BC's proposed new drunk driving law

[speedog]

BC's proposed new drunk driving law - much more restrictive but will it make a difference. Calgary Herald story at this link (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/introduces+tough+drunk+driving+rules/2957831/story.html).

From the Herald...


Under the proposed law, drivers found to have a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 and 0.08 — the so-called "warn" range — will face an immediate three-day driving ban, possible vehicle impoundment and fines or related fees of up to $600. Those caught in this warning range multiple times will face a driving ban of up to 30 days and fines or fees of up to $800.

At present, police generally issue a 24-hour suspension for people caught driving with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 and 0.08.

The new law also adds significant penalties for people caught with blood-alcohol level above 0.08 — the level at which drinking and driving becomes an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Drivers caught above this level will face an immediate 90-day driving ban and related costs of $3,750. That amount includes a fine, a driver's-licence reinstatement fee, the cost of a mandatory Responsible Driver Program, a towing and impoundment fee, and the cost of an ignition interlock device, which the offender must use for one year.

The driver may also face criminal charges, especially if the infraction involves injuries or a crash.

[Feruk]

I'm not any sort of supporter or drunk driving, but this is st00pid. I equate this to when they raised the price of drinks in Calgary. Did it reduce the number of drinkers or how drunk they got? Doubt it; people just started showing up more drunk to the bar.

You can raise fines all you want, but I'd be shocked if implementing the law will actually do anything to help prevent drunk driving.

[ercchry]

i would like to know what my BAC level is actually at when i start to "feel" the booze.... it would be interesting to know.

[benyl]

Originally posted by Feruk
I'm not any sort of supporter or drunk driving, but this is st00pid. I equate this to when they raised the price of drinks in Calgary. Did it reduce the number of drinkers or how drunk they got? Doubt it; people just started showing up more drunk to the bar.

You can raise fines all you want, but I'd be shocked if implementing the law will actually do anything to help prevent drunk driving.

Yes, cause doing nothing is a better solution!

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by ercchry
i would like to know what my BAC level is actually at when i start to "feel" the booze.... it would be interesting to know.

For around $20 + shipping, you can buy a keychain that will tell you. http://shop.ebay.ca/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m570.l1311&_nkw=breathalyzer&_sacat=See-All-Categories

[lilmira]

People that I know who got caught sure learn their lesson well. Suspension and big fine do hurt.

[Crymson]

Drink and driving is probalby the only thing that i would be for a "zero tolerance policy"

However, it would be impossible in Calgary because we have virtually zero effective public transit outside of rush hours, an infrastructure based solely around the automobile, and a shortage of cabs.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Crymson
Drink and driving is probalby the only thing that i would be for a "zero tolerance policy"

However, it would be impossible in Calgary because we have virtually zero effective public transit outside of rush hours, an infrastructure based solely around the automobile, and a shortage of cabs.

Oh, there's no shortage of cabs. They're all just sitting at the airport terminal waiting around.

This is another one of those things, that in principle, I whole heartedly agree with, but in reality, I should be able to have 2 glasses of wine with dinner, and not require a $50 cab ride home.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by ercchry
i would like to know what my BAC level is actually at when i start to "feel" the booze.... it would be interesting to know. I did a seminar with the breathalyzer once, for me on that day - apparently the rate you eliminate alcohol at is not constant, sometimes it's faster than others - I was really surprised, the point where I felt the alcohol and wouldn't drive, I blew about 30-35 milligrams per 100 mL of blood (3 and a half drinks in the the first 20 of the 30 minutes prior to the test). When I blew 88 mg (over the legal limit) I had something like 6 or seven drinks in the hour prior to the test and I was in the happy drunk state, but definitely drunk. Eventually I got up to about 140-150 and I was in the messy drunk state. I couldn't walk anywhere near straight, my co-ordination was completely gone, I was stumbling around, and I had difficulty making any kind of sense or understanding what people were saying to me. I think that I had about 9-10 drinks by that point, in less than two hours (this was a few years ago, so I don't remember exactly anymore).

Now, don't rely on my numbers, because we certainly didn't wait very long between having my drinks and blowing, just long enough for mouth alcohol to dissipate, so not all of the alcohol would necessarily have been absorbed by the time I blew so my alcohol levels in blood were likely still going up, but the alcohol expert said that most of it should have been absorbed.

In any event, it really showed to me that the people who blow over 80 are not 'borderline', they're drunk. Remember that you can blow under and still be convicted of impaired driving - they just have to show actual impairment, so the safest policy is to not take the chance if you think there's any possiblity that alcohol could be affecting your driving.

ETA: If you ever get the chance to do one of these things with the police, I highly recommend it! It was fun and educational. The police used to, and might still, come out with your group to the bar and do this if it's organized for impaired driving awareness.

[TKRIS]

Isn't this a solution to a problem we don't have?
Are people who drive with a BAC under the legal limit that much of a problem?

I think it's ridiculous. A person should be able to go out and have a drink after work and then drive home.
Setting unrealistic, unreasonable targets like that only serve to trivialize drinking and driving. If everyone who has a beer after work starts getting busted, the stigma of getting a busted goes away. And the stigma is, by far, the biggest tool at our disposal to stop actual drunk drivers.
This type of crap just waters the charge down.

I'm not sure why everyone is always so dead set on making an example of the people who aren't actually a problem just because it's easy. Doing so doesn't make them an example, it makes them a martyr.

[dexlargo]

^ The people that I encounter who are charged with impaired driving are often more concerned with the driving suspension than anything else ("how am I going to get to work?"). Some are more concerned about the criminal record, but they are in the minority. I think that their priorities are messed up, but it is what it is.

This law in BC gives (short) suspensions without a criminal charge being laid. I think that it will act as a deterrent.

In any event, if the stigma is the deterrent, it's not working. Impaired driving has been a huge problem for decades and it's not getting better. Something's got to change.

I think that the change has to be at a cultural level. My friends have told me that in some countries (Sweden being the example that comes to mind) it's socially unacceptable to have even one drink when you're out with friends and drive - you become persona non grata. I think we'll have to get to that point in our culture if we're going to make any real inroads into the impaired driving problem.

I don't think that this law will do it on its own, I think there's got to be a sustained, heightened campaign combined with law changes, like has been done to combat attitudes towards smoking, which have changed dramatically in the last 25 years.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^ The people that I encounter who are charged with impaired driving are often more concerned with the driving suspension than anything else ("how am I going to get to work?"). Some are more concerned about the criminal record, but they are in the minority. I think that their priorities are messed up, but it is what it is.

This law in BC gives (short) suspensions without a criminal charge being laid. I think that it will act as a deterrent.

But a deterrent against what? Driving while under the limit commonly accepted as being dangerous?
As far as I can see, all it does is bring the hammer down on a bunch of people who really aren't causing a problem.


Originally posted by dexlargo
In any event, if the stigma is the deterrent, it's not working. Impaired driving has been a huge problem for decades and it's not getting better. Something's got to change.

Really? I'd be surprised to see stats showing that drinking and driving hasn't been on the decline for the last few decades.


Originally posted by dexlargo
I think that the change has to be at a cultural level. My friends have told me that in some countries (Sweden being the example that comes to mind) it's socially unacceptable to have even one drink when you're out with friends and drive - you become persona non grata. I think we'll have to get to that point in our culture if we're going to make any real inroads into the impaired driving problem.
Drunk drivers need to be turned into social leapers. And the most counterproductive thing you can do to achieve that end is by drastically increasing the amount of people who belong to that group.

We need getting busted to be a severe source of shame, and the way to achieve that is by keeping the charge as something to be ashamed of.
Start busting everyone who has a beer after work for drinking and driving, and the accusation loses its sting.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Really? I'd be surprised to see stats showing that drinking and driving hasn't been on the decline for the last few decades.
It has declined over the last 30 years, but that was mostly between 1982 (the peak) and about 1995/1997. Here is a quite readable pamphlet produced by Transport Canada, it doesn't get too technical, but I think it's fairly trustworthy: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp1535-menu-830.htm (Open the .pdf, the little blurb on this link is a small part of the document)

If anyone doesn't want to bother to go through the whole thing:


Impaired driving remains a significant road safety, health and economic issue in Canada. Through the 1970s and 1980s significant progress was made in reducing the numbers of drivers on the roads who had been drinking. However, since the mid 1990s, there has been very limited progress made in reducing the carnage on our roads Other tidbits:
- Alcohol related (that is drivers with a positive BAC, not necessarily impaired) fatalities have been flat over the 2000s, remaining stable at about 37% of traffic fatalities
- Approximately 80,000 canadians a year are charged with impaired driving (and who knows how many aren't getting stopped?)

When looking at impaired driving as a criminal offence rather than traffic accidents, the rate of charged offences has fallen from its height in 1982 to about a third of that amount last year (on a percentage basis), but most of that decline was in the 1982-1997 time period. In 2008 (the most recent year statistics are available for), just over 84000 people in Canada were charged with impaired driving, which on a per population basis was 6% higher than 2007, which itself was 3% higher than 2006. From 1997 to 2006 it was either level or slightly declining. You can look these up on Stats Can in the crime reports, but you have to go into each individual year - I won't put all of the links.

One interesting report examining impaired driving trends prepared in 2002 is available. It mostly celebrates the big decline up to 1997 (but it wasn't clear yet in 2002 that the rate was plateauing): http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/85-002-x2003009-eng.pdf

But no significant change has occurred in the last 13 years, and in fact the current trend (as much as two years makes a trend) is upwards.


Originally posted by TKRIS
Drunk drivers need to be turned into social leapers. And the most counterproductive thing you can do to achieve that end is by drastically increasing the amount of people who belong to that group.

We need getting busted to be a severe source of shame, and the way to achieve that is by keeping the charge as something to be ashamed of.
Start busting everyone who has a beer after work for drinking and driving, and the accusation loses its sting. I agree that turning impaired drivers into lepers is the way to do it. I'm not willing to rule this law out as being a part of the way we can get there, but I don't think it's the whole solution.

[seadog]

It seems to me that as time goes on they're just upping the penalties and lowering the limits bit by bit until we're back at prohibition. In the states you used to be good to .10 in a lot of places, then it was .08, then it was 24 hour with .05 in Canada, and now they're talking about fines for the same level. In the US they got the drinking age up to 21 from 18 25 years ago, now MADD and other groups are pushing for it to be higher. Give and inch, they take a mile.

While I certainly don't support drunk driving and think that the people who go out and drink a 12 pack then drive home should lose their license for good, there has to be a line in the sand somewhere.

Like speed, alcohol in the blood is a risk factor. Where you to apply whats happened with DUI laws to the risk factor of speed, speed limits would have gone from 100 ten years ago to 50 today, and now also going 100 on a highway would give you thousands in fines and a criminal record. They decided on a speed and stuck with it. I'm comfortable driving with someone at 100, and I'm comfortable driving with a person who has had 1 drink.

There has to be a balance point, and I think criminalizing people who have a drink or two after work/with dinner isn't the answer. There is too much stigma and rhetoric with drunk driving now. Like smoking people no longer look at facts and logic, but rather they just jump to emotional and absolute conclusions .

[skandalouz_08]

So, as a bartender I think this would be awesome to have implemented in Calgary. I see a vast majority of people who leave the bar and drive when they are near the legal BAC level and quite possibly over. This might be the deterrent they need to catch on. I'm not above calling the cops on them if I know they are driving home drunk either.

That being said, our transit and cabs in the city do suck and especially in bad weather. If that were improved it might also help the whole drunk driving situation. I'm not above taking a bus to/from a bar if its available.

[seadog]

This might be the deterrent they need to catch on.

Are you serious? Right now you're looking at a ban from driving for a decent length of time, a criminal record which makes int'l travel almost impossible, or 5-10k in legal fees to get out of it, yet I know tons of folks who still drink and drive as a sport.

But yah $500 in fines for when you're in the gray area will smarten people up...

Really the risks of being caught are quite low, and there are no sensible cost effective alternatives, so frankly its not surprising so many people do it.

It falls into the same logic as "Beatings at work will continue until moral improves"

[SKR]

I think this will probably help reduce the number of .08s, though it will be a major pain in the ass for the .05-.08 people.

I think a lot of people go out and have a couple drinks because what's the worst that could happen, a 24 hour suspension? That's inconvenient alright, but not a big deal. But then they get pulled over or get into an accident, and it turns out they were actually over .08 and now they're big time fucked.

Basically, I think people aren't afraid to go into the .05-.07 zone because the penalty isn't really too tough, but they underestimate their drunkenness and are actually over .08. Now, they might be .02-.04 and decide to cut themselves off because the penalty for .05-.08 has a little more weight to it, and so they wouldn't unintentionally go into the .08+ zone.

It's like, "sure I can have a beer because I know that won't get me drunk. Sure I can have a second beer because I know that won't get me drunk. Sure I can have a third beer because I know that won't get me drunk. Sure I can have a fourth beer because I know that won't get me drunk." And then the next thing they think is, "holy fuck, I got a .08." Now they might stop at the second one, and not get to .08. They still learn their lesson, but don't get in as much shit for it. Or they don't learn their lesson, which they wouldn't have with a 24 hour anyway. I do think it will help, at least a little bit.

[skandalouz_08]

Originally posted by seadog


Are you serious? Right now you're looking at a ban from driving for a decent length of time, a criminal record which makes int'l travel almost impossible, or 5-10k in legal fees to get out of it, yet I know tons of folks who still drink and drive as a sport.



That's the point isn't it? To make people take responsibility for their actions. If there is a larger penalty don't you think people will think twice about drinking and driving? Especially if they travel internationally for work or want to go on vacations. That person would probably sacrifice the couple drinks and getting a nice "buzz" on and driving home so they can partake in the joys of traveling and luxuries of driving a vehicle.

[Feruk]

Originally posted by benyl


Yes, cause doing nothing is a better solution!

Doing nothing is better then doing something USELESS.

Congrats, you just argued that promoting chastity in Africa by the Catholic Church is preventing the spread of AIDS! Better solution would be condoms, but hey, at least they're doing something, right? :facepalm:

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Isn't this a solution to a problem we don't have?
Are people who drive with a BAC under the legal limit that much of a problem?

Fining people who aren't breaking the law for almost breaking the law makes perfect sense. They should start ticketing people going 95 on the highway just in case they go down a hill and hit 103 as well. Safety trumps all!!!!



Originally posted by skandalouz_08
So, as a bartender I think this would be awesome to have implemented in Calgary. I see a vast majority of people who leave the bar and drive when they are near the legal BAC level and quite possibly over. This might be the deterrent they need to catch on. I'm not above calling the cops on them if I know they are driving home drunk either.

Well perhaps they should bring in another law and check people leaving your bar as they walk out the door. They could start fining you for over-serving patrons if they have a b.a.c. that is approaching illegal, that way they'd get them off the road before they even got on it.

It's all about prevention.

[seadog]

Originally posted by skandalouz_08


If there is a larger penalty don't you think people will think twice about drinking and driving?

My point was that the penalty is already huge and some could argue even disproportionate to the crime, and yet it still doesn't stop people.

In for a penny in for a pound. Risking 10k in legal fees is fine, but 10k in legal fees plus 600 in fines and whoa whoa. Now we're talking a real consequence?

Like people banging in Africa, the solution isn't to tell them not to do it or threaten them because they'll ignore you. People like getting drunk, so they're going to do it. Once drunk, they need a cost effective, conveinient way home. Right now for the less considerate folks out there, drunk driving nicely fits the bill. Yah they might get caught, but likely not, and obviously its worth the risk to them.

The answer is something that lets ppl get boozed, and lets them get home quick, easy and cheap. Like condoms for Africa would let people keep on having sex and reduce AIDS, the answer is effective, cheap alternative methods home.

Some theory as the safe injection sites I guess. Put some money into it and everyone from the drunk who'd be driving home to the general public is safer for it.

[skandalouz_08]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Well perhaps they should bring in another law and check people leaving your bar as they walk out the door. They could start fining you for over-serving patrons if they have a b.a.c. that is approaching illegal, that way they'd get them off the road before they even got on it.

It's all about prevention.

Obviously you've never been a bartender before, but over-serving is always an issue and something we are careful about. While we can be careful about it, what's to stop someone from going outside to the liquor store across the street to down a mickey and coming back to the bar, or accessing alcohol in any other way. You're basically saying that I'd be responsible for over-serving anyone in the bar whether I had served them or whether they had served themselves and came in. That makes no sense.

What I'm saying is this law really isn't going to affect the everyday people who follow the laws and don't drink and drive. This will affect the people that DO drink and drive and rightly so. Sure it would suck to have such a huge fine, but if you wouldn't have driven, you wouldn't have gotten the fine.

[skandalouz_08]

Originally posted by seadog


My point was that the penalty is already huge and some could argue even disproportionate to the crime, and yet it still doesn't stop people.

In for a penny in for a pound. Risking 10k in legal fees is fine, but 10k in legal fees plus 600 in fines and whoa whoa. Now we're talking a real consequence?

Like people banging in Africa, the solution isn't to tell them not to do it or threaten them because they'll ignore you. People like getting drunk, so they're going to do it. Once drunk, they need a cost effective, conveinient way home. Right now for the less considerate folks out there, drunk driving nicely fits the bill. Yah they might get caught, but likely not, and obviously its worth the risk to them.

The answer is something that lets ppl get boozed, and lets them get home quick, easy and cheap. Like condoms for Africa would let people keep on having sex and reduce AIDS, the answer is effective, cheap alternative methods home.

Some theory as the safe injection sites I guess. Put some money into it and everyone from the drunk who'd be driving home to the general public is safer for it.

I think you're right, the penalty is large, but I think its more of a "lets make an example" out of a few people and word will spread and drunk driving will stop fine. If police did more check-stops and preventative measures themselves I don't think there would be a problem with these fines being increased.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by skandalouz_08


Obviously you've never been a bartender before, but over-serving is always an issue and something we are careful about. While we can be careful about it, what's to stop someone from going outside to the liquor store across the street to down a mickey and coming back to the bar, or accessing alcohol in any other way. You're basically saying that I'd be responsible for over-serving anyone in the bar whether I had served them or whether they had served themselves and came in. That makes no sense.

What I'm saying is this law really isn't going to affect the everyday people who follow the laws and don't drink and drive. This will affect the people that DO drink and drive and rightly so. Sure it would suck to have such a huge fine, but if you wouldn't have driven, you wouldn't have gotten the fine.

Tongue in cheek is lost on you.......? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume i've been in and out of the bar industry in one form or another for 10 years longer than you've been legal to drink. :)

(btw, not meant in a cunty manner :) )

[revelations]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok


For around $20 + shipping, you can buy a keychain that will tell you. http://shop.ebay.ca/?_from=R40&_trksid=p3907.m570.l1311&_nkw=breathalyzer&_sacat=See-All-Categories

:thumbsup: didnt know they were that cheap....just bought one now...a great party tool as well haha