Drunk sends young girl to hospital

[Graphite]

But our laws and society are based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Those roadside detection devices are not accurate enough for criminal charges so why should they be accurate enough to potentially ruin someone's life?
A 90 day suspension with no warning or lead time to prepare for could see someone potentially lose their jobs their homes and maybe their families....
All on the say so of a fallible machine and a cop who is on a mission?

Or....

Or....

Or just don't drink and drive.

Pretty black and white.

Before another drunk driver ruins someone else's life.

[Roadster]

Has The letter thing been tried on adulterers or has it been in discussions? Last I heard it was a possibility. Didnt know they did it here in Canada. And I agree with the above,,, dont do it, no problem drinking and driving kills. Simple.

[ukcanuck]

They aren't being "Witness, Judge and Jury" or "Judge Jury and Executioner" as some have tried to coin it.

Why don't you like the executioner label? You are executing the punishment aren't you , the 3,5 or 90 day prohibition?

If any thing they are "Witness" and "Process Server". They do not ultimately determine guilt (like a judge or jury would) and don't determine the sentence (as a judge would).

I can see witness and process server, and I can even buy that you don't determine guilt to a degree, but you clearly determine the prohibition. it's your call as to the length if I am not mistaken...

They simply are making their observations while conducting investigations. They then serve the driver's with the appropriate documents as set out in legislation.

By "serve the appropriate documents" you mean you confiscate the drivers license? How very Orwellian

The BC Supreme Court has determined that the IRP system (which does NOT apply in situations like this) DOES honor the "Canadian System of Justice".

Really? The Supreme Court said it was alright for you to bring your personal feelings into the equation?

As for the notion that bikeguy25 has somehow lost objectivity because someone he knows was seriously affected by a drunk driver: Who cares where his motivation comes from?

I dunno would you care if it was you had one drink after work and were not impaired but officer bikeguy suspected you had one too many and the detection device was malfunctioning and you blew a warning and he took your license?
Would you care then?
What's the protocol for RCMP members off duty indiscretions?
I bet it would be embarrassing as hell and pretty career damaging.

No one I am close to has ever been seriously affected by a drunk driver but I am just as motivated to get as many as I can off the road. I have been to enough incidents where a drunk driver has seriously affected other innocent people that I have the same axe to grind. You can't go to collisions where a 10 year old boy was trapped and burned alive in a vehicle as the result of an Impaired driver and not be affected. It comes with the territory. I know that members who went to the collision that started this thread were seriously affected by what they dealt with and I'm sure it has hardened their resolve to take as many drunks off the road as they can.

Please don't misunderstand, I am sympathetic to your desire to end drunk driving, and I applaud your efforts to a degree and when you catch guys like the one in this thread I hope the law has enough teeth to get justice. But the blind kind of justice....you know the lady with the scales

Maybe you think that I have lost my objectivity as well. But I am not out there to give impaired driver's the "benefit of the doubt". That benefit is given either by a judge (reasonable doubt) or an OSMV adjudicator (balance of probabilities). I don't even know how "benefit of the doubt" would apply to the job the police have. The only benefit of the doubt would come from an officer not going straight demand on the person because he or she isn't sure about exactly where on the impaired spectrum the driver is sitting. In these cases the ASD demand is made so an unbiased instrument can make that determination.

Here's where my soap box has to take a break while you explain if your willing about this IRP thing, who decides if it 3, 5 or 90 days?

As I understand it, you decide based on the lights that blink on the machine and your investigative skill... (He's exhibiting signs, pulling out of a bar parking lot at 3 am etc )

Because the difference in the time might have huge effects on a person's life... Loss of job, mortgage, etc... I mean its not inconceivable that you might end up investigating a suicide?

Finally if it is your prerogative then wouldn't you just go for the 90 days straight up as you want to get them all off the road. It's all black and white right ?

[Roadster]

How old are you? Am I mistaken but I thought you mentioned something about having been around awhile, you know like someone who should know that there is nothing in this world that is black and white?

Even drunk driving is shades of grey. The law varies based on the spectrum of impairment.

Yes not much is black and white, but if not drinking and driving was white and drinking and driving was black and we skip the grey crap in the middle by planning or leaving the family car at home then its not a grey area, is it?
Its them who thnk it is a grey area who make mistakes they get to pay for later in the house of bars where, yes the walls are grey.
K, lets get rid of the grey for a second,,, cos I am betting that bugged you a bit... You can go left or you can go right but you'd hafta zig zag to go both ways at the same time. People have to make the right choices, thats what yer not getting. Its a choice to not do it, no grey, no problem.
My favorite commercial about drinking and driving was the one where an empty glass placed in front of the driver made the view in front of his car a bit fuzzy, then the second empty glass made it worse, then the third and finally he turns and hits a bus if I remember right. I think it was a MADD commercial.
Anyway yer good to go if you just dont do it and quit making excuses.

Ps,,, I bet that young lady's life went to many shades of grey after she was hit.

[ukcanuck]

How old are you? Am I mistaken but I thought you mentioned something about having been around awhile, you know like someone who should know that there is nothing in this world that is black and white?

Even drunk driving is shades of grey. The law varies based on the spectrum of impairment.

Yes not much is black and white, but if not drinking and driving was white and drinking and driving was black and we skip the grey crap in the middle by planning or leaving the family car at home then its not a grey area, is it?
Its them who thnk it is a grey area who make mistakes they get to pay for later in the house of bars where, yes the walls are grey.
K, lets get rid of the grey for a second,,, cos I am betting that bugged you a bit... You can go left or you can go right but you'd hafta zig zag to go both ways at the same time. People have to make the right choices, thats what yer not getting. Its a choice to not do it, no grey, no problem.
My favorite commercial about drinking and driving was the one where an empty glass placed in front of the driver made the view in front of his car a bit fuzzy, then the second empty glass made it worse, then the third and finally he turns and hits a bus if I remember right. I think it was a MADD commercial.
Anyway yer good to go if you just dont do it and quit making excuses.

Ps,,, I bet that young lady's life went to many shades of grey after she was hit.

you quoted part of my post then you ignore it?
how is the black white or grey?

Yeah that was a pretty good commercial I remember it. but at what point is a person impaired? one two three? does weight and metabolism play a factor? I am sure its all of one glass for my ex-girlfriend, she is a lightweight and gets silly with a glass of wine, no way she gets behind the wheel of a car... my uncle a WW2 navy vet wouldn't blink at a glass of wine. Obviously neither one should drive thats true but if both did, one would get a lighter penalty than the other, how is that fair?

[Roadster]

Yeah that was a pretty good commercial I remember it. but at what point is a person impaired? one two three? does weight and metabolism play a factor? I am sure its all of one glass for my ex-girlfriend, she is a lightweight and gets silly with a glass of wine, no way she gets behind the wheel of a car... my uncle a WW2 navy vet wouldn't blink at a glass of wine. Obviously neither one should drive thats true but if both did, one would get a lighter penalty than the other, how is that fair?

This is where I am gonna agree with you, kinda. Lets assume the road side machines knows how many you could or could not have. There now on to weight and metabolism, yes they play a factor. So does mood, and whether you ate a while ago or not for many hours.
Ever notice when yer in a great mood or you didnt eat it hits you much faster? K the blood alcohol might not change much in the actual numbers on a machine compared to another day with different circumstances but feelin a little cocky after a few just because it was a blast tonight? There are many factors that will affect numbers and even mood and ability drive to after a few,,,
Ok, not drunk,,, if I am in a bad mood I dont think I drive as well as I do when in a good mood with a clear head. We can all probably admit to that. Lets say a guy left a bar with three in him (and he thinks three dont affect him, usually) cos the wife called his cell and said if he dont come home for supper now then dont bother,,,, booze and bad mood.
Just like You said, one glass of wine and yer X wouldnt get behind a wheel. Why? She isnt drunk,,, but maybe you would after three,,, you prove right there with yer X that its not worth guessing with numbers,,, weight against how many glasses of booze would be safe. Many think they are never drunk enough on the usual say, three or four a night, bet they have been wrong a long time and dont even know it.

[Graphite]

you quoted part of my post then you ignore it?
how is the black white or grey?

Defense of drunk driving should be ignored. If you are scared of grey then don't drink.

I know, I know, its a genius plan isn't it? Don't drink and drive. Sooooo simple. And to think, my advice here is free. You are welcome

[Trunk-Monkey]

It appears that this officer has an axe to grind, he has a personal loss and is hardly unbiased. What are the chances that anyone is going to get the benefit of the doubt from someone who feels this way?

I know what some will say "if it gets one drunk driver off the road" or if it saves just one life it's worth it.

But our laws and society are based on the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Those roadside detection devices are not accurate enough for criminal charges so why should they be accurate enough to potentially ruin someone's life?
A 90 day suspension with no warning or lead time to prepare for could see someone potentially lose their jobs their homes and maybe their families....
All on the say so of a fallible machine and a cop who is on a mission?

Now that is an extreme result of the laws on the books and an example of why we need caution.

Btw this not meant as an attack on bike guy, I'm sure I would feel just as strongly in his position.

Cop on a mission?? Really?? So you are saying he is making things up when he is on scene with an impaireed driver? Are you saying his integrety should be checked? I think you are way out of line to even suggest such things when in fact you dont even know him.
Fallible machine???.oh you mean the APPROVED Screening Device??? Yes thats right...APPROVED. Get used to that word and its meaning.
For you to make such statements one would think you know all there is to know about this individual and were at every scene where he busted an impaired driver....well you must have been since you are calling into question his integrity on the subject. He is passionate about gettng drunks off the road...this does not make him have any less integrity when doing so.

[ukcanuck]

you quoted part of my post then you ignore it?
how is the black white or grey?

Defense of drunk driving should be ignored. If you are scared of grey then don't drink.

I know, I know, its a genius plan isn't it? Don't drink and drive. Sooooo simple. And to think, my advice here is free. You are welcome

Are you intentionally this obtuse or do you come by it naturally? why don't we just ban alcohol its a crappy drug anyway, its the cause of so much anguish really.... Better yet, lets ban cars! hell without cars no one will ever be in an accident yeah!!!! simples

[Roadster]

Are you intentionally this obtuse or do you come by it naturally? why don't we just ban alcohol its a crappy drug anyway, its the cause of so much anguish really.... Better yet, lets ban cars! hell without cars no one will ever be in an accident yeah!!!! simples

Boy, you sure like to go the extra mile huh,,, someone says something and you are suddenly into banning life and beating people,,,
You should check your emotions a bit,,, seems for someone who likes grey for the drunken bum being busted, you dont like it when people just want to up the strength of the law a bit,,, no, you gotta beat people and take all our toys away.
We are talking about making a drunk pay for his actions, no beatings needed and we wont take his toys till he shows he abuses em and disrespects others.

[ukcanuck]

Cop on a mission?? Really?? So you are saying he is making things up when he is on scene with an impaireed driver?

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

Are you saying his integrity should be checked?

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.

I think you are way out of line to even suggest such things when in fact you dont even know him.

I have said nothing about him as a person I have only quoted his own words in making a point.
A point you are not answering by the way

Fallible machine???.oh you mean the APPROVED Screening Device??? Yes thats right...APPROVED. Get used to that word and its meaning.

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

For you to make such statements

I have made no statements I have called into question the infallibility if the people who have such arbitrary power over citizens and I've questioned the basis for which such discretionary power is wielded...

one would think you know all there is to know about this individual and were at every scene where he busted an impaired driver....well you must have been since you are calling into question his integrity on the subject. He is passionate about gettng drunks off the road...this does not make him have any less integrity when doing so.

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

[ukcanuck]

Are you intentionally this obtuse or do you come by it naturally? why don't we just ban alcohol its a crappy drug anyway, its the cause of so much anguish really.... Better yet, lets ban cars! hell without cars no one will ever be in an accident yeah!!!! simples

Boy, you sure like to go the extra mile huh,,, someone says something and you are suddenly into banning life and beating people,,,
You should check your emotions a bit,,, seems for someone who likes grey for the drunken bum being busted, you dont like it when people just want to up the strength of the law a bit,,, no, you gotta beat people and take all our toys away.
We are talking about making a drunk pay for his actions, no beatings needed and we wont take his toys till he shows he abuses em and disrespects others.

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

[Verminator]

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?

[my5cents]

They aren't being "Witness, Judge and Jury" or "Judge Jury and Executioner" as some have tried to coin it. If any thing they are "Witness" and "Process Server". They do not ultimately determine guilt (like a judge or jury would) and don't determine the sentence (as a judge would). They simply are making their observations while conducting investigations. They then serve the driver's with the appropriate documents as set out in legislation.

"They do not ultimately determine guilt"

From the Motor Vehicle Act of BC :

Review of driving prohibition
215.1 (1) A person may, within the prescribed number of days after being served with a notice of driving prohibition under section 215 (2), apply to the superintendent for a review of the driving prohibition by

The words seem pretty clear. The motorist HAS A DRIVING PROHIBITION, and MAY apply to the superintendent for a REVIEW OF THE DRIVING PROHIBITION.

The driving prohibition is the direct result and only result of the observations of the police officer. The officer is not stopping a motorist and determining that there is a pending prohibition that has been adjudicated or is the result of some official process and the officer is just serving papers. This prohibition is based solely on the observations and opinion of the officer at that point in time. The officer is NOT a "Process Server".

Notice there is no wording such as "and if the offence is proved",,,, or "upon a finding of guilty". zip.

The motorist is requesting a review of something that has happened, not something that is going to happen upon conviction.

The BC Supreme Court has determined that the IRP system (which does NOT apply in situations like this) DOES honor the "Canadian System of Justice".

and, that would be the same BC Supreme Court that ruled that Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, that was enacted by the BC Liberal government, which basically quashed legal contracts in the Health Care industry, was constitutional ?? That the Supreme Court of Canada through out, ruling 6 to 1 that the legislation contravened the Charter of Rights ? That court ???

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" ?

[ukcanuck]

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

If by fix you mean that political parties blind the public to there complete and utter uselessness and corruption by creating laws that appear to fix problems that don't exist and appeal to people on a visceral level. All while co opting police into thinking they are serving the common good instead of actually raising revenue for the fat cats in Victoria ?

The .....yeah I smell a rat...