Remember 0.05 is still a roadside suspension

Forum Sponsor
rbjeepthing said:
No one is saying there is not other issues that can cause accidents that are just as dangerous. The biggest thing is drinking an alcoholic beverage is a choice that one makes and can be easily avoided. There are laws against using hand held devices and it's only a matter of time before they become more strict as well.
Click to expand...

Drinking "an" alcoholic beverage doesn't impair anybody. In many cases drinking multiple beverages causes no significant impairment either. The 0.05 limit is a cash grab.

We can't legislate and police everything. What's next, pulling people over to see how many hours of sleep they had before driving? Cut this nanny state BS out already, the existing limit of 0.08 is plenty good enough. The statistics simply don't justify further expensive legislation and enforcement. It's simply a case of politicians and lobbyists keeping themselves employed.

Our roadways are fine.
 
OpenGambit said:
what turbodish says has no effect on the legitmacy of a law.
Its also pointless to make up hypothetical laws that don't exist.
Click to expand...

I'm also referring to an existing law that is an affront to our civil rights. Merely sitting in a car shouldn't be a priviledge, though driving one understandably is.
 
First my question, does a 0.05 suspension show up on a drivers extract, does it impact insurance?

Furthermore, if they feel that 0.05% is the actual limit (have some science) then they should change the law to make 0.05% the limit. The idea of having a dual standard seems wrong to me, specially if the answer to the above question (abstract/insurance) is yes. If the answer to the above question is no, then maybe it is a good wake up call with no long term life ruining impacts.

BAC is likely the best measurement technique we have today. The problem IMO is that there are people impaired well above this limit everyday that fly under the radar because BAC is our best measure. For example, there are many drivers that are impaired based on normal ability beyond the average persons 0.08 but they are allowed to drive everyday. Why is this OK but 0.08 is not? Are they not a greater risk to society in general? Shouldn't there be a real min standard on natural impairment (or lack of)?

Then there are things like fatigue, medication, poor night vision, hands free cell phone use, even size of vehicle beyond skill level, that also impair beyond 0.08 but these are also either OK by the law or the law has no way of enforcing the rules on the books.

In short, hopefully science will come up with a better method to remove ALL impaired drivers and not just one small segment. Not condoning drinking and driving just looking at the big picture here.
 
fastar1 said:
I'm also referring to an existing law that is an affront to our civil rights. Merely sitting in a car shouldn't be a priviledge, though driving one understandably is.
Click to expand...


While the concept of care and control at this point might be muddy, I have not seen a case that cries out for charter review.
 
And once we're all used to the .05-.08 rules, they'll institute something for anyone between .00-.05. Something along the lines of a fee for the officer's time involved in pulling you over and testing you. A per minute charge at about $85/hr. sounds about right........plus the Victim Surcharge, of course.


invictus43 said:
That's what MADD would like..24/7.. I wonder what percentage of people driving are impaired by things like, lack of sleep..texting..putting make-up on.. I suppose we have people like that dumb-*** that drove into Lake Muskoka to thank for knee-jerk reactionism like this..
Click to expand...

No. We have the over reaction to the angst fueled guilt of the dumb-*** father of the dumb-*** for giving his son with a terrible driving record and a history of reckless acts a high powered sport sedan to thank.
 
Last edited:
FullMotoJacket said:
No. We have the over reaction to the angst fueled guilt of the dumb-*** father of the dumb-*** for giving his son with a terrible driving record and a history of reckless acts a high powered sport sedan to thank.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected! :-)
 
rbjeepthing said:
No one is saying there is not other issues that can cause accidents that are just as dangerous. The biggest thing is drinking an alcoholic beverage is a choice that one makes and can be easily avoided. There are laws against using hand held devices and it's only a matter of time before they become more strict as well.
Click to expand...

I wait with great anticipation for the roadside sleepiness test..
 
more people die from drunk walkign than drunk driving

LEVITT: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you’re eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.
 
fyrebug said:
more people die from drunk walkign than drunk driving

LEVITT: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you’re eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.
Click to expand...

This would be completely missing the point, because the question should be, how much more likely are you to kill someone ELSE when driving vs walking.
 
invictus43 said:
I wait with great anticipation for the roadside sleepiness test..
Click to expand...

I say we let them stare at trees for 15mins. They snooze they lose :)

fyrebug said:
more people die from drunk walkign than drunk driving

LEVITT: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you’re eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.
Click to expand...

Well, as long as they don't jeopardize anybody's safety ;)
 
What about checkpoints with an obstacle course that must be completed within a given time with minimum of errors? Then we can screen for incompetency regardless of cause. Doesn't need to be overly sophisticated... Even a parallel parking exercise should be good enough really.
 
fyrebug said:
more people die from drunk walkign than drunk driving

LEVITT: For every mile walked drunk, turns out to be eight times more dangerous than the mile driven drunk. To put it simply, if you need to walk a mile from a party to your home, you’re eight times more likely to die doing that than if you jump behind the wheel and drive your car that same mile.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but by choosing to drive instead of walk you transfer your risk of death or injury onto other road users instead. That is the biggest issue driving our impaired driving laws.
 
mat2312 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post! I don't agree with all points, but it's something that has some serious merit. The 12-hour suspension was by no means a cake-walk. You still had to jump through hoops to pick up your license and get the car released.

But the fact is that no politician will make the changes you suggested unless the current system appears to be ineffective. In that case, they'll just make the punishments stricter. Anyone questioning or challenging the status quo on something like this will appear to be supporting DUI which is why more people don't speak out.

Roasted said:
Agreed 100%. 0.05? why not make it 0.00? In fact, if you looked at a bottle alcohol in the last 24 hours before driving, GO STraIGHT TO JAIL! BUnch of BS is what this is. Why have two limits when one isn't criminal? I bet driving tired poses a bigger risk than a 0.05 bac.
Click to expand...
Much bigger risk!
 
Last edited:
Tired is the same as drunk to me. Thats where responsibility kicks in. Can you get to your destination safely without increasing the existing risk that everyone out there faces.

The few times I have driven when way too tired I noticed I had the same effects as driving drunk and it scared the **** out of me.

But then with a bad thyroid issue if there was a road side tired test I would prob no longer have my license. But obviously this is where one has to be smart and realistic about their own abilities at that moment in time when getting in behind the wheel or in the saddle.
 
mat2312 said:
That's some nice MADD rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Many countries have 0% zero tolerance drinking and driving, and consume more alcohol than we do. And MADD does not exist there.

But everyone is different and a subjective shot in the dark blood alcohol level of 0.08 is foolish.
Click to expand...

True, but almost everyone at 0.08 is blitzed.

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.
Click to expand...

Is attempted murder a crime? The murder never took place. If one conspires to commit a crime, but does not themselves do the crime, are they still guilty? Or laws say yes. Drinking and driving has forseeable consequences, and truly fits the definition of Recklessness under the Criminal Code. The CC says that in order to be charged with reckless behaviour, one does not need to actually cause (in this case a crash) to happen.


Again, you are being penalized for a crime that you haven't committed based on the presumption that you 'might'.
Click to expand...

Again, see 'recklessness'.

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?
Click to expand...

The law is there in order to protect the "greater good". The courts, and case law, have agreed that impaired operation of a vehicle poses enough of a threat to the public, that refusal to submit a breath sample is tantamount to concealing evidence of a crime that has been committed.

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.
Click to expand...

Probably will happen now that people are Tweeting the locations. Expect the result to be every police car equipped with a handheld testing unit, and expect to be asked to blow every time you are pulled over, even randomly.

Eliminate the 0.08 criminal offense.
Click to expand...

Sure. Make it 0.0% then that way you can take into account all possible tolerances. Makes things very easy for the police, and makes the question of "did I drink more than the limit" go away for everyone.

Increase transit services (why do go trains/ttc shut down BEFORE last call??)
Click to expand...

Very good suggestion. Unfortunately, it costs a LOT to run a train. For some reason in North America, we believe that transit must pay for itself. This will NEVER happen, and as such, it is unlikely that people will get home.

I think a bigger problem is cabbies refusing fares to the inebriated after 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.
Click to expand...


Thing is, a 12 hour suspension is not really a deterrence, specifically on the weekend. If I get a buzz on Friday night, get caught at 2am, and dont have a car till 2pm, I really dont care since I'm sleeping in anyways. However, if you take my car away and I can't get to work on Monday, risking my employment, on top of getting molested by my insurance company, then I might re-think my decision to consume.


I do heartily agree that thing must change with the impaired system, but I think removing the criminality of it is not the right option. Making a simplified rule is far better. If it is 0.0%, then maybe transit use will increase, and the demand to have it available after last call will make it feasible to happen. It will certainly reduce traffic on the DVP on weekend nights!
 
Suggesting 0 tolerance is some serious nanny state bleeding-heart liberal pantywaist nonsense.

The real danger comes from alcoholics who get behind the wheel.. people who are two or three times the legal limit. People who can barely stand up straight, let alone keep a car going in a straight line.

These new 0.05 soft limits are pathetic enough as it is, but saying that we shouldn't even be allowed a single drink with a dinner is laughable... like, left-without-words laughable. Anybody who suggests this with a straight face deserves to get a serious whooping. Nanny-ism at its peak. We're doomed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom