Bill 26 passes today, breathalyzer challenge #2

[rage2]

We're getting tougher drinking and driving laws starting in the new year!

With that being said, here's our breathalyzer challenge #2.

http://www.beyond.ca/bill-26-passes-...e-2/11275.html

[FraserB]

The bill in BC that this is based on has already been challenged in court and has had parts of it unconstitutional. Specifically, it does not allow the offender adequate chance to defend themselves. I can almost guarantee the first person in AB that gets hit with this will fight it and use that as precedent.

[bourge73]

Nevermind .05 who is that smoke show with the breathalyzer?

[lasimmon]

They are right to get tougher on drunk driving. They are targeting the wrong people though. The stats show its not people between 0.05 and 0.08 that are killing people.

[JfuckinC]

Haha shoulda brought me out for the testing

[Ven]

There's so much Acetaldehyd in that room I don't know how you can say it's a fair test

[Abeo]

Were there any non-asians in this test?

Surprising results, but I think a greater cross section of "test subjects" would be interesting as well.

[ercchry]

if you need a big white guy for this free meal test, im in!

[danhharp]

Well Done ~ I've always enjoy your investigative journalism.

I'm still comfortable with the 3 drink max, and ensuring any test is done 15 mins after last drink.

Thanks.

[ExtraSlow]

Rage, I love asian women, but I'm not sure that's a really helpful test in a province where the majority of drunk drivers are white men.

That being said, did you get any more "interesting" pics for that test night?

[max_boost]

Originally posted by bourge73
Nevermind .05 who is that smoke show with the breathalyzer?

[Feruk]

According to your test, I, being a ~200lb white man, can drink 7 shots of vodka and not blow over 0.05? Did not expect that.

[88CRX]

Did you guys eat before hand?

I find that makes the world of difference.... empty stomach + 2 even 3 drinks in an hour is insta-drunk and well on the way to black-out-loser-drunk levels haha. However on a full stomach after a big meal 4 or 5 drinks has little to no effect.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by FraserB
The bill in BC that this is based on has already been challenged in court and has had parts of it unconstitutional. Specifically, it does not allow the offender adequate chance to defend themselves. I can almost guarantee the first person in AB that gets hit with this will fight it and use that as precedent.

Yes, but those parts ran parallel with existing Criminal legislation. The provincial government doesn't have authority to do so, and aside from that, that section of the law didn't allow for due process for such a severe punishment.

Ours will be significantly different, and already is. Our existing 24 hour legislation (section 89 of the TSA) allows for people who want to challenge a 24 hour suspension to take an Intoxilyzer test (not the roadside, big difference!) at a District Office. This legislation will be no different, and because of that will stand up to Charter challenges.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by lasimmon
They are right to get tougher on drunk driving. They are targeting the wrong people though. The stats show its not people between 0.05 and 0.08 that are killing people.

They may not be killing as many people, but they still do. They also cause serious injury collisions and hurt themselves in the process. From my side of the fence I've seen more than enough to be convinced that .05 and over impaired driving.

I've had impaired files were someone wasn't over .08 mg/% BAC, but at .05 or .06 they weren't able to drive, as evidenced by poor driving behaviour and other indicia. You don't have to be .08 or over to be impaired!

[rage2]

Originally posted by phil98z24
I've had impaired files were someone wasn't over .08 mg/% BAC, but at .05 or .06 they weren't able to drive, as evidenced by poor driving behaviour and other indicia. You don't have to be .08 or over to be impaired!

I've been saying this ever since I bought a breathalyzer. It's ridiculous how drunk you are at 0.05 BAC.

[Masked Bandit]

I love the write-up! Next time around I would like to see someone in the 250 lbs range as a test subject.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by rage2

I've been saying this ever since I bought a breathalyzer. It's ridiculous how drunk you are at 0.05 BAC.

Uh huh.. I've always said that .08 BAC is verrrry generous. I'm thinking it's only a matter of time before the Criminal law is changed.

That being said, as you've seen and will see with your other scenario, the hospitality industry has little to worry about with this. It's a lot of fear mongering and people will quickly see that 2 drinks with dinner will be no cause for concern. I think this will be good for everyone; public policy surrounding this can't be ignored.

[Abeo]

Another test that would be interesting is to grab the same people, and see if their perception of drunkenness changes with caffeine (red bull and vodkas)

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by phil98z24


Yes, but those parts ran parallel with existing Criminal legislation. The provincial government doesn't have authority to do so, and aside from that, that section of the law didn't allow for due process for such a severe punishment.

Ours will be significantly different, and already is. Our existing 24 hour legislation (section 89 of the TSA) allows for people who want to challenge a 24 hour suspension to take an Intoxilyzer test (not the roadside, big difference!) at a District Office. This legislation will be no different, and because of that will stand up to Charter challenges.

I've read the Bill and the recent BC court decision (the BC decision is here if you want to read it), and Phil is 100% correct. The Justice upheld almost all of the law, including all parts that dealt with people who blow over 0.05 and under 0.08. The only part of the law he found unconstitutional were the provisions that put extra punishments onto people who blow over 0.08. He found that the punishments imposed there were too great to not allow the same due process as for a criminal charge.

To add on to what Phil wrote about the second test, the other thing I read in the Alberta Bill that was interesting is that you could also blow into a second, different, roadside device immediately after blowing in the 'warn' range. This different roadside device would display numerical results for tests, and if it does not confirm a breath result greater than 0.05, there would be no suspension, etc. This is an alternative to taking the person to the district office to blow on the device there, so it looks like there are two ways to confirm (or reject) the initial roadside result in this law.

The only change from this Bill that affects people who are charged criminally (for impaired driving, blowing over the legal limit, or refusing to blow) is that they would be immediately suspended from driving upon being charged and that suspension would continue until the criminal charges reach a conclusion. That could be a long time if waiting for trial. The average trial delay now is about 6-9 months.

I expect this part of the Bill to be challenged, but I think there's a good chance it will be upheld.