Alberta alcohol related traffic safety act amendments to come into force June 25th

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by gretz
cry me a fuckin river... The first thing i wrote was a joke, as pointed out by my "on a serious note"... that followed

And it was a legit question, followed by an assumption (not a negative one), as I don't know the procedure (as well as other members)... followed by me thanking the dex for enlightening me... I'm not sure why you are always so sensitive to my posts...

edit > the only reason I know so little about these procedures (as well as other members) is because we are not told / taught them (for obvious reasons), which is why I ask questions... Most of the times I ask a question related to your line of work, you jump at me and choose to believe I am a "cop hater" and often not answer my questions at all...

I have answered your questions in a few posts, I don't think I've ignored you. I'm pretty good for getting back to people around here, and from what I've seen, I don't think I've ever not answered your questions.

Of the questions I have answered, you just choose to ignore the answer because it doesn't fit into your beliefs about us, which I'm sure many agree, can be boiled down to your belief that the police can do whatever the fuck they want and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

I'm sorry if I am in the wrong when I see you calling us assholes, or saying we can get away with whatever we want at our "discretion" (the use of that word, BTW, is a very poor disguise for what you think we are doing), and passing off your disdain towards us for doing our jobs as a joke, is being misinterpreted. I am merely a "highly trained officer of the law" as you have put it before, and I sometimes need some guidance.

I think it's pretty clear what side of the fence you are on.

[KRyn]

I wonder what I would blow after drinking a 26 over a few hours... Or after an all day bender of binge drinking for 12+ hours. Anyway you can rent one of these units?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by phil98z24
........

Regardless of the communication barriers that may or may not exist with a few people, you shouldn't let it discourage you from providing factual information where relevant because at the end of the day it still benefits the majority to be better informed - whether we agree with it or not.

Thanks.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Regardless of the communication barriers that may or may not exist with a few people, you shouldn't let it discourage you from providing factual information where relevant because at the end of the day it still benefits the majority to be better informed - whether we agree with it or not.

Thanks.

No problem. I'm happy to do it so long as people still benefit.

[gretz]

Originally posted by phil98z24


Of the questions I have answered, you just choose to ignore the answer because it doesn't fit into your beliefs about us, which I'm sure many agree, can be boiled down to your belief that the police can do whatever the fuck they want and there isn't a damned thing anyone can do about it.

>>Ignore what answers? I never said they can do whatever they want...

I'm sorry if I am in the wrong when I see you calling us assholes, or saying we can get away with whatever we want at our "discretion" (the use of that word, BTW, is a very poor disguise for what you think we are doing), and passing off your disdain towards us for doing our jobs as a joke, is being misinterpreted.

I am merely a "highly trained officer of the law" as you have put it before, and I sometimes need some guidance.


>>Never called you assholes... I did state you can ticket at your discretion, court being our only way to dispute the tickets... Am I wrong?

I think it's pretty clear what side of the fence you are on.

Im sorry you feel that way... I never said your jobs are a joke, nor do I have disdain...

[SKR]

Originally posted by phil98z24


Because witch hunts are only done on perceived problems that don't actually exist, and our day isn't spent looking for poor drivers, we come across them in our day to day duties, just like we do with impaired drivers.

I know you are sarcastically trying to imply that the province is making a mandate for us to go and seek out people and punish them for not breaking the law, which couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm not implying that at all, nor is there any sarcasm. If drinking and driving is going to be against the law, and the punishment is losing your license for a year, that's fine. I don't have any problem with that. The trouble is that on one hand we have drunk drivers "missing traffic lights/signs, inability to maintain lane/swerving, bumping off curbs", and we think a mandatory 1 year license suspension isn't enough. And on the other hand we have sober drivers "missing traffic lights/signs, inability to maintain lane/swerving, bumping off curbs", and we don't do anything about that. I just wish that unsafe driving, drunk or sober, was punished the same. That would actually address the issue of road safety, rather than hunting for witches.

I understand this is a matter of law and not a matter of enforcement, so don't take my quoting you personally.

[zarge]

Drinking and driving is cool

[se7en]

Gov't regulations r not.

[relyt92]

Originally posted by phil98z24





I find it remarkable that someone could continue to run their mouth about things they don't know anything about, when it's been demonstrated that you clearly have no grasp on reality when it comes to these issues.

As dexlargo said, there are actual checks and balances that benefit the individual over the state, despite your obvious hesitation to believe it because the 5-0 are just there to hassle good people like you who do no wrong.

I've never been through a checkstop, or had my BAC tested. What is the process actually like? Say I blew a warn on the checkstop, what happens from there?

[know1edge]

Originally posted by relyt92
I've never been through a checkstop, or had my BAC tested. What is the process actually like? Say I blew a warn on the checkstop, what happens from there?

nvm

[m10-power]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Regardless of the communication barriers that may or may not exist with a few people, you shouldn't let it discourage you from providing factual information where relevant because at the end of the day it still benefits the majority to be better informed - whether we agree with it or not.

Thanks.

+1

Odd to me that people would try to determine how many drinks they could have before driving, and seem only concerned with blowing over...

[94boosted]

I have a couple questions I was hoping someone could help me out with:

1) Is the following correct:

Right now:
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Warn, officers discretion on a 24 hour suspension, no tickets or impounds
0.09+ = DUI

June 25th
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Mandatory 3 day suspension and impound. Tickets? Demertis?
0.09+ = DUI


2) Is it true that if asked and you admit to having had a single drink the officer must administer a breathalizer? But if asked and you say "no, not a drop" and the officer does not suspect you are under the influence they will not administer a breathalizer?

[kenny]

Originally posted by 94boosted
I have a couple questions I was hoping someone could help me out with:

1) Is the following correct:

Right now:
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Warn, officers discretion on a 24 hour suspension, no tickets or impounds
0.09+ = DUI

June 25th
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Mandatory 3 day suspension and impound. Tickets? Demertis?
0.09+ = DUI

2) Is it true that if asked and you admit to having had a single drink the officer must administer a breathalizer? But if asked and you say "no, not a drop" and the officer does not suspect you are under the influence they will not administer a breathalizer?

1. Ranges should be 0.00-0.049, 0.05-0.079, 0.080+ There is supposed to be a news conference with Ric McIver where the plan will be laid out. I've read so many different dates, so not sure what is going on. I've seen June 25, July 1 and September 1.

2. If you tell the officer you've had a drink they are allowed to request a breath sample but they don't have to. If you say that you have not had a drink and there is no other sign of you drinking (ex. smell of alcohol) they cannot request a breath sample.

[94boosted]

Originally posted by kenny


1. Ranges should be 0.00-0.049, 0.05-0.079, 0.080+ There is supposed to be a news conference with Ric McIver where the plan will be laid out. I've read so many different dates, so not sure what is going on. I've seen June 25, July 1 and September 1.

2. If you tell the officer you've had a drink they are allowed to request a breath sample but they don't have to. If you say that you have not had a drink and there is no other sign of you drinking (ex. smell of alcohol) they cannot request a breath sample.

Thanks Kenny!

As for the new 0.050-0.079 range do you know if the 3 day suspenion/impound carries some sort of a ticket c/w demerits or is it strictly the impound & related fees?

For the record no I do not ever intend to drive within the 0.050-0.079 range lol, just curious.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by 94boosted
1) Is the following correct:

Right now:
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Warn, officers discretion on a 24 hour suspension, no tickets or impounds
0.09+ = DUI

almost. You need another digit to be more accurate, and some of the ranges are wrong.

Technically:

0.0 - 0.05 = Off you go.
0.051 - 0.080 = Warn, officer's discretion, blah blah blah.
0.081+ = Driving while blood alcohol exceeds 80 mg%

In reality, the ranges are slightly different:

0.0 - 0.059 = Off you go. (Not totally sure where the devices are set to warn, but I think it's at 0.06 to allow for the margin of error in the device.)
0.60 - 0.099 = warn, blah blah blah
0.10+ = Charged with driving while blood alcohol exceeds 80 mg% (this is to allow for margin of error, and also so that when they get you on the real testing device, there's usually a delay before getting there, so they want to make sure you'll still be over 90 mg% when you get on that machine.)

2) Is it true that if asked and you admit to having had a single drink the officer must administer a breathalizer?

In that situation the officer would be entitled to demand you do a screening test, but the officer doesn't have to. If he believes you that you only had 1 drink and that it would be a waste of time to put you on the screening device - he doesn't have to do it.

But if asked and you say "no, not a drop" and the officer does not suspect you are under the influence they will not administer a breathalizer?

The officer has to have a "reasonable suspicion that there is alcohol in the body" of the person in order to be allowed to make a screening demand. Usually this will come from an admission of drinking, or from noticing a smell of alcohol on the person's breath. If you deny drinking, and the officer can't smell alcohol on your breath, it's unlikely that he would make a screening demand - it's not impossible, he might find some other way to have a reasonable suspicion, but those are the easiest ways.

Be careful with this, though. I've spoken with an officer who does checkstops, and he told me that if a person says they've had one drink, and he believes them, he'll let them go. If they deny drinking and he smells alcohol on their breath - he will make the demand, even if he doesn't think it will result in anything. This is because the person is lying - so he follows up to see if there is a reason for that lie. They are usually very good at smelling alcohol on people's breath.

Originally posted by kenny
2. If you tell the officer you've had a drink they are allowed to request a breath sample but they don't have to. If you say that you have not had a drink and there is no other sign of you drinking (ex. smell of alcohol) they cannot request a breath sample.

Which is pretty much the same as what I just wrote, but it's not a request to provide a breath sample - it's a demand.

[Weapon_R]

Originally posted by 94boosted
Is it true that if asked and you admit to having had a single drink the officer must administer a breathalizer? But if asked and you say "no, not a drop" and the officer does not suspect you are under the influence they will not administer a breathalizer?

The rule is that the police officer has to have reasonable suspicion that a person has alcohol in his body when demanding a roadside sample. Once you admit that you have had a drink, that test is met and the officer can ask you to stop and give a sample. As always, the less you say, the better.

[Traffic_Cop]

Originally posted by 94boosted
I have a couple questions I was hoping someone could help me out with:

1) Is the following correct:

Right now:
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Warn, officers discretion on a 24 hour suspension, no tickets or impounds
0.09+ = DUI

June 25th
0.00-0.05 = Nothing
0.06-0.08 = Mandatory 3 day suspension and impound. Tickets? Demertis?
0.09+ = DUI


2) Is it true that if asked and you admit to having had a single drink the officer must administer a breathalizer? But if asked and you say "no, not a drop" and the officer does not suspect you are under the influence they will not administer a breathalizer?

New ranges are :-

0-59 = bye bye
60-100 is the new suspension
100 + is arrest.

The only change here is that the readings are always truncated down. So lets say you blew a 59, your court reading is only 50. Therefore you are not over 50, so a charge cannot be laid. Techically, although the penalties are stiffer, you can actually drink a tad more before you get penalised.

[sillysod]

^^ Like I said in previous posts, if you have had more than 2 drinks call a cab. Nothing would be worse than taking a cab home after getting your car impounded thinking... if only i had.... (we've all been there for something)

We went out last weekend and I nursed 2 coors lights for 2 hours just to be safe. On the way home I counted 7 police vans from 1410 on 17th to McLeod Tr. Not worth risking a .05. I may not agree with the law but it IS law so it really makes no difference what I think or not.

I was fortunate to learn under the old rules, hopefully I can save some beyonders from getting nailed under these new rules.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by gretz


Im sorry you feel that way... I never said your jobs are a joke, nor do I have disdain...

I used to think it was just me, but after seeing this thread, you've proven what a turd you are. You do nothing but jump at every chance to bad mouth police and constantly regurgitate tired stereotypes, then you get all defensive about it. Stand behind your own statements. I'm so sick of seeing you insult the police, only to later claim you were joking. Your "jokes" aren't funny. They are annoying, redundant, and make you look like an ignorant tit.

At any rate, good luck getting any future "questions" answered. And by "questions", I mean "back handed stabs at police with a question mark on the end".

[gretz]

Originally posted by JustGo

I used to think it was just me, but after seeing this thread, you've proven what a turd you are. You do nothing but jump at every chance to bad mouth police and constantly regurgitate tired stereotypes, then you get all defensive about it. Stand behind your own statements. I'm so sick of seeing you insult the police, only to later claim you were joking. Your "jokes" aren't funny. They are annoying, redundant, and make you look like an ignorant tit.

At any rate, good luck getting any future "questions" answered. And by "questions", I mean "back handed stabs at police with a question mark on the end".

I thought this died off...

And out of left field comes another officer to tell me how all I do is bad mouth police... You guys are so insecure it makes me sad

> "later claimed jokes" ? Do I have to spell it out for all of you? "on a serious note" typically means what was written before was not serious > I was writing the typical "Beyond" response for how the police are stereotyped... I hope you don't get like this when people jokingly take pokes at your profession, I know I don't lol...

You guys tend get your backs up when your policies are questioned... I don't know why, but I'm the bad guy.

I stand behind all of my statements on Beyond; show me where I back pedal without apology if I was in the wrong...

At any rate, it seems the CPS on here like to jump at people who don't agree with them without question > show me all of these cop hater threads where I am being a turd and always insulting police (as you are sick of seeing it)

And what stereotypes? The fact I claim the police can write tickets at their discretion? Oh yeah, you don't like the way that sounds, as it can come across as a negative "stereotype", but it is 100% true > you guys see it as "CPS can do whatever they want".


Once again, I apologize for your issues you guys have with me. There will be no more thread related questions from me on police procedures, and thanks again Dex for answering my question > as well as Phil and Justgo for coming out of left field and telling me how awful I am