B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[Woodenhead]

I imagine this will lead to another court case that will attempt to settle things further. meh who knows, we'll see I guess.

[Smurf]

I guess it dependson where you read the news. According to the Canadian Press he ruled there were problems with over .08 but the laws for .05 to .0799 were okay.

Judge rules against drunk driving law
by The Canadian Press - Story: 67940
Nov 30, 2011 / 12:13 pm


RCMP Const. Faz Majid removes an open bottle of beer from a motorist's car during a roadside check in Surrey, B.C., on September 24, 2010. The B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl DyckThe B.C. Supreme Court says the high costs and lengthy roadside suspensions imposed on some drivers who fail a blood-alcohol test are unconstitutional.

Justice Jon Sigurdson found British Columbia's new laws aimed at cracking down on drunk driving go too far by allowing an automatic 90-day driving suspension when someone blows over .08 on a breathalyzer test.
The law also allows for penalties that could cost the suspended driver over $4,000 and Sigurdson says those are significant without any opportunity for a driver to appeal.

He says the province could have easily provided a way for drivers to challenge the results of the screening device.

However, Sigurdson upheld provisions of the law that allow for suspension of up to 30 days for anyone that blows between .05 and .08.

Looks like all they would have to do is set up a better system for appeal according to this report. Will be interesting to see what comes out in the final analysis.

I stll believe it is basically a good law. You drink and drive, you do the time, no excuse.

[Rwede]

None of this would matter if people were smart enough not to drink and drive, period. Seems like a collosal waste of money and resources trying the defend the "rights" of people who are idiotic enough to risk our lives with a snoot full of booze.

[Bagotricks]

Here is an idea, instead of spending tonnes of money on police and court costs, sending people to jail, letting people get killed on the streets...try PREVENTION.

The buses in this town do not operate late at night. Taxis are very expensive in this city, Vancouver not so much.

Run the buses later. Hand out "free ride home" taxi coupons to people who need them. In Europe, most bars have personal breathalyzers, which are practically banned here.

Prevention costs alot less than enforcement.

[grumpydigger]

Sigurdson ruled the less-severe fines, driving prohibitions and penalties associated with blowing in the blood alcohol warning range between .05 and .08 are also unconstitutional, but justified. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome

This comment from the CTV link It's hard to understand

If something is unconstitutional and against our rights and freedoms why should it be justified

Our rights? What about our rights not to worry about someone drunk on the road when we are out? Again there is no way for someone to defend themself when they have driven drunk and was caught!

Once again,People that are blowing .05 are not the cause Of fatalities and accidents.......And the people that are blowing.15 or .2 And are causing the accidents And should be Picked up and prosecuted If the police did their job

......Calling someone drunk and impaired at.05 Is simply stupid,And used By madd Fanatics Who are trying to Restart prohibition

[Urbane]

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. The new law has apparently cut the injury and death rate by 40% so it's hard to argue against that. There should be an appeal process, as the judge has said, but let's keep what's good about the law, work out the kinks, and be happy that lives are being saved.

[Woodenhead]

it's hard to argue against that.

It's actually pretty easy, since there's been larger fluctuations in the past. (correlation does not imply causation) But supporters tend to just blindly rally behind anything that might help "prove" them right.

IMHO it's probably helped , albeit partly by renewed focus on the issue (preventative via the problem being more forward in our collective consciousness; it tends to be a cyclical thing) rather than it all being directly from the new enforcement method itself.

According to the Canadian Press he ruled there were problems with over .08 but the laws for .05 to .0799 were okay.

See, to me, that part is backwards.

[Edit] @ Glacier - I'm well aware of all that, but... I'm not rehashing all that crap again... (so I'm just post editing rather than replying/bumping)

[Rwede]

Once again,People that are blowing .05 are not the cause Of fatalities and accidents.......And the people that are blowing.15 or .2 And are causing the accidents And should be Picked up and prosecuted If the police did their job

......Calling someone drunk and impaired at.05 Is simply stupid,And used By madd Fanatics Who are trying to Restart prohibition

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. The new law has apparently cut the injury and death rate by 40% so it's hard to argue against that. There should be an appeal process, as the judge has said, but let's keep what's good about the law, work out the kinks, and be happy that lives are being saved.

So Grumpy, why have accident and death rates fallen by 40% with the new law? Do you have any stats to prove otherwise? Of course not, you just think you can slip home from the pub after chugging a few pints after work, no problem. You'd never kill anyone.

[Glacier]

See, to me, that part is backwards.

Here's a little refresher as to why the 0.08 and over is the problem.

[goatboy]

Run the buses later. Hand out "free ride home" taxi coupons to people who need them. In Europe, most bars have personal breathalyzers, which are practically banned here.

Prevention costs alot less than enforcement.

You want "ME" to pay for a cab ride home to someone that has enough money to drink liquor but isn't responsible enough to make sure they have a safe ride home after. Get a grip.

What about personal responsibility rather than "prevention".

[Ken7]

Once again,People that are blowing .05 are not the cause Of fatalities and accidents.......And the people that are blowing.15 or .2 And are causing the accidents And should be Picked up and prosecuted If the police did their job

......Calling someone drunk and impaired at.05 Is simply stupid,And used By madd Fanatics Who are trying to Restart prohibition

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. The new law has apparently cut the injury and death rate by 40% so it's hard to argue against that. There should be an appeal process, as the judge has said, but let's keep what's good about the law, work out the kinks, and be happy that lives are being saved.

So Grumpy, why have accident and death rates fallen by 40% with the new law? Do you have any stats to prove otherwise? Of course not, you just think you can slip home from the pub after chugging a few pints after work, no problem. You'd never kill anyone.

_________________________

Scientifically, at .01 mgs, the average person is impaired to a degree. For someone to say at .05 you are not impaired, that shows your lack of knowledge on this subject.

Lastly, anyone who believes their best friend got an impaired on 2 drinks is also naive. I would say 90% of the impaired drivers picked up state "I only had two drinks."


Impairment affects eat person differantly, it's just that simple!

[MAPearce]

Run the buses later. Hand out "free ride home" taxi coupons to people who need them. In Europe, most bars have personal breathalyzers, which are practically banned here.

Prevention costs alot less than enforcement.

You want "ME" to pay for a cab ride home to someone that has enough money to drink liquor but isn't responsible enough to make sure they have a safe ride home after. Get a grip.

What about personal responsibility rather than "prevention".

I just don't believe it..... I actually agree with you goatboy . That idea is so stupid , I wouldn'thave accepted one of them when I drove a cab...If some one can afford a night on the town,they can afford to get themselves home RESPONSIBLY.... To bad that will NEVER include obeying the LAW.....

[Bagotricks]

Run the buses later. Hand out "free ride home" taxi coupons to people who need them. In Europe, most bars have personal breathalyzers, which are practically banned here.

Prevention costs alot less than enforcement.

You want "ME" to pay for a cab ride home to someone that has enough money to drink liquor but isn't responsible enough to make sure they have a safe ride home after. Get a grip.

What about personal responsibility rather than "prevention".

Right now you pay the RCMP overtime to stand out on the street and "try" to catch drunk drivers, and people are dieing regardless.

You already spend money on breathalyzers, cops, courts, jails and programs... but can't chip in for a cab ride home or do something smart to facilitate society to SAVE a life *before* someone drinks and drives in the first place? You just want to punish and get mad and get tough? The buses don't run when the most drinking and driving occurs. What is a life worth to you? You'd rather people die?

Too bad that tough laws and putting people in jail doesn't bring back the dead or heal people in wheelchairs huh?

Who needs to "get a grip"? I am simply suggesting doing pro-active things to PREVENT it happening in the first place. Makes too much sense, I know.

[MAPearce]

I think the cops use looking for drunk drivers as an excuse and therefor NEED to find them to justify the expenses. Unfortunately , the people whodo drink responsibly pay the price. The .01 or .02 driver gets nailed..Too bad that we get so wrapped up in the hype , tbat we forget the law.I hope the court doesn't.....

[KL3-Something]

Sigurdson ruled the less-severe fines, driving prohibitions and penalties associated with blowing in the blood alcohol warning range between .05 and .08 are also unconstitutional, but justified. http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome

This comment from the CTV link It's hard to understand

If something is unconstitutional and against our rights and freedoms why should it be justified

Nooooo.....That NOT what he said. You are reading into the decision what you want to based on a media report. He said that the prohibitions in the warn range are an infringement on Seciton 10(b) but that it is an infringement that is justified under Section 1 of the Charter. The infrigement of one section of the charter is justified by another section of the charter therefore there is no charter breach:

From the decision:

[15] Further, I find that although the legislation (like its predecessor provincial impaired driving regimes) prima facie violates the s. 10(b) right to counsel at the roadside screening stage, it is saved by s. 1 as it is a limit which is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.