Impaired driving

[splashhopper]

Man I think you guys are about to fall off the wagon

 

What's a wagon?

 

Oh yeah, you drive one with all my buddies in the back "banging on da drums"

[mercman]

What's a wagon?

 

Oh yeah, you drive one with all my buddies in the back "banging on da drums"

 

 

you actually did that Me too !!! it must be a genetic thing

[cram]

I have no issue with a .05 limit if that is where we're impaired (which is interesting...i didn't know we actually were)

 

I do have an issue with the imposition of a false-law (or at least that's my understanding). If you blow the new limit, you lose your license for a few days....BUT, there is no charge??? As in, its not really illegal to be driving at 0.05 but there are new stiffer penalties for blowing the warning level.

 

Am I misunderstanding it? Is there an actual charge/fine for the new limit aside from getting your license reinstated?

 

The part that DOES bug me though -- there are some real DRUNKS who seem to get caught drinking and driving a few times and through the legal system continuously get off. Guys who are totally smashed getting off. So, the truly guilty get off and the warning-level guys are penalized.

[fishing n autograph]

ok, i've clarified this a couple of times on the board over the year and a bit that the "new" .05 has been around.......

 

The PROVINCIAL LAW aka the Highway Traffic Act has ALWAYS had the automatic licence suspension from .05-.08.....for the longest time the penalty was a 12 hour suspension that was not tracked...so every weekend you could get hammered, have your licence suspended for 12 hours and when you sobered up you came to the station and picked up your licence....now, if you're caught it's 3 days and it's tracked. Like i have said many times, i've caught the same people 5 times on 12 hour suspensions....and nothing seems to sink in.

 

And as for impaireds getting off...it's completely at the court level. A impaired case is more technical and complex than any murder trial and most crowns will tell you they would rather deal with a serious sexual assault than an impaired. For defence lawyers, impaired driving is where they make the money. Not only that, there is so much stupid case law that we have to deal with when we come to court that it's now the arresting officer on trial not the drunk...

[fishing n autograph]

My problem is that the court believes everything the drunk driver says....the carter defence came about because a guy got his friend to say at court that he only had 2 drinks and the fact that he blew .200 was impossible and the judge believed him...the

 

 

fyi....when the insurance co. sees a 90 day adls suspension for blowing over .08 the drunk driver's insurance skyrockets....3 day, not so much....

Edited October 28, 2010 by FishnNAutographs

[cram]

ok, i've clarified this a couple of times on the board over the year and a bit that the "new" .05 has been around.......

 

The PROVINCIAL LAW aka the Highway Traffic Act has ALWAYS had the automatic licence suspension from .05-.08.....for the longest time the penalty was a 12 hour suspension that was not tracked...so every weekend you could get hammered, have your licence suspended for 12 hours and when you sobered up you came to the station and picked up your licence....now, if you're caught it's 3 days and it's tracked. Like i have said many times, i've caught the same people 5 times on 12 hour suspensions....and nothing seems to sink in.

 

And as for impaireds getting off...it's completely at the court level. A impaired case is more technical and complex than any murder trial and most crowns will tell you they would rather deal with a serious sexual assault than an impaired. For defence lawyers, impaired driving is where they make the money. Not only that, there is so much stupid case law that we have to deal with when we come to court that it's now the arresting officer on trial not the drunk...

 

 

Is there an actual charge/fine in addition to the suspension? Is 0.05 now a DUI?

 

My admittedly uninformed understanding of it --- I always thought the 12 hr thing was a "warning" because at .05 or above you're dangerously close to .08 and could be on the way there (as the alcohol is digested). So the new rules weren't really a new "impaired" level but just new penalties enforced at the "warning" level....hence the issue. That said, it was always just my understanding and nothing other than hearsay to base it on. I've never actually had a 12 hr or a DUI (or a 3 day/90 day)

[fishing n autograph]

no, for the first offence its a straight 3 day suspension...second offence its 7 days and counselling, 3 time its a 30 day, counselling and I think either a fine or probation...can't remember

 

No the legal limit is .08. However, in my opinion I think the legal limit is .05...so ya, the new penalty is at the warn level...and to complicate the who issue, the roadside is calibrated at .100mg/100mL...so when you blow a warn, you are blowing between .05 and .100...so you could be over the legal limit

[cram]

If 0.05 is impaired I just wish they'd say 0.05 is impaired, so that's the new limit. Above that you're charged. Make it simple. Otherwise it seems like a hokey way to punish people who aren't actually impaired.

 

Or, punish the multiple offenders above .05....i can understand there's a problem if someone is getting multiples.

[Guest gbfisher]

WAAAAAAy back when. You could drive around with a case in the front seat and they'd just make you put it in the trunk if you were pulled over.

Now it's just easier if you don't drink at all....lol

[blarg]

Anything less than making .05 (or whatever number, 0 for all I care) the only legal limit is just garbage. Personally I think the only reason we don't have an actual hard limit lower than .08 is for the betterment of businesses that sell alcohol, if saving lives was really that important the concerns of a restaurant of bar owner wouldn't be considered all that highly. Making excuses for this intermediate limit is hard for me to swallow. If we now have to track anyone from .05-.08 and now have to have that available to our insurers and suspend our licenses for 3 days when we are "caught", then please tell us why the law isn't simply .05, period. It is either dangerous, or it isn't, the way the law is currently written should be unconstitutional, I should not be subject to punishment for something that is almost illegal.

[fishing n autograph]

If 0.05 is impaired I just wish they'd say 0.05 is impaired, so that's the new limit. Above that you're charged. Make it simple. Otherwise it seems like a hokey way to punish people who aren't actually impaired.

 

Or, punish the multiple offenders above .05....i can understand there's a problem if someone is getting multiples.

 

actually, i agree with you. The criminal code limit should be .05 100% because, physiologically you are impaired at .05mg/100mL. Now remember, there's a difference between impaired and intoxicated.

[fishing n autograph]

WAAAAAAy back when. You could drive around with a case in the front seat and they'd just make you put it in the trunk if you were pulled over.

Now it's just easier if you don't drink at all....lol

 

you can still drive with a case in your front seat. according to the liquor licence act as long as a seal on the bottle isn't broken, it's fine

[fishing n autograph]

Anything less than making .05 (or whatever number, 0 for all I care) the only legal limit is just garbage. Personally I think the only reason we don't have an actual hard limit lower than .08 is for the betterment of businesses that sell alcohol, if saving lives was really that important the concerns of a restaurant of bar owner wouldn't be considered all that highly. Making excuses for this intermediate limit is hard for me to swallow. If we now have to track anyone from .05-.08 and now have to have that available to our insurers and suspend our licenses for 3 days when we are "caught", then please tell us why the law isn't simply .05, period. It is either dangerous, or it isn't, the way the law is currently written should be unconstitutional, I should not be subject to punishment for something that is almost illegal.

 

 

well it's not unconstitutional and if you look at it, it's two separate laws and two separate acts the HTA and the Criminal code. It's absolute liability and it's not different than a health inspector shutting down a restaurant after a failed inspection

Edited October 28, 2010 by FishnNAutographs

[Daplumma]

Now if they could only come up with a field test for the pot heads.Then they could legalize it and tax the crap out of it.It would get the 45 mph guy groovin in the fast lane off the road.

Joe

[fishing n autograph]

Yup, they have the standarsized field sobriety test....once they perform poorly they get hooked up for impaired by drug and droppeo off to a drug recognition officer

[Guest gbfisher]

you can still drive with a case in your front seat. according to the liquor licence act as long as a seal on the bottle isn't broken, it's fine

 

 

I was talking about it being half empty and you being half in the bag actually and still they would let you drive away. Under age even.

 

Here's a good read for ya...

 

http://alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

 

Man Im glad I don't drink,,,just interferes with fishing ...

Edited October 28, 2010 by gbfisher

[cram]

Still seems like losing your license for going 80 in a 100 zone.....you're almost at the legal limit, so we're going to suspend you. Oh, and without a trial.

 

And, the guy who gets caught doing 140km in that same zone....3 or 4 times, keeps getting off when they go to trail.

 

The nearly guilty get punished, without at trial.

 

The truly guilty get off, when they go to trail.

 

Just make it STIFF penalties for the real offenders instead. Would be much more effective.

[thalweg]

What I find surprising is that .08 is a substantial level of alcohol in your system. When they say most people don't notice, I find that hard to believe. .08 and thats a really good buzz in my opinion.

[blarg]

well it's not unconstitutional and if you look at it, it's two separate laws and two separate acts the HTA and the Criminal code. It's absolute liability and it's not different than a health inspector shutting down a restaurant after a failed inspection

 

Generally tests only have one pass/fail line, this is ridiculous policy. So the restaurant can be shut down when it almost fails the test? Bull

[fishing n autograph]

Generally tests only have one pass/fail line, this is ridiculous policy. So the restaurant can be shut down when it almost fails the test? Bull

 

ummm, not sure what you're not getting... .05-.079 is a FAIL under the PROVINCIAL LAW.....anything above .08 is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE under the FEDERAL LAW

[cram]

ummm, not sure what you're not getting... .05-.079 is a FAIL under the PROVINCIAL LAW.....anything above .08 is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE under the FEDERAL LAW

 

Yeah but there's no charge or fine, right?? In terms of actual charge, getting caught doing a rolling stop or going 20km over the speed limit carries a charge and fine. Why not this, if its a law?

 

I'm sure there's a reason behind it, but to the layperson it seems like a big pile of hokey.