of both crimes as they're for the same single action. Which do you think is easiest to prove and most people are convicted of? Some people have been convicted while being in an unstarted car "sleeping it off" because the government decided to add yet another broad measure to ensure convictions "due care and control". Again, you are being penalized for a crime that you haven't committed based on the presumption that you 'might'.
I also would like to point out that the court also penalizes you for refusing to aid in your own prosecution by submitting to a breathylyzer test. The penality for refusing, is the same as if you were convicted of drunk driving. I see a real problem with a system that forces anyone to comply with a procedure set up to gather evidence against them, by essentially convicting them on the spot if they do not comply. Should we tell murder suspects they have to help the investigators or they'll face a prison term equivilent to murder?
So, how do we ensure people aren't intoxicated yet protect the rights of citizens? Here are a few suggestions.
Eliminate R.I.D.E, use the resources and personnel to drive the roads looking for any driver intoxicated or not who's endangering the roads.
Eliminate the 0.08 criminal offense. If we are going to convict some people for being impaired at 0.04, it means the blood alcohol measure isn't exact. It's entirely possible for someone to be fit for driving above 0.08 so why penalize them? If the crown isn't able to secure a conviction based on the suspect's conduct, they obviously weren't posing a danger to society at the time. Blood alcohol measuring should occur after the suspect has been charged with drunk driving and only to confirm alcohol consumption but the option should lie with the suspect. Nobody should be subjected to a breathylyzer. If it means we let a few drunk drivers go, that's the price of liberty.
Increase transit services (why do go trains/ttc shut down BEFORE last call??)
As for the OP's topic, the solution is simple allow officers to go back to issuing the 12 hour suspensions that both protected the public that night AND didn't leave drivers with further penalties when they weren't necessarily intoxicated in the first place. If an officer has good reason to suspect the person could potentially pose a danger later on, issue the suspension and nullify the situation, the driver can call someone to pick up their vehicle or park it in a safe place. The officer takes the license and keys and the driver can pick them up at the police station the next day. I call the 12 hour suspensions a good compromise of public safety and public rights. Of course, the government eliminated them in favor of the new roadside suspensions which are longer, cost people more and do not allow any defence.
