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

[dexlargo]

The Amendments to the TSA to allow longer suspensions and seizures of vehicles for blowing over .05 were today ordered to come into effect on June 25th.

Here's the order in council: http://alberta.ca/NewsFrame.cfm?Rele...5E6182044.html

HONOURABLE MR. MCIVER
193/2012
PROCLAMATION - Proclaiming the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2011 in force on June 25, 2012.

Thanks Ric!

[rage2]

[kenny]

The act comes into force on June 25, but yet we are told the new penalties begin Sept 1 during the Labor Day long weekend with no grace period. Either way, hopefully people choose not to drive after a huge weekend of binge drinking. I imagine there will be some that wake up for the drive home and will still be over 0.05.

http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/albe...801/story.html

[Thaco]

IMO punish the drunks, not people who drink.


We don't enforce the laws as they are now, but let's make more!

[Unknown303]

Originally posted by Thaco
IMO punish the drunks, not people who drink.


We don't enforce the laws as they are now, but let's make more!

Seems to me they have everything in place to punish people who drive drunk. This seems like they are widening the scope before they really did anything with the current setup.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Thaco
IMO punish the drunks, not people who drink.

We don't enforce the laws as they are now, but let's make more!

The laws are being enforced. You blow a warn, 24 hour suspension. Blow a fail, DUI charge. Only difference now is, if you blow a warn, you're losing your car, and getting a 3 day suspension on the spot.

It's not punishing people who drink. 2 glasses of wine during dinner, or 2 beers after work won't get you close to 0.05, even if you're a 90lb girl.

[Thaco]

Originally posted by rage2

The laws are being enforced. You blow a warn, 24 hour suspension. Blow a fail, DUI charge. Only difference now is, if you blow a warn, you're losing your car, and getting a 3 day suspension on the spot.

It's not punishing people who drink. 2 glasses of wine during dinner, or 2 beers after work won't get you close to 0.05, even if you're a 90lb girl.

i dont think they are being enforced, how often do you see checkstops? I have seen(been through) two in the past 5 years...

the point is people .05-.08 aren't killing people, the drunks at .2+ are killing people... I don't want to have to wonder if having a couple beer with supper is going to cost me my car..

i know a few drunks who drive regularly when they're hammered... been doing it for years, if the enforcement were there, they wouldn't have a license.

[Go4Long]

I see sometimes one a month in front of our building downtown.

[Zigo]

Was there not a test on this long ago?

[Isaiah]

Originally posted by Go4Long
I see sometimes one a month in front of our building downtown.

I live right behind your building, often return home or drive people home late in the evening and have not seem any in the past 7 months I've lived there. You see them from the NMC?

[phil98z24]

This has been absolutely beat to death. But hey, lets go over it again because clearly people are missing the point:

1 - You are not going to blow over .05 after having two drinks with dinner, unless you are a small person and drink those two drinks in the span of an hour and proceed to drive.

2 - It doesn't matter if those people who are between .05 and .08 are KILLING anyone. The fact is, they cause collisions and a number of other road related hazards that don't necessarily culminate in death on a regular basis. Which incidentally, in a ridiculous metric for the usefulness of this law. Even if the government uses it, it's a stupid point of reference.

3 - Enforcement of current laws is happening, and let me remind you, just because something isn't happening in front of your face doesn't mean it isn't happening. Checkstop runs 365 days a year, barring issues, and is a very effective program. However, to have more buses would require more money... which I won't get into because people don't support such crazy notions.

This is about risk management involving a very real problem, and minimizing hazards to the public. Just because the percentage of collisions caused by people driving in this category of BAC is relatively small, whether they cause death or not, it still costs everyone in a number of ways.

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by phil98z24

2 - It doesn't matter if those people who are between .05 and .08 are KILLING anyone. The fact is, they cause collisions and a number of other road related hazards that don't necessarily culminate in death on a regular basis. Which incidentally, in a ridiculous metric for the usefulness of this law. Even if the government uses it, it's a stupid point of reference.

but people who blow 0.00 cause accidents too. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that people in the 0.05-0.08 group cause more accidents than those with 0.00.

I think this 0.05 suspension is fucking stupid. The law puts the limit at 0.08, and IMO people who are under the legal limit should not be punished for not breaking the law.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by FixedGear


but people who blow 0.00 cause accidents too. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that people in the 0.05-0.08 group cause more accidents than those with 0.00.

I think this 0.05 suspension is fucking stupid. The law puts the limit at 0.08, and IMO people who are under the legal limit should not be punished for not breaking the law.

I figured that poor argument was going to be raised again at some point.

I just said that it was about risk management, not risk elimination. There is a huge gulf between the two of those, and the only way we entirely stop traffic deaths is to eliminate driving all together. Does that sound reasonable to you?

The fact is, people who are between .05 and .08 are at a higher risk for causing a traffic collision, because at .05 YOU ARE too impaired to safely drive a vehicle. I don't care what the Criminal Code says, because that is a number used for a different purpose in terms of evidence and burden of proof. This isn't a criminal law, it's statutory legislation relating to operation of vehicles in the province, which again, is not your right and is a privilege that is being regulated in line with Charter and constitutional rights.

This law is to go after people who are putting others into harm's way, and those who continue to flaunt the criminal justice system. It's another method of enforcement that helps us to get people off the road who shouldn't be there.

MY question is, why don't 24 hour suspensions which are suspending people's privilege to drive along with the occasional car tow, not raising people's ire? It seems when someone is restricted from use of their property either by longer license suspension or impound of a vehicle, on a public roadway that they have no absolute right to, they take issue with it. Why could that be?

Further to that, why is it that people don't take exception to the mandatory 30 day vehicle seizure as a result of driving with a suspended license? They aren't hurting anyone, so why do it? That can't be worse than driving impaired.

The answer is prevention from continuing the offense, and to keep people from doing it again after that point. Minimization of risk to the public, and to themselves. People can't seem to take care of themselves, and that is why these laws exist.

[JustGo]

Originally posted by FixedGear


but people who blow 0.00 cause accidents too. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that people in the 0.05-0.08 group cause more accidents than those with 0.00.

I think this 0.05 suspension is fucking stupid. The law puts the limit at 0.08, and IMO people who are under the legal limit should not be punished for not breaking the law.

That's a wonderful theory until you or someone you care about is hurt or killed by some 100 pound high school girl that is totally wasted at 0.05%. Numbers aside, the only truly safe amount of booze to consume before driving is none.

I have seen hardcore alcoholics blow 0.20 and still function at a fairly normal level, but I've also seen some people who are sloppy drunk and only blow 0.03. It affects everyone differently.

[lasimmon]

.

[narou]

I have witnessed people becoming impaired off of half a cooler so.. .05 isn't so bad.

I just don't drink and drive simple. And since I have to drive I really don't drink much lol. Too afraid of ending up in a bad situation.

[FixedGear]

LOL, suddenly all the cops show up. I am not saying it's OK to drive while intoxicated, but I do think this was a stupid decision made without any real data to back it up.

Originally posted by phil98z24

The fact is, people who are between .05 and .08 are at a higher risk for causing a traffic collision

My original point, which you seem to have missed, was that there is no evidence of this.

Originally posted by JustGo
That's a wonderful theory until you or someone you care about is hurt or killed by some 100 pound high school girl that is totally wasted at 0.05%.

But in this exceedingly rare instance, field sobriety tests should be sufficient to temporarily suspend her license... and note that she is still under the legal limit of 0.08.

[gruster]

to Rage2

I would like to point some inconsistency over here...

Rage2

2 beers after work won't get you close to 0.05, even if you're a 90lb girl

Then lets go back to your famous challenge

Subject #4 was my assistant, she's 90lbs.

She started off with a Smirnoff Ice, and after that was done, immediately registered a 0.06

Link http://forums.beyond.ca/st/319908/th...e-right-limit/

[Thaco]

Originally posted by gruster
to Rage2

I would like to point some inconsistency over here...



Then lets go back to your famous challenge






Link http://forums.beyond.ca/st/319908/th...e-right-limit/

Zing! haha

[rage2]

Zing all you want. Difference was she chugged a smirnoff ice, vs 2 drinks over a course of a couple hours at dinner or after work drinks. I should've been more clear over the duration of after work drinks. But ya, if you chug a beer, you'll prob blow over, for a short period of time.

It'll be clear once we post Breathalyzer Challenge #3. Just previewing some of the data that I have on hand.