Drunk sends young girl to hospital

[Roadster]

Actually its not called that but it should be.

[kgcayenne]

I agree.

[Roadster]

When you figure, if you shoot at someone and you miss it can be called attempted murder, right? So if you point a deadly car at a line of traffic, it kinda fits, even if you miss em all say tonight, now how many times does one person get to do that before they do kill someone,,, kinda like a ticking time bomb wait for a target. Drivers are all adults and adults know better then to drink and drive, just like we all know not to shoot at anyone.

[Fancy]

This site may help clear up some confusion:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_C ... m_or_Death

[ukcanuck]

I guess im saying somewhere between 25 years in the slammer and losing your license forever, for one too many sips at the wine tasting is a little over the top.
However, 10 hard years for the guy in question in this thread, the repeat offender, I'm on board with something like that

You're saying someone shouldn't spend 25 years in jail and lose their license for ever for killing their first victim due to drinking too much and driving? We should wait for them to do it a second time before we get really tough? Just clarifying your position.

I think your missing the point, what I'm saying is that someone who has had one too many wine tastings at a local winery a d drives home without incident other than getting busted at the roadside by a some fluke or overzealous cop should not be considered an evil menace to society or charged with attempted murder.
I'm all for throwing the book at a guy like the one in question here as has been suggested but I also think we should be a little less reactionary and arbitrary about changing the law.

[MAPearce]

I think your missing the point, what I'm saying is that someone who has had one too many wine tastings at a local winery a d drives home without incident other than getting busted at the roadside by a some fluke or overzealous cop should not be considered an evil menace to society or charged with attempted murder.
I'm all for throwing the book at a guy like the one in question here as has been suggested but I also think we should be a little less reactionary and arbitrary about changing the law.

I don't think so ....

The person who had one many at a wine tasting still had one too many.

The guy who just got off work and had one with his dinner...Didn't. These people are not the "menace to society" thathappen to get the "book thrown at them"

I think the law is fine the way it is. The interpritation of the law between the OSMV and law enforcement isn't "fine " at all

[goatboy]

[

I don't think so ....

The person who had one many at a wine tasting still had one too many.

The guy who just got off work and had one with his dinner...Didn't. These people are not the "menace to society" thathappen to get the "book thrown at them"

I think the law is fine the way it is. The interpritation of the law between the OSMV and law enforcement isn't "fine " at all

There's no "interpretation of the law" going on. There's enforcement of the law but its being followed to a T. Besides,if someone has truly only had one drink with dinner, they don't have anything to worry about, regardless of what others may tell you.

[Graphite]

Its no secret drunk driving kills, how is this even still an issue anymore? Don't drink and drive. Choose to drink and drive and the book should be thrown at you. Yes absolutely you should loose your license for a first time offense. Obviously as a driver you would be showing poor decision making ability and perhaps you should not have a license at all.

Ooops? Drank too much? Call a friggen cab. Don't take the chance you might murder someone.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Kelowna RCMP arrested a 25 year old ALBERTA man Friday night after he drove through a fence, took off speeding, then hit another vehicle head on, sending its driver to hospital.


Im almost a %99.9 sure that because hes from alberta, when he goes to court here, if he even shows up. the drivers licence he holds will not be taken away. alberta cannot cancel a bc drivers licence much like bc cannot cancel a alberta drivers licence. His right to hold a bc drivers licence will be taken for sure, but chances are he will face a fine, possible jail time, depending on his record. And a restitution payment and victim surcharge.

Still a all around bad deal for the girl and her family.

Actually he can be banned Canada wide from driving if the judge sees fit.

[Trunk-Monkey]

I think your missing the point, what I'm saying is that someone who has had one too many wine tastings at a local winery a d drives home without incident other than getting busted at the roadside by a some fluke or overzealous cop should not be considered an evil menace to society or charged with attempted murder.
I'm all for throwing the book at a guy like the one in question here as has been suggested but I also think we should be a little less reactionary and arbitrary about changing the law.

Yes but the fact is this...alcohol makes people unpredictable. You can have a glass of wine at dinner or a pint at a pub and drive home and have NO ISSUES with the current laws. These are the people that are not posing the problems. Its the people who drink 4 glasses of wine or drink 5 beer and get behind the wheel...and then you are playing Russian Roulette with your life, my life and the gen pub at large. That is the point IMO.

[gordon_as]

I would gladly fork out an extra 10% for insurance IF every single penny collected paid the salary of MORE , NEW police officers who's ONLY duty was to find impaired drivers , distracted drivers , reckless drivers ..... and enforce the laws we already have. Charging impaired drivers AFTER they crash and/or injure and/or kill someone is not a good plan. I say they should be out there pulling over EVERY motorist that shows ANY sign of erratic driving. Drivers with an "N" should be fair game to pull over anytime , anywhere , for any reason , or no reason at all for the purpose of checking them for compliance of the ZERO alcohol rule.
At 3:00 am , a cop shouldn't need a "reason" to pull a car over , they should be allowed to do so just to check for the signs of an impaired driver.

Impaired by Alcohol , Weed , Pills , iphone doesn't matter which , just find them and get them off the road before someone dies.

[Roadster]

I can agree with that Gordon as, I'd pay to have em all off the road before they have a chance to hurt someone. IMO as soon as they have had a few and choose to drive they are ignoring the biggest rule, respect for others and then all others rules starting with driving responsibly on our roads. Those roads are mine and yours and everyone elses who needs to get around, they are not a place for chances and games. I get in I drive.
Some distractions might be natural but those you listed are not, they are bad choices and thats it. Add women putting on make up while driving too.

[Trunk-Monkey]

I would gladly fork out an extra 10% for insurance IF every single penny collected paid the salary of MORE , NEW police officers who's ONLY duty was to find impaired drivers , distracted drivers , reckless drivers ..... and enforce the laws we already have. Charging impaired drivers AFTER they crash and/or injure and/or kill someone is not a good plan. I say they should be out there pulling over EVERY motorist that shows ANY sign of erratic driving. Drivers with an "N" should be fair game to pull over anytime , anywhere , for any reason , or no reason at all for the purpose of checking them for compliance of the ZERO alcohol rule.
At 3:00 am , a cop shouldn't need a "reason" to pull a car over , they should be allowed to do so just to check for the signs of an impaired driver.

Impaired by Alcohol , Weed , Pills , iphone doesn't matter which , just find them and get them off the road before someone dies.

To be clear...a police officer can pull a vehicle over for the following reasons:
1) To check the DL of the driver
2) To check the sobriety of the driver
3) To check the road worthiness of the vehicle
4) To check the load of said vehicle
So with all of that said its pretty clear police can and do pull people over to check one or all of these factors. The problem is when people get their backs up because they feel their rights are being violated because they do not know these factors exist. Most people feel the cop has to see them do something wrong to be pulled over, like make a lane change without a signal or make a rolling stop at a stop sign when in fact this is not the case. If more people just adopted the notion that cops at a road block for example are not trying to "bother" anyone....they are just trying to stop people from driving drunk or high. Same goes for when they pull someone over at a traffic stop...if they have a suspicion that the driver have consumed alcohol...they may ask the driver to provide a breath sample...all for the sake of keeping the roads safer for you and I, and that includes the person who MAY BE impaired. All that is needed for this suspicion is for the cop to smell liquor on the drivers breath. IMO its time people start wrapping their heads around the notion that driving while impaired kills people. If people would only spend a 10th of their energy making plans to either not drink and drive period or have a way home after drinking...all of this non sense would fall by the way side. Yes I know I sound like a MADD commercial but its what I really believe.

[KL3-Something]

I would gladly fork out an extra 10% for insurance IF every single penny collected paid the salary of MORE , NEW police officers who's ONLY duty was to find impaired drivers , distracted drivers , reckless drivers ..... and enforce the laws we already have. Charging impaired drivers AFTER they crash and/or injure and/or kill someone is not a good plan. I say they should be out there pulling over EVERY motorist that shows ANY sign of erratic driving. Drivers with an "N" should be fair game to pull over anytime , anywhere , for any reason , or no reason at all for the purpose of checking them for compliance of the ZERO alcohol rule.
At 3:00 am , a cop shouldn't need a "reason" to pull a car over , they should be allowed to do so just to check for the signs of an impaired driver.

Impaired by Alcohol , Weed , Pills , iphone doesn't matter which , just find them and get them off the road before someone dies.

That exists now. Our ICBC premiums go directly to funding the Integrated Road Safety Units (IRSU) in BC. Their role is exclusively enforcement. I don't know what percentage of our premiums go to funding the IRSU units but I do know that at present the province is running the Central Okanagan unit at about half, leaving the other half of the positions vacant for budgetary reasons.

[ukcanuck]

I would gladly fork out an extra 10% for insurance IF every single penny collected paid the salary of MORE , NEW police officers who's ONLY duty was to find impaired drivers , distracted drivers , reckless drivers ..... and enforce the laws we already have. Charging impaired drivers AFTER they crash and/or injure and/or kill someone is not a good plan. I say they should be out there pulling over EVERY motorist that shows ANY sign of erratic driving. Drivers with an "N" should be fair game to pull over anytime , anywhere , for any reason , or no reason at all for the purpose of checking them for compliance of the ZERO alcohol rule.
At 3:00 am , a cop shouldn't need a "reason" to pull a car over , they should be allowed to do so just to check for the signs of an impaired driver.

Impaired by Alcohol , Weed , Pills , iphone doesn't matter which , just find them and get them off the road before someone dies.

That exists now. Our ICBC premiums go directly to funding the Integrated Road Safety Units (IRSU) in BC. Their role is exclusively enforcement. I don't know what percentage of our premiums go to funding the IRSU units but I do know that at present the province is running the Central Okanagan unit at about half, leaving the other half of the positions vacant for budgetary reasons.

I've seen that IRSU staking out bank parking lots looking for seatbelt infractions in the middle of the afternoon in Penticton. The big Black suburban or escalade or whatever... real bang up job keeping the roads safe there lol
I know the Cops are good at keeping it real during the holidays and at night in the downtowns where the trouble is but seriously sometimes it really really seems like its all about collecting fines.