[EyeBrock]

Parliament disgreed with you Proculation.

[Proculation]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Parliament disgreed with you Proculation.

But not statistics. So stop saying you are dangerous and "risking lives" at 0.08. That's bullshit.
It is illegal but you are not risking lives like if you were @ 0.20 or 0.30.

[EyeBrock]

Moot point though eh? It's against our laws to drive with more than .08 in you. I can't see any political party making it higher.

Driving pissed is seen as bad by society, in case you hadn't noticed.

If anything happens it's more likely to go down to .05 like many European countries.

[Proculation]

Oh I know. It's just hypocritical tho. They give fines for mobile phones and speeding which are much more dangerous.

[Lemmy]

There's so much wrong with our driving laws. But, Proc, you're wrong on this. You're wrong because MOST drivers on the road aren't safe cold-sober. That majority IS impaired by low levels of alcohol. When you're a shitty driver, ANY distraction is dangerous. I understand your arugment. You and I may be good enough drivers and experienced enough drinkers that we're not a danger at 1.0. But 90% of drivers are dangerous at 0.0, let alone 0.8.

Unless you can weed out the bad drivers, there's good reason to keep the bar (pardon the pun) low.

[Heavy_Metal]

well said eyebrock and lemmy, very good arguments.

Proc your argument is not totally wrong, you are right there are experienced drinkers out there who may not be completely impaired after four or more beers, where as a noob may be off their rocker after two or three beers. The reality is even if they don't seem out right impaired, there senses and reaction time ARE affected. and a split second slower reaction time traveling at a high rate of speed....because lets face it, nobody does the f*cking speed limit in this country....can be disastrous.

I wish i had access to the training video we were shown, it maps out the stopping distance and time for different vehicles going at different speeds and got into good detain regarding how alcohol affects you, it was very eye opening and quite terrifying.

[Benn]

Wow, I'm actually surprised at the misunderstanding of things like blood alcohol levels and things like testing. ie. a couple hundred bucks for a unit

As far as when you are not good to drive, certainly some people's ability to drive is "impaired" at only 0.08. There are many factors that decide that, weight, tolerance, did you eat, pop meds, etc etc.

Please show me data that proves NO ONE can be impaired at 0.08!!! Impaired being not 100% as effective behind the wheel as when completely sober.

I'll save you the time, it does no exsist, therefore, like Eyebrock said, its up to legislators to decide where they should stick the "safe" limit. It would be impossible to decide on a case by case basis with calculating all the variables if someone at .08 is really too far gone. I'll tell you this my wife would be far gone at 0.08. I want to assure ALL impaired drivers are off the road. Not just the 85% (arbitrary number) who are over 1.0.

To argue its a real hardship to not drink and drive is an absurd argument.

The 0.05 - 0.08 warning and 24 hours suspension is in effect in only a few provinces (Manitoba for sure) and even then its left to officer discretion.

[QBall]

Wonder if this lawyer would be so passionate to mount this defence if he had a loved one killed by drunk driver. I think he needs some perspective.

[herbie]

.08 came from actual scientific testing. The statistical majority (over 68%) will show measurable signs of impairment at .08%
But the only truly accurate way to measure is with a blood sample. Because the breathalyzers are not exact but determined close enough, there is legal precedents that allow a 10-15% leeway. 0.10 is ABOVE the threshold so you will be charged and convicted.
There are grounds to challenge a reading, there always have been, and removing them to force anyone to prove their innocence in a Criminal Code case is and will be found as a Charter violation.
There's an interesting case in BC where a woman hit and killed a child and was befriended by undercover cops. In court they said she confessed she'd had three drinks. Can she be convicted? No one's reported there was any reading to use, or if a breathalyzer or blood sample done.

[EyeBrock]

In the UK, if the accused blows between a certain level seen as the lower end (I think it was 1.1 to 1.3) blood or urine is taken. This adds another 10% leeway. I think it was a good move.

The differences between the UK and Canadian systems regarding impaireds in the courts are quite astounding.

The UK has a conviction rate of about 90% at trial. The instruments are treated as definitive real evidence. It's the same equipment in Canada yet we have lawyers challenging every part of the procedure and evidence is tossed for the slightest reason.

It's quite obvious to me that the courts, the judges and the crowns don't view impaired driving the same way our society does.

It's also quite obvious that things are very different in the UK where impaired driving is treated very differently and getting a drunken driver convicted is actually encouraged by society.

Until the legal system changes, the guilty will continue to get away with driving drunk in Canada.

[DerbyX]

Meanwhile in some US states it is illegal to record police actions in public.

us-politics-f18/recording-police-officers-conduct-in-public-illegal-t89671.html

We all get the justice systems we deserve.

[EyeBrock]

We do indeed Derby.

This stuff used to wind me up, now I just put it all in the "Tough shit" category.

The guilty walk free from court every day. Nobody seems to care so why should I?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

We do indeed Derby.

This stuff used to wind me up, now I just put it all in the "Tough shit" category.

The guilty walk free from court every day. Nobody seems to care so why should I?

Canada has an awful record in dealing with not only convicting DUI suspects but in preventing recidivicism.

When I was training to be a MLT I was told if the police ever require blood to be drawn from a DUI suspect you leave the room in order to not be involved and the ones that have drawn blood have horror stories about non-stop phone calls from prosecuting and defence lawyers as well as accusations of incompetence at trial.

[EyeBrock]

Impaired trials are never pretty and the defence counsels involved really are on the ambulance chaser/vulture end of the spectrum.

Impaired convictions have plummeted in the GTA but roadside licence suspensions (24-72 hrs) have sky-rocketed. No criminal charges result from roadside suspensions.

It's obvious that loads of impaired drivers are still out there but the police are becoming more reluctant to charge criminally when they can just jam somebody with a 72 hour suspension.

If you grab a criminal code, just look at how much of it is Sec 253. It's over 60 pages in my Martin's.

Case law wise, I would say there is more case law on this section of the code than any other offence in the criminal code. Every bit of case law is the result of some lawyer trying to discredit the intoxilizer or the police who arrested some pissed up driver, who then walked away scot-free from court.

That's the way it is in Canada.

[Choban]

I myself won't drive if I have more than 1 drink, this comes from 2 cases, 1 where a freind of mine in Dartmouth killed himself and an innocent teenage girl driving drunk, and another where a friend of mine rolled his car and to this day cannot function properly.

It's all well and fine for people to say, I'm ok to drive or I'm not drunk, from what I know it is the #1 statement made by people who cause these accidents, they call it impared for a reason.

If the legislation were up to me ANY alcohol content would be too much, and despite the 1000's of deaths world wide every year people still drive after drinking, what does that say about people's judgement?

Anyone who's followed me on this forum knows how passionately I'm against drinking and driving, my friend in Dartmouth was 17 and only had 3 beers before leaving, closed casket funeral folks..