Vernon Mayor caught drinking and driving.

[the truth]

is he not the so called leader of that community,he sets the standard does he not, drinking and driving is not a mistake its a choice,can his loser as:cuss:

[Fancy]

Mayor's have specific duties:
https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/Library/Ele ... r_2008.pdf

[my5cents]

No , no man !!! Didn't mean to insult you .lol ! But you seem to be up to speed on the MVA and stuff..

I got a "buddy" who could use some direction !!

I was kidding.

No, not a lawyer.

What's the difference between a skunk run over on the highway and a lawyer run over on the highway ?

There are skid marks leading up to the skunk.

[the truth]

lol

[MAPearce]

is he not the so called leader of that community,he sets the standard does he not, drinking and driving is not a mistake its a choice,can his loser as:cuss:

I'll give the guy this one because he accepts and admits his responsibility ...

The difference between .05 and .03 is only 10 or 20 minutes IF you go by that BMI thing they hand out at the RDP. (which has NO bearing in court btw )

It is possible that His Worship was drinking responsibly and acted with good faith when he decided to drive .

There are people who do the "math " when deciding when they think they aren't affected by booze because they believe they've waited long enough .

[GordonH]

If he does not do right thing by stepping down as the mayor, at the next election the residents will voice their opinion on the matter.

[MAPearce]

If he does not do right thing by stepping down as the mayor, at the next election the residents will voice their opinion on the matter.

I know Gord ... I know .

You lost a friend to drunk driving and I feel for you ... But clearly , he wasn't impaired by the CCC standard .

He didn't break a law as far as the criminal code but got a ticket under the provincial MVA ..

I doubt for a minute that if he knew he was too shatfaced to drive , he would have .

[GordonH]

If he does not do right thing by stepping down as the mayor, at the next election the residents will voice their opinion on the matter.

I know Gord ... I know .

You lost a friend to drunk driving and I feel for you ... But clearly , he wasn't impaired by the CCC standard .

He didn't break a law as far as the criminal code but got a ticket under the provincial MVA ..

I doubt for a minute that if he knew he was too shatfaced to drive , he would have .

Until laws in BC change, he got caught over .05.
Only reason he is sorry is because he did get caught. As representative of the people for the City of Vernon, he should do right thing and step down.

Added later: looks like drinking & driving laws could be in a change on a Federal level
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calg ... -1.4093434

[my5cents]

I'll give the guy this one because he accepts and admits his responsibility ...

The difference between .05 and .03 is only 10 or 20 minutes IF you go by that BMI thing they hand out at the RDP. (which has NO bearing in court btw )

It is possible that His Worship was drinking responsibly and acted with good faith when he decided to drive .

There are people who do the "math " when deciding when they think they aren't affected by booze because they believe they've waited long enough .

Well like I said, IMO "accepts and admits his responsibility" mean he told the truth, the math doesn't support that.

Also your statement : "The difference between .05 and .03 is only 10 or 20 minutes" isn't supported by science.

I don't know what you are referring to "that BMI thing they hand out at the RDP".

The general rule of thumb for oxidization of alcohol in blood is 15 mgs per hour.

So the difference between .05 (50 mgs) and .03 (30 mgs) is 20 mgs, which is an hour and a quarter, 75 minutes, not 10 or 20 minutes.

As I said, the mayor has only told us that he had drinks at the event, he doesn't mention or claim any drinks when he got home. He left the event at 11:30 PM and was pulled over at 2:30 AM, an elapsed time of three hours. He blew at least 50 mgs, it could have been as high as 70 (still below 80) when checked by the police.

Assuming it was 50 mgs, 3 hours X 15 mgs = 45, 45 + 50 = 95. So how did he get home from the event ? If he drove home, he would be a "FAIL" driving home from the event.

So your statement, with all due respect, "It is possible that His Worship was drinking responsibly and acted with good faith when he decided to drive" isn't born out by the math.

Human nature being what it is, we all tend to minimize our culpability in events by under estimating or over estimating. If you are at fault in a car accident you are very likely to under estimate the cost of repairs to the vehicles and any minor injury you've suffered. I you were not at fault, the estimate may be higher and your pain a little more severe.

But I still don't think the offence he was committing at 2:30 AM would warrant him stepping down

[my5cents]

.............
He didn't break a law as far as the criminal code but got a ticket under the provincial MVA ..
I doubt for a minute that if he knew he was too shatfaced to drive , he would have .

I agree, he didn't break a criminal law, he didn't even "get a ticket".

The government has played games with the provincial law with respect to the IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition).

You see we have the "pesky" little thing call the Charter of Rights, here in Canada. It says we in Canada have the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair public trial, the right not to be forced to make statements and not give evidence at a trial (in other words make the crown prove our guilt without us saying a word)

All of those things are not present in the IRP legislation.

To avoid these "little" technicalities, the government has called the, prohibitions, the vehicle seizures, the DL reinstatement fees, the restriction to a two year DL renewal vs five year, the mandatory "Responsible Driving Course", the mandatory Ignition Interlock, "Sanctions".

Sanctions are things like, when the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (he's called something else now) reviews your driving record, sees you've had too many tickets in the recent past and gives you a driving prohibition.

That driving prohibition isn't a "penalty" for any one offense, it's a "sanction" for your general driving behavior.

In the case of the IRP, the police, at the curb and acting on behalf of the Supt of MV are issuing you a "sanction".

If you don't agree, all you can do is "appeal" the sanction and to do so you must provide your version of what happened.

The big difference, of course, is that IF this was a normal "offense", if you didn't accept guilt, you have the right to require the crown to prove you guilty BEFORE you are deemed guilty. In this case you are deemed guilty at the side of the road, by the cop, and you are just appealing that "finding" of guilt.

So as you can see, many of your rights pursuant to the Charter of Rights are not met, thus the government's contention that the "stuff" you get for the blowing a "FAIL" or "WARN" aren't "Penalties", they are sanctions.

[GordonH]

^^^ since driving is not a right, that how BC Motor Vehicle Superintendent can get around with sanctions.
I prefer everyone getting/having their day in court, if found guilty by the court besides penalties handed by the judge. The driver also has a record which could come back & bite him/her in the as later if try to drive over US border.

[my5cents]

^^^ since driving is not a right, that how BC Motor Vehicle Superintendent can get around with sanctions.
I prefer everyone getting/having their day in court, if found guilty by the court besides penalties handed by the judge. The driver also has a record which could come back & bite him/her in the as later if try to drive over US border.

Yup, that's pretty much their idea on the matter.

I don't really agree with the police officer on the street being the investigator and the adjudicator all in one. Having said that, I don't have a recommendation that would be as affective and more in line with the Charter of Rights.

We have had misuse or mis-interpretation of the IRP that resulted in an unwarranted inconvenience to an innocent citizen. I'm only aware of one, but I suspect there have been others.

I concede the problem of taking effective action with drinking and driving, even at the provincial level of 50 mgs is that :

a) The drinking driver must be prevented from driving with the reading. In the old system, taking away the license for 24 hours and leaving the prohibited driver's car parked, resulted many times in the driver coming back and driving.

b) Make an impact. The "immediate" part of IRP has it's benefits.

[Chyren]

The "warn" reading on a roadside testing device currently reads between 60 and 99mg% not 50.

So even though over 80mg% is considered "impaired" under the law he could have easily been on the high side of 80 and still received the "warn" reading, meaning a 3 day suspension.

The old system was 50 to 99mg%.

The current IRP law IS legal under the Charter of Rights based on recent Supreme Court rulings.

Don't drink and drive, no matter how many excuses people can make about why they choose to do it, just don't. Simple.

[dontrump]

If he does not do right thing by stepping down as the mayor, at the next election the residents will voice their opinion on the matter.

agreed hes lying about the DUI situation and he lied (several times) about the income tax charges he faced
I have talked to him (vis email) about several city issues hes commented about in the media and he always
trys to twist(spin) things around :: simply I don't like him nor trust him

[my5cents]

The "warn" reading on a roadside testing device currently reads between 60 and 99mg% not 50.

So even though over 80mg% is considered "impaired" under the law he could have easily been on the high side of 80 and still received the "warn" reading, meaning a 3 day suspension.

The old system was 50 to 99mg%.

The current IRP law IS legal under the Charter of Rights based on recent Supreme Court rulings.

Don't drink and drive, no matter how many excuses people can make about why they choose to do it, just don't. Simple.

I don't believe 80mg%, or 99mg%, mean anything at all.

Leaves me to wonder the accuracy of the balance of your post.

The current Criminal Code and the Motor Vehicle Act describe the BAC readings in milligrams (mg) of alcohol per 100 millilitre of blood. The old system describe the readings as a percentage ".08%". No "mg".

Over 80 mg (although Crown won't usually charge with any reading below 100 mgs) is Driving With a BAC Over 80 mgs. It is contained in the same section by number (one is subsection "a" one subsection "b") as Impaired Driving but does not allege impairment.