Vernon Mayor caught drinking and driving.

[MAPearce]

^^^ 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.

I believe that driving IS a right ... Provided a person learns and accepts the way to operate in a safe and regulated manner according to laws , they have a right to freedom of movement . Driving isn"t an inherent right but to be able to move like the rest of the humans is if they behave like them ...

I know you hate drunk driver Gord , but your idea of what constitutes a drunk driver is buggered by the fact that you can't get over a personal loss..

You make it sound like the guy got caught with a 26 in his crotch while cruisin around town ...

[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.

I believe that driving IS a right Until that actual happens, it still not a right ... Provided a person learns and accepts the way to operate in a safe and regulated manner according to laws , they have a right to freedom of movement . Driving isn"t an inherent right but to be able to move like the rest of the humans is if they behave like them ...

I know you hate drunk driver Gord yes I do for obvious reasons, I would like to see zero tolerances for both alcohol & drugs, but your idea of what constitutes a drunk driver is buggered by the fact that you can't get over a personal loss.. thats up to the Officer on side of the road, if you had cared to read my post you would have noticed I prefer going thru the courts

You make it sound like the guy got caught with a 26 in his crotch while cruisin around town ...
he was caught drink & driving, should step down as mayor. At next election the voters of Vernon will send there message to the mayor... which I'm sure of

[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.

"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"

Don't forget the Mayor, only blew a "Warn", meaning he was below a level for which there is any penalty other than the MVA prohibition.

I'm against drinking and driving, and allowing a "limit" does create a problem. Like I've said before, in other Forum Topics, a driver will speed, risking a 3 point ticket, but when he/she gets to a red light, will obey the red light, a 2 point ticket. Reason being travelling along the road is allowed to a certain speed limit (ie, grey), stopping at a red traffic light is an absolute.

If there was zero tolerance to any alcohol in your blood when driving, it would eliminate the grey area.

As for one's day in court, I personally don't like anyone finding guilt at the scene of the "crime", especially the key witness (ie, the police officer). It wasn't as notable when the apprehending of a borderline drinking driver involved a simple 24 hour suspension. Now with the heavy "sanctions", at some point someone has to agree that rights are being infringed on.

What really has happened here is a lack of funding, and a bastardization of laws to "solve" the underfunding problem at the expense of our Charter Rights.

As it became harder for police to convict drinking drivers under the Criminal Code of Canada, the MVA was used inappropriately to get drinking drivers off the road by issuing 24 hour prohibitions, even when charges would have been more appropriate.

The resulting lenience, resulted in a loss of deterrent. Those with a propensity to drink and drive expecting, that if caught, a 24 hour suspension.

To circumvent this loss of deterrence and the problems of over crowded courts and understaffed police, the government created the IRP. It reduced the "investigation" of a drinking driver to 15 minutes or so, and created the deterrent of a fine, loss of vehicle, loss of driver's license, a shortened renewal duration, and depending on the BAC, more lengthy penalties along with an expensive Responsible Driving course and an Ignition Interlock .

Those who don't see the value of rights, feel the end justifies the means.

I guess we could implement the same type of system for many crimes, why limit the lack of rights to just drinking and driving ?

The proponents of the IRP will say, "well driving is a privilege not a right". Yes, it is, but should the meting out of driving sanctions be done by the police witness at the scene ?

Even when the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles reviewed one's driving record in contemplation of sanctions, he reviewed CONVICTIONS.

[MAPearce]

Even when the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles reviewed one's driving record in contemplation of sanctions, he reviewed CONVICTIONS.

In regards to "sanctions" , didn't a court of appeal overturn a ruling of "sanctions" imposed on a driver based on 24 hr ( discretionary ) prohibitions prior to July of 2012 ??

[Chyren]

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the IRP program. Nuff said.

Easy fix, no matter how many times people can go over and over again with the "reasons" why they should be allowed to do it DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. There is no grey area.

[my5cents]

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the IRP program. Nuff said.

Easy fix, no matter how many times people can go over and over again with the "reasons" why they should be allowed to do it DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. There is no grey area.

Whenever someone rationally, logically, discusses the IRP in relation to the Charter of Rights, the narrow minded element, come up with some form alleging the person raising the concern is supporting Drinking and Driving.

Tell that to the grandfather who was a PASSENGER in his own vehicle, who was NOT drinking and driving, who was issued an IRP, lost his driver's license, his vehicle and was told he would have to take a Responsible Driving Course.

"No grey area" ?????

[LANDM]

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the IRP program. Nuff said.

Easy fix, no matter how many times people can go over and over again with the "reasons" why they should be allowed to do it DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. There is no grey area.

Of course there is a grey area. Any time you have the ability for an individual police officer to decide whether to test, interpret, give a suspension, arrest etc. it is a grey area.

And, it is perfectly fine to drink and drive......as long as you are within specified limits. And, as long as you are not an L or N driver. Otherwise, head out and have a beer and hop in the car. There is no concept of zero tolerance and, until there is, the notion of "reasons" to do it are simply because it is allowed.

This nonsense about the mayor having to resign is silly. Should a mayor have to resign if he is caught speeding? Jaywalking? He was not charged criminally with anything and he was precisely in the grey area.

[MAPearce]

The Supreme Court has upheld the legality of the IRP program. Nuff said.

Easy fix, no matter how many times people can go over and over again with the "reasons" why they should be allowed to do it DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. There is no grey area.

Actually the supreme court gave the BC govt time to amend it , which they did with some people mandated to complete the RDP and install ignition inter locks being excused , for lack of a better word.....

Talk about a grey area..... And if you had taken the RDP , you'd know that the mission statement of the program is to separate drinking behaviour from driving behaviour , meaning that if you had a beer and decide not to have another because you know you're going to drive , your actions are not criminal , you're being responsible and certainly NOT a drunk driver.....

But try telling that to the cops....

[maryjane48]

Glad to see all these grey area supporters supporting grey area for people smoking pot and driving to . i can hardly wait to tell a cop hey ifvyou go on castanet forum i have tons of support forctoking and driving and buzz off your ruining my high

[MAPearce]

Glad to see all these grey area supporters supporting grey area for people smoking pot and driving to . i can hardly wait to tell a cop hey ifvyou go on castanet forum i have tons of support forctoking and driving and buzz off your ruining my high

ummmmokyeah......
WHAT ???

[MAPearce]

thats up to the Officer on side of the road, if you had cared to read my post you would have noticed I prefer going thru the courts

And NO Gord .... It's NOT up to the officer at the side of the road.

How can you say that you prefer going through the courts when you state that "it;s up to the officer on the side of the road " ???

you're worse than a "reformed" smoker..Holier than thou.

[GordonH]

thats up to the Officer on side of the road, if you had cared to read my post you would have noticed I prefer going thru the courts

And NO Gord .... It's NOT up to the officer at the side of the road.

How can you say that you prefer going through the courts when you state that "it;s up to the officer on the side of the road " ???
because currently in BC, the courts are left out of it (its between the roadside officer then Superintendent of Motor Vehicles). The officer on side of the road hold all the cards.
you're worse than a "reformed" smoker..Holier than thou.

I would prefer going back to courts, thats not happening any time soon in BC.

[MAPearce]

I would prefer going back to courts, thats not happening any time soon in BC.

You're right Gord ..It's NOT going to happen any time soon.

Thanks to attitudes like yours , and an effective lobby that is making millions of bucks a year on an idea that there can NEVER be a responsible alcohol consumer , anyone who has ONE measly beverage with alcohol in it is a drunk driver and deserves to be shot and P!SSED on by the officer at the side of the road ...

Congratulations.

[GordonH]

I would prefer going back to courts, thats not happening any soon in BC.

You're right Gord ..It's NOT going to happen any time soon.

Thanks to attitudes like yours , and an effective lobby that is making millions of bucks a year on an idea that there can NEVER be a responsible alcohol consumer , anyone who has ONE measly beverage with alcohol in it is a drunk driver and deserves to be shot and P!SSED on by the officer at the side of the road ...

Congratulations.

Since I don't drink and drive it's not high on my list of priorities. The changes needed have to come from government of the day, so go lobby NDP to change the law.

[Chyren]

"Tell that to the grandfather who was a PASSENGER in his own vehicle, who was NOT drinking and driving, who was issued an IRP, lost his driver's license, his vehicle and was told he would have to take a Responsible Driving Course."


Anyone else feel there's a HUGE bigger story here?