Drunk sends young girl to hospital

[KL3-Something]

Next you'll spout off about how the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act that hammer drinking drivers doesn't constitute an offence, as the BC Supreme Court has ruled (and thus the Charter of Rights doesn't apply).

From the Motor Vehicle Act :

General offence
75 A person who contravenes a section of this Act by doing an act that it forbids, or omitting to do an act that it requires to be done, commits an offence.

Does anyone other than me think "the fix is in" ?

Well lets explore this a little shall we? First how about you show us where in S. 215.41 it reads what it forbids or requires a driver to do. Here, for your convenience:

Automatic roadside driving prohibition
215.41 (1) In this section, "driver" includes a person having the care or control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road whether or not the motor vehicle is in motion.

(2) In this section and in sections 215.42, 215.43, 215.47 and 215.5:
"approved screening device" means a device prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purposes of this section;
"fail" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood;
"warn" means an indication on an approved screening device that the concentration of alcohol in a person's blood is not less than 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

(3) [Repealed 2012-26-1.]

(3.1) If, at any time or place on a highway or industrial road,
(a) a peace officer makes a demand to a driver under the Criminal Code to provide a sample of breath for analysis by means of an approved screening device and the approved screening device registers a warn or a fail, and

(b) the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe, as a result of the analysis, that the driver's ability to drive is affected by alcohol,
the peace officer, or another peace officer, must,

(c) if the driver holds a valid licence or permit issued under this Act, or a document issued in another jurisdiction that allows the driver to operate a motor vehicle, take possession of the driver's licence, permit or document if the driver has it in his or her possession, and

(d) subject to section 215.42, serve on the driver a notice of driving prohibition.

(4) If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver failed or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made under the Criminal Code to provide a sample of breath for analysis by means of an approved screening device, the peace officer, or another peace officer, must take those actions described in subsection (3.1) (c) and (d).

(5) If the driver is not in possession of his or her licence or permit issued under this Act to operate a motor vehicle at the time the driver is served with the notice of driving prohibition, the driver must promptly send the licence or permit to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

(6) The notice of driving prohibition must be in the prescribed form and must contain the following:

(a) a statement that the driver is immediately prohibited from driving, for the period set out in the notice of prohibition;
(b) a statement setting out
(i) the amount of any monetary penalty imposed on the driver under section 215.44, and
(ii) the requirement that the monetary penalty be paid no later than 30 days after the date the notice is served;

(c) a statement of the right to have the driving prohibition reviewed by the superintendent under section 215.48;

(d) instructions describing how to apply for that review.

There is a whole lot of what the peace officer must do but nowhere do you see anything about what a driver must or must not do. In fact, no where in the MVA will you find anywhere that states anything to the effect that a driver shall not drive with and blood alcohol level in excess of any prescribed level. There is a bunch of "the peace officer shall/must" but nothing about "the driver shall". Well except for the part about mailing their driver's licence in to the OSMV if they don't have it with them at the time. The IRP follows the Criminal Code process for the ASD demand and is only one of the options available to the officer should that person provide a sample that is shown to be in excess of a prescribed level.

Debate regarding the proposed changes to the dispute process of some offences under the MVA aside for a moment (I am not sold on that one yet). An example of an offence is speeding. Let's look at how "Speed In/Outside Municipality" is laid out in the MVA shall we?

Speed limits

146 (1) Subject to this section, a person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle on a highway in a municipality or treaty lands at a greater rate of speed than 50 km/h, and a person must not drive or operate a motor vehicle on a highway outside a municipality at a greater rate of speed than 80 km/h.

See it? "...a person must not...". Now when you look at S.75 and the creation of offences this section fits because it forbids a person from doing something.

Speeding = Offence.....IRP = No offence.

It is an administrative sanction resulting from a Criminal Code Investigation just like the tried and true ADP.

Was that me "spouting"? Apologies.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Absolutely not are you saying cops on a mission are a good thing?

No I am not saying that at all in fact I was saying this person WAS NOT on a mission but rather passionate about getting drunk drivers off of the road.

Absolutely yes, and yours and every cop everywhere, in case you haven't noticed you hold a lot of power over all of our lives. You want you r integrity beyond reproach? Don't defend it be open about it.

Mine and every other cops integrity is checked each and every day when we file a report or sign on the dotted line swearing this or taking an oath to that. The IRPs when filed are such documents and to suggest cops would flat out lie on a sworn document is offside. Especially when you do not know said cop.

I have said nothing about him as a person I have only quoted his own words in making a point.

Yes you did...you stated you felt he was on a mission.

Yes I get that the roadside device is approved as a screening device but is it not considered inadequate for criminal charges purposes? If that's the case and you would be the one to confirm this if you wanted to have a rational discussion about it, then it would appear when the unit signals a "warning" that would give you some discretion as to how impaired the driver is? Am I not correct?

If so again I ask, what's the basis for prohibiting a driver for 3,5, or 90 days?

The machine says "warning" not .03, .05 or.08

We are not talking about Criminal Code Charges we are talking IRP/s so whether or not the ASD is approved for Criminal Charges is of no concern for this discussion. Its an APPROVED device for what it is used for, period.
What the basis for prohibitions has been discussed in another thread at length...read up on it.
As far as the police having power...yes they do. But dont you see people with the attitude you seem to carry with you are the ones that are causing the police to become almost powerless. Something I dont think too many people would like if this became the case.

Seriously trunk monkey, I'm beginning to think that you are just looking to be offended and aren't actually reading the posts.

Think what you want but this is not the case. I just would like to you to stop for one second and realize the only people to blame for driving drunk are the people that do it. Yes they may have family that may or may not be affected if these drunks are caught..this holds true for any other sanction or punishment via the Criminal Code or any other legal act. At the end of the day if the drunks family is affected by said drunk getting caught thats on the drunk...not the police or the legal system.

[ukcanuck]

Absolutely not are you saying cops on a mission are a good thing?

No I am not saying that at all in fact I was saying this person WAS NOT on a mission but rather passionate about getting drunk drivers off of the road.

I guess we can quibble about passionate and mission but I'm sure I was pretty careful to word my post not to accuse bikeguy of being dishonest in any way, other than to use his words as a example for discussion purposes.

Absolutely yes, and yours and every cop everywhere, in case you haven't noticed you hold a lot of power over all of our lives. You want you r integrity beyond reproach? Don't defend it be open about it.

Mine and every other cops integrity is checked each and every day when we file a report or sign on the dotted line swearing this or taking an oath to that. The IRPs when filed are such documents and to suggest cops would flat out lie on a sworn document is offside. Especially when you do not know said cop.

I'm not suggesting anyone would lie to make something stick that didn't deserve to be "stuck"
What I'm suggesting is that the discretion you are afforded is subject to human bias and that's wrong because the same actions result in different results depending on the attending officer. Not a big issue if its a seatbelt fine, but it might be regarding IRPs, however I'm not sure since you seem to want me to wade through 100+ pages to figure out if you even have the discretion to give a 3, 5 or 30 or 90 day prohibition or not...
BTW I know it's my duty to be informed of the law but really? 100+ pages !?

I have said nothing about him as a person I have only quoted his own words in making a point.

Yes you did...you stated you felt he was on a mission.

No he said it

I will NEVER find drinking and driving laws strict enough. Of all the topics I have commented on, I am most passionate about impaired drivers.

In a discussion about extreme responses to drunk drivers its not crossing a line to suggest that bikeguy's comment is what it is...

Yes I get that the roadside device is approved as a screening device but is it not considered inadequate for criminal charges purposes? If that's the case and you would be the one to confirm this if you wanted to have a rational discussion about it, then it would appear when the unit signals a "warning" that would give you some discretion as to how impaired the driver is? Am I not correct?

If so again I ask, what's the basis for prohibiting a driver for 3,5, or 90 days?

The machine says "warning" not .03, .05 or.08

We are not talking about Criminal Code Charges we are talking IRP/s so whether or not the ASD is approved for Criminal Charges is of no concern for this discussion. Its an APPROVED device for what it is used for, period.
What the basis for prohibitions has been discussed in another thread at length...read up on it.

If I'm wrong and you don't have the discretion to vary the penalty for a first time warning on the breath test I wish you would just say so and save this whole conversation from going any farther....

As far as the police having power...yes they do. But dont you see people with the attitude you seem to carry with you are the ones that are causing the police to become almost powerless. Something I dont think too many people would like if this became the case.

In fairness I've thought about that and I agree I wouldn't want my attitude to be a part of the problem but at the same time this forum is a good place to discuss this stuff and I know that you and the other flatfeet on here are being held accountable for all the warts of our law enforcing and that's not fair but then it's all meant in good conscience.... Well from me anyway.

Seriously trunk monkey, I'm beginning to think that you are just looking to be offended and aren't actually reading the posts.

Think what you want but this is not the case. I just would like to you to stop for one second and realize the only people to blame for driving drunk are the people that do it. Yes they may have family that may or may not be affected if these drunks are caught..this holds true for any other sanction or punishment via the Criminal Code or any other legal act. At the end of the day if the drunks family is affected by said drunk getting caught thats on the drunk...not the police or the legal system.

Yeah it's not on the police and no ones blaming you specifically but what I have been talking about is not fixing the blame, I'm talking about fixing the problem.
Wouldn't you be happier if we didn't need you to get drunks off the road because no one did that anymore?

[Trunk-Monkey]

I'm not suggesting anyone would lie to make something stick that didn't deserve to be "stuck"
What I'm suggesting is that the discretion you are afforded is subject to human bias and that's wrong because the same actions result in different results depending on the attending officer. Not a big issue if its a seatbelt fine, but it might be regarding IRPs, however I'm not sure since you seem to want me to wade through 100+ pages to figure out if you even have the discretion to give a 3, 5 or 30 or 90 day prohibition or not...
BTW I know it's my duty to be informed of the law but really? 100+ pages !?

Here is the info you requested:

Immediate Roadside Prohibitions (IRPs) – 3, 7, 30 and 90 Days
If a peace officer suspects you are impaired by alcohol while having the care or control of a motor vehicle they can demand you provide a sample of your breath into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) to measure your blood alcohol content. The officer is required to offer you a second opportunity to provide a sample of your breath into a different ASD – if the results differ, the lower of the two results will prevail.

If the device reads WARN (Your breath sample contains a BAC of not less than 0.05) police will:
•Seize your driver’s licence
•Issue you a 'Notice of Prohibition' which will start immediately – removing your driving privileges – the length of which depends on prior IRP convictions (if any) •3-day driving prohibition if it is the first time caught in the warn range;
•7-day driving prohibition if it is the second time caught in the warn range within five years; or
•30-day driving prohibition if it is the third time caught in the warn range within five years.
There is no discretion there. The police officer has to follow these criteria when going IRP.

If the ASD reads FAIL (If your breath sample contains a BAC of over 0.08), or if you refuse to provide a breath sample, police will:
•Seize your driver’s licence
•Issue you a 'Notice of Prohibition' which will start immediately – removing your driving privileges for 90 days
•Alternatively, you may be served an Administrative Driving Prohibition, and charged criminally under the Criminal Code of Canada for Impaired Driving.

You have to know that the IRPs are not just for anyone. There is criteria that has to be met before the cop can proceed by way of IRP.
1) No previous Drinking and driving convictions on file for the last 5 years.
2) Not applicable in a collision.
3) Not applicable if the person has been issued an IRP previously.
etc
So as you can see this narrows the field down a bit. Cops start every impaired investigation with the intent of going criminal code...if the criteria is met during that invest to issue the individual an IRP that is up to the cops discretion. If the criteria is not met ... the cop has to go Criminal code,no discretion.

[normaM]

T-M, you don't have to keep defending your position and prolly getting grey hairs. I understand and appreciate what you are typing, others don't, and all the typing in the World isn't going to change that.

[Trunk-Monkey]

T-M, you don't have to keep defending your position and prolly getting grey hairs. I understand and appreciate what you are typing, others don't, and all the typing in the World isn't going to change that.

Im not defending my position...I am trying to educate people on this subject. Its important to me that if people are going to disagree with something or think that it is unfair...the least they should know are the facts. Fact is I want more people to know what could happen to them if they drink and drive...besides the obvious.

[normaM]

I know, I know
here is your head for some of them_____
here is the brink wall ______
I get what you are saying, but those who don't will not til it is too late

[ukcanuck]

Here is the info you requested:

You have to know that the IRPs are not just for anyone. There is criteria that has to be met before the cop can proceed by way of IRP.
1) No previous Drinking and driving convictions on file for the last 5 years.
2) Not applicable in a collision.

3) Not applicable if the person has been issued an IRP previously.
etc

I thought it went from 3 to 7 to 30 on first second and third strike basis?

So as you can see this narrows the field down a bit. Cops start every impaired investigation with the intent of going criminal code...if the criteria is met during that invest to issue the individual an IRP that is up to the cops discretion. If the criteria is not met ... the cop has to go Criminal code,no discretion.

Anyway
Thank you for the information that clears it up for me, the two different ASD's and incremental increase in prohibition would seem to remove any doubt over margin of error or over zealousness...

Never let it be said that UK wasn't able to say he was wrong when the moon was blue

In my defence this week is the first I've heard of IRP's, like I said I've spent the last 5 years abroad and I don't drink anyway so there's no reason for me to have heard about the change in the laws since 2007.

As for this topic I'm still of the opinion that education is more effective than more laws and stiffer penalties,

if one is still drinking and driving after all the fines, prohibitions, criminal record and incarceration that is allowed for on the books already...I don't think more penalties is going to work.

[Fancy]

Where would you propose the education start?

[Graphite]

It's called sarcasm and its the polite response to dogma and rhetoric. It's pointless to come on here and continually say if you don't like the consequences don't do it. That's real helpful. Problem solved then, lets just all not drink and drive. except people still do, some do it illegally, some have way to much and destroy lives in a blank fog, some have a sip at a wine tasting, and some have a two martini lunch and go back to the office.
because people are people and not everyone who gets behind the wheel is a runaway freight train its worth having a discussion about it. Sorry, if I'm showing contempt for moronic parroting but seriously it's early and I've only had one coffee

Drinking and driving is against the law. Everyone knows that. If some people think they are above the law and want to press their luck then I sure hope they don't kill anyone for their behavior. Saying they deserve to be punished is not "dogma". It is called justice. www.dictionary.com

And this post is worth reading, so in case you missed it the first time it was posted, here we go:

I used to think having one or two drinks and then driving home was no big deal, that is until I began working in an ER. When you've seen the results of drinking and driving for yourself, the broken and dead bodies, the shattered lives, the uncontrollable anguish and pain, you change your attitude pretty quickly, let me tell you. Nine times out of ten the drunk driver who destroyed an innocent life survived pretty much unscathed and nine times out of ten they all said the same thing - 'But I only had one drink, it wasn't my fault'. More than one went on to do the same thing again.

The one incident that really did it for me involved a woman who was driving home after having a couple of drinks at a pub with friends. She blew a red light and t-boned a car with two guys inside, killing both of them. The crash happened just a couple of blocks from the hospital, so the victims and perp arrived only minutes later. Her BAC was well under the legal limit but by all appearances she was drunk, slurred speech, loud and obnoxious behaviour, the whole bit. Her only injury was a seatbelt bruise, which she complained loudly about while we were trying to save one of her victims in the trauma room next door. She ended up with just a traffic offense and went home that night. Is it any wonder that I hate drunk drivers with a passion?

[ukcanuck]

Where would you propose the education start?

Well I guess it's already started for those of us with kids, try getting in a car with a young person after a drink or not putting on a seat belt or lighting a cigarette or speeding through a school zone etc. you will hear all about it.
I think it starts with children and as they grow it becomes ingrained. I'm willing to bet a scientific study would show its already working towards that anyway.
But there is the start. As for us older folks new tricks are hard to learn but more footage and facts and stories and more of those commercials and public service announcements. Maybe some pressure towards movies and Hollywood that glamourize drinking and drugs to reverse such things ...more studies, more leadership etc etc ...

These are the things that worked with smoking
Lets do the same for DUI...

[Roadster]

It's called sarcasm and its the polite response to dogma and rhetoric. It's pointless to come on here and continually say if you don't like the consequences don't do it. That's real helpful. Problem solved then, lets just all not drink and drive. except people still do, some do it illegally, some have way to much and destroy lives in a blank fog, some have a sip at a wine tasting, and some have a two martini lunch and go back to the office.
because people are people and not everyone who gets behind the wheel is a runaway freight train its worth having a discussion about it. Sorry, if I'm showing contempt for moronic parroting but seriously it's early and I've only had one coffee

i dont get how its polite, someone suggests a fix and you slam it with "why dont we just beat em all" kinda crap. People are pretty serious about this kind of stuff. More serious now then probably 10 years ago. Because by nature or human act, we have been educated, the stories are there, the laws are there, we know it cant be done.
Really, its a problem that some hard heads are not getting and till they do we have to think about how to stop it. Only the knuckle heads are left, most others have seen it and what it does or had some reason to decide its not smart anymore,,, meanhile there are still deaths happening and a death over someone's drunken night out is not right anymore, if it ever was.
We all know,,, we cant do it anymore and if you really think the kids are learning,,, right,,, a young man hit this girl, a young man killed a six year old boy a couple years ago, seems a young man (by witness account) hit an elderly in West bank yesterday and drove off,,, 17 year old just hit a woman on a crosswalk in Vernon,,, them were all kids not long ago. They will have their accidents and it needs to not be over booze anymore.
Young drivers are yapping on phones all the time, some right after they get on the road with their new car and their new licence. They still put make up on in the mirror while driving and I think they would have the highest rate of road rage,,, lets not forget the "getting your first car" feeling is just like it was when we were young, they will think they are cocky like we did, traffic population is growing and the dangers build with that IMO, and no kids are not anymore careful then they were when I was a kid, even worse now with the electronic toys they play with while driving.
Go into ICBC like I did recently for an abstract and look around,,, them kids are sitting on chairs with baggy pants plugging away on their phones waiting for a test so they can hit the road. Yup, we woulda bin too if we had internet phones back then but my point is they are gonna learn like we did, you dont do other things, you get in sober and you drive, thats it. It was great when we got our licence and then we could drink and vote and all that, wasnt it? Still is to a young person getting there, but people have to understand drinking isnt allowed with driving, you plan or you pay. There is no excuse anymore, the education we didnt have back then is there for us all now.

Here is a funny story for ya, while I was waiting for a friend in ICBC one day I was near a young couple, the young lady was gonna do her test. A guy and probably his dad walked in, the young guy left the older man to sit and came to this couple near me cos he knew them, they yak, the guy with his dad is there for some other reason, he tells this couple he lost his licence and I dont know how it works but he has to rewrite or do something cos he got in trouble, was caught DUI once and has a number of points added up so maybe he was going in for a review or something like that but when he mentioned the DUI I looked him over from the side of my eye,,, he had a "whateverrrrr" look on his face, he told them he hates the bus system and what the heck, not like he is the only one who drank and drove,,, he didnt get it and he will get another if they let him keep it and then will be off the road maybe, but, will he hurt someone first? Hate to say it but he had a smug look about him and I wouldnt have let him keep it if I was reviewing him, not till he understands its a privialige to drive.

[Fancy]

Well I guess it's already started for those of us with kids, try getting in a car with a young person after a drink or not putting on a seat belt or lighting a cigarette or speeding through a school zone etc. you will hear all about it.
I think it starts with children and as they grow it becomes ingrained. I'm willing to bet a scientific study would show its already working towards that anyway.
But there is the start. As for us older folks new tricks are hard to learn but more footage and facts and stories and more of those commercials and public service announcements. Maybe some pressure towards movies and Hollywood that glamourize drinking and drugs to reverse such things ...more studies, more leadership etc etc ...

These are the things that worked with smoking
Lets do the same for DUI...

For starters, kids grow up and unfortunately make their own bad choices (i.e. no seatbelts, drinking and driving and smoking) even after all the parental guidance. Smoking in children is only down 1% (though it is down if the study is accurate as it is only based on what the children state). I lean towards children not being completely honest because of public perception. There are public service announcements already on drinking and driving which are totally lost on those that continue to do so. What worked with smoking was taking it out of the workplace and making it more difficult to purchase. Can't do that with alcohol.

[Roadster]

Good points made there Fancy,,, some think it was magic,,, some see its no different then it was and it likely never will be much better as far as the young goes. People grow up with mistakes to be made. The target is to make DUI a non existant thing and I think it has to start with licencing. Take a licence away for a good while for a first offence, fines and then take it away forever when its proven the driver didnt learn the first time, even if he didnt hurt anyone yet, this privialige thing has to be just that, abuse it and you dont have it anymore and thats not just for young drivers. Thats for everyone. Maybe when young drivers find they have to drive their mommies and daddies around all the time they will have a reason to respect the road. After all kids do learn by their parent's mistakes,,, a good punishment someone else is dealing with is a good reminder of what priviliage means.

[Verminator]

Good points made there Fancy,,, some think it was magic,,, some see its no different then it was and it likely never will be much better as far as the young goes. People grow up with mistakes to be made. The target is to make DUI a non existant thing and I think it has to start with licencing. Take a licence away for a good while for a first offence, fines and then take it away forever when its proven the driver didnt learn the first time, even if he didnt hurt anyone yet, this privialige thing has to be just that, abuse it and you dont have it anymore and thats not just for young drivers. Thats for everyone. Maybe when young drivers find they have to drive their mommies and daddies around all the time they will have a reason to respect the road. After all kids do learn by their parent's mistakes,,, a good punishment someone else is dealing with is a good reminder of what priviliage means.

I'd take it a few steps further if it were up to me. Driving prohibitions alone don't work very well, it's easy to drive without a licence and that's often exactly what these people do. Take away their cars and it's a different story, and I don't mean just impounding them for a week or two. Confiscate them, auction them off and impose massive fines, say one-third of the perp's yearly income. Do that on a first offence and I can almost guarantee people will get the message.