Quantcast
Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching? - Page 8 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 195

Thread: Impaired Driving Laws too Far Reaching?

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,526
    Rep Power
    16

    Default



    Yep, we're all just paranoid. This is an acquaintenance who lives near an overpass (like 300m away), I suspect he was pulled over as he took the offramp where the cop was probably radaring people.
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote


    Yep, we're all just paranoid. This is an acquaintenance who lives near an overpass (like 300m away), I suspect he was pulled over as he took the offramp where the cop was probably radaring people.
    And? That’s legal. What’s the point you’re making?
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,526
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil98z24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And? That’s legal. What’s the point you’re making?
    Wasn't legal until the new law passed, which is exactly what we are complaining about. Warrantless invasions of persons with no supporting evidence/reason to do so.

    Essentially expect to be required to provide a sample any time you are pulled over. Welcome to the 21st century comrade
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRSC00LUDE View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Exactly. And I'm sorry to all the apologists here but if lawyers who argue these things for a living are saying it CAN happen, it's likely going to at some point. And even just once is too many times if you actually care about rights in society.
    And we “can” use excessive force, we “can” illegally search people, there are a lot of things we “can” do that aren’t related to impaired driving and are far worse than this. Why is this the hang up when it comes to police powers? There are far greater powers being abused out there. Not to say this is any less important, but I’m curious as to why this one is the thing everyone is going after.

    Let me be clear: I’m not saying to ignore the concerns about this. I’m just wondering why you are all so hung up on this when that specific provision of the CC won’t apply to most everyone.
    Last edited by phil98z24; 01-12-2019 at 07:43 PM.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cowtown
    My Ride
    10' 4Runner SR5
    Posts
    5,881
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Ex's be cray?
    Follow me on Instagram and Facebook!

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    119
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Assuming Phil your right which I am.. I'm mostly hung up on the fact that our police forces across canada are not interested in setting the media straight on these crazy scenarios.

    Our police forces can get a media release instantly. They can get the word out if they want. If the stories in the media are far from the truth what's the delay in setting them straight?

    It took an hour for the rcmp to release a media statement when shannon Phillip's continued to make up stories in the media regarding her dealings with the rcmp yet its been a couple weeks of non sense stories on the drunk driving laws and we dont have any police forces on record calling out the media shit storm???

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    McDonalds Wifi
    My Ride
    100% SAVAGE
    Posts
    5,460
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    I'd argue that it's not the primary role of police forces to interpret legislation. That's the role of the courts.

    If a police service puts out a public statement about changes in legislation and what is or is not meant by them, that's overstepping thier role, and judges could interpret differently, which would make the police look foolish at best, or dishonest at worst.

    I'd also say it's not in the best interests of the police forces to publicize thier planned enforcement methods. They can't (and shouldn't) rule out enforcement options that are permitted by legislation, even if those methods aren't going to be a normal part of thier work.
    Last edited by ExtraSlow; 01-12-2019 at 08:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by max_boost View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Holy crap....ExtraSlow is on another level.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    119
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    why wouldnt it be our police force clarifying changes to our criminal code? Why is it the media doing this?? If you want people understanding the laws and all the repercussions to things then it's best explained by our police.

    Theres no negative consequence in having the general public understanding their rights unless of course that's not what the police want.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wasn't legal until the new law passed, which is exactly what we are complaining about. Warrantless invasions of persons with no supporting evidence/reason to do so.

    Essentially expect to be required to provide a sample any time you are pulled over. Welcome to the 21st century comrade
    Did it bother you that police could already stop anyone for no reason other than to check documents and driver fitness?
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    2,254
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Phil, in the case above, what would have happened if the person had reduced lung capacity and could not blow a successful test?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
    Im the one with a learning disability....

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.F. is an entity that is everywhere
    Posts
    1,284
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtsniffer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Phil, in the case above, what would have happened if the person had reduced lung capacity and could not blow a successful test?
    I have taken thousands of breath samples and the only people who have failed to provide a sample deliberately failed and were charged for refusal. I have dealt with this one local drunk a few times who has 1 lung on oxygen (even when driving) and that dude has no issue. One of my coworkers brought his kid when she was 6 years old into the station and she could provide samples in all our equipment. The reduced lung capacity or asthma excuse is usually brought up by people who are drunk, and you can often watch their long winded explanation of it for 30 seconds between breaths haha.

    If people are injured and incapable of providing a breath sample you can read a blood demand and obtain a blood sample, or if they are incapable of answering to the demand you can apply for a blood warrant and take the sample the hospital obtains from them.
    1983 Dodge W150 Power Ram. 360/NP435/D44/9.25

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    GLA
    Posts
    1,476
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    I think the police should be able to pull anyone over and make them blow. Driving on public roads should not be considered a right, it should be considered a monitored privilege. Getting someone to blow at home after the fact is certainly a different story.

    Side note: I once had the cops show up to my door claiming someone had reported my wife for drinking and driving. I had to subtly indicate to them that she is just a bad driver. Once the cop picked up what I was putting down, he laughed and they went on their way. (She was also clearly not drunk.)

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    2,254
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Fink View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have taken thousands of breath samples and the only people who have failed to provide a sample deliberately failed and were charged for refusal. I have dealt with this one local drunk a few times who has 1 lung on oxygen (even when driving) and that dude has no issue. One of my coworkers brought his kid when she was 6 years old into the station and she could provide samples in all our equipment. The reduced lung capacity or asthma excuse is usually brought up by people who are drunk, and you can often watch their long winded explanation of it for 30 seconds between breaths haha.

    If people are injured and incapable of providing a breath sample you can read a blood demand and obtain a blood sample, or if they are incapable of answering to the demand you can apply for a blood warrant and take the sample the hospital obtains from them.
    Good to know. Thanks.

    My buddy has a machine and I always had a hard time getting it to take a sample even with normal lungs. Probably no where as good as the one the police have. Q

    As for the change, I'm all for closing that loop hole. That greasy RCMP office, Monty robinson in, Vancouver used it to get out of a DUI fatality.
    Last edited by dirtsniffer; 01-13-2019 at 12:07 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
    Im the one with a learning disability....

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    119
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    came across a police article stating what Phil has mentioned. Theres no rebuttal from a lawyer or anything. It took about 3 weeks for a police force to clear up the confusion spread in the media.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4859789/e...-driving-laws/

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere between YYC and YVR
    Posts
    6,622
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wasn't legal until the new law passed, which is exactly what we are complaining about. Warrantless invasions of persons with no supporting evidence/reason to do so.

    Essentially expect to be required to provide a sample any time you are pulled over. Welcome to the 21st century comrade
    How is it warrentless

    Isn't it automatic that people think "No mud flaps = Drunk Redneck"?

    Just like "Flashy car = Drunk Rich person" or "No tail light = Drunk poor person" or "SUV = Drunk Soccer mom" or "Car = Drunk Soccer mom wannabe"

    Obviously the entire world is just a drunk stereotype, so no more reasonable grounds needed


    They should just change the law to "If you operate a vehicle with round wheels, you will be subject to unreasonable searches and evidence collection OR ELSE YOU GO TO JAIL!"
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 01-17-2019 at 07:12 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by flipstah View Post
    You can't score on shots you don't take.

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Calgmonton/AB
    Posts
    88
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How is it warrentless

    Isn't it automatic that people think "No mud flaps = Drunk Redneck"?

    Just like "Flashy car = Drunk Rich person" or "No tail light = Drunk poor person" or "SUV = Drunk Soccer mom" or "Car = Drunk Soccer mom wannabe"

    Obviously the entire world is just a drunk stereotype, so no more reasonable grounds needed


    They should just change the law to "If you operate a vehicle with round wheels, you will be subject to unreasonable searches and evidence collection OR ELSE YOU GO TO JAIL!"
    It's too far and I find it agonizing to say that because Impaired Driving is a chronic problem but it's too far.
    There are too many cops without the adequate judgement to leave me the fuck alone after I've had 3 beers over a long dinner instead of giving me a 24hr suspension and maybe towing my car and calling social services to take my kid away at roadside. All based on a double-A battery not legally binding pocket toy instead of an actual accurate BAC measuring instrument.
    The whole system needs an overhaul because the fear mongering of "3 drinks and you're 0.09 if you're ____ kg" is a massive lie. A massive lie that's now causing more problems than it was meant to solve.
    I've been up to 0.04 and couldn't fathom thinking I was ok to drive. The time I managed to crack 0.08 I'm positive I couldn't get my keys in the ignition switch assuming I could even find my car. It's boneless drunk.
    You know who drives at 0.08? Career drunks like hardened alky's. Funny thing is they're better off at 0.08 than 0.01 because that's their established normal state.
    Either slash the limit down and stop lying to people about alcohol or better yet - eliminate the concept of limit and start video taping a standardized roadside test for impairment to also catch all these stoned losers too. That would bury some of these useless lawyers and save the police the money on these useless machines that the lawyers keep defeating.
    "Your honor - here's the video of the alleged impaired driver failing to count backward from 22 after vomiting on the sidewalk and then slipping and falling into it. I rest my case".

  17. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenIsMightier View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's too far and I find it agonizing to say that because Impaired Driving is a chronic problem but it's too far.
    There are too many cops without the adequate judgement to leave me the fuck alone after I've had 3 beers over a long dinner instead of giving me a 24hr suspension and maybe towing my car and calling social services to take my kid away at roadside. All based on a double-A battery not legally binding pocket toy instead of an actual accurate BAC measuring instrument.
    The whole system needs an overhaul because the fear mongering of "3 drinks and you're 0.09 if you're ____ kg" is a massive lie. A massive lie that's now causing more problems than it was meant to solve.
    I've been up to 0.04 and couldn't fathom thinking I was ok to drive. The time I managed to crack 0.08 I'm positive I couldn't get my keys in the ignition switch assuming I could even find my car. It's boneless drunk.
    You know who drives at 0.08? Career drunks like hardened alky's. Funny thing is they're better off at 0.08 than 0.01 because that's their established normal state.
    Either slash the limit down and stop lying to people about alcohol or better yet - eliminate the concept of limit and start video taping a standardized roadside test for impairment to also catch all these stoned losers too. That would bury some of these useless lawyers and save the police the money on these useless machines that the lawyers keep defeating.
    "Your honor - here's the video of the alleged impaired driver failing to count backward from 22 after vomiting on the sidewalk and then slipping and falling into it. I rest my case".
    The fear mongering of 3 drinks putting you over isn’t being done by the government. That’s something the service industry and anti nanny-state warriors are making up because they aren’t well informed. We had a very long thread about this. You can blame everyone else for that.

    3 beers over a long dinner won’t even get you close to 24hr suspension territory, and again, that’s not the government saying it would. That’s the people needlessly hand wringing over it. That “pocket toy” is actually a legally binding instrument that gives grounds for arrest, and also for administrative penalties. I wouldn’t exactly be so sure of yourself when it comes to that. ASD and intoxilyzers aren’t the issue; it’s the grounds for getting people on to and in front of them, and the other stuff that happens outside of that.

    I’m not sure where you’re getting your opinion from, but it’s an interesting one to say the least.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

  18. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Calgmonton/AB
    Posts
    88
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil98z24 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The fear mongering of 3 drinks putting you over isnít being done by the government. Thatís something the service industry and anti nanny-state warriors are making up because they arenít well informed. We had a very long thread about this. You can blame everyone else for that.

    3 beers over a long dinner wonít even get you close to 24hr suspension territory, and again, thatís not the government saying it would. Thatís the people needlessly hand wringing over it. That ďpocket toyĒ is actually a legally binding instrument that gives grounds for arrest, and also for administrative penalties. I wouldnít exactly be so sure of yourself when it comes to that. ASD and intoxilyzers arenít the issue; itís the grounds for getting people on to and in front of them, and the other stuff that happens outside of that.

    Iím not sure where youíre getting your opinion from, but itís an interesting one to say the least.
    Can you prove that the pocket toys are legally binding? They certainly didn't used to be but I'm open to newer info. They were/are a guideline. They should be an excellent tool for a good officer to get a drunk off the road with a quick 24hr suspension by telling him "you ain't gonna pass the real BAC test if I take you to the station... Just take this 24" rather than a shift-killing amount of paperwork and procedural nonsense for one charge.

  19. #159
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Technically the NE
    My Ride
    C63S
    Posts
    3,733
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    I think we need a faster way to put people on ignore.
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.

  20. #160
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePenIsMightier View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can you prove that the pocket toys are legally binding? They certainly didn't used to be but I'm open to newer info. They were/are a guideline. They should be an excellent tool for a good officer to get a drunk off the road with a quick 24hr suspension by telling him "you ain't gonna pass the real BAC test if I take you to the station... Just take this 24" rather than a shift-killing amount of paperwork and procedural nonsense for one charge.
    Check the Criminal Code. They’ve always been. They aren’t a guideline; they give rise to RPG to believe someone’s too impaired to drive, or to administer roadside sanctions which can be retested upon request with an Intoxilyzer... which will give the same result. Furthermore, we don’t use our discretion when it comes to a fail on a roadside. That’s an impaired driver, and that’s a charge. It’s not “nonsense” when it comes to a significant cause of criminal death. 24 hour suspensions on the basis of “I’m doing you a favour” doesn’t exactly deter the bozo who was too hammered to drive.
    ---------------------------------------------------

    Any writings in this forum are my personal view and all opinions expressed should be taken as such; there is no implied or direct opinion representative of anything but my own thoughts on various subjects.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. New driving laws and changes laws coming into force in Onterrible

    By killramos in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 56
    Latest Threads: 06-05-2015, 04:48 PM
  2. Coupon sites: How far is too far?

    By Isaiah in forum General
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 03-13-2013, 05:20 PM
  3. Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving.

    By iloveit in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 46
    Latest Threads: 08-19-2008, 03:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •