B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[my5cents]

This isn't about drinking and driving though, is it? See, this is where you miss the point!!!! I'll bet you not ONE poster in this thread agrees with drinking and driving!!!! Take a poll......not ONE!!! It is about the right to dispute IF an "accused" has a valid reason to dispute what their "accuser" has put forward.


This is where many involved in this discussion are "bypassing" each other......

[KL3-Something]

This isn't about drinking and driving though, is it? See, this is where you miss the point!!!! I'll bet you not ONE poster in this thread agrees with drinking and driving!!!! Take a poll......not ONE!!! It is about the right to dispute IF an "accused" has a valid reason to dispute what their "accuser" has put forward.


This is where many involved in this discussion are "bypassing" each other......

But the "accused" can dispute it. Not in the manner that most are familiar with, but still in a manner that the BC Supreme Court has said is OK.

[goatboy]

Let me ask you this. Is getting a drivers license a right? No, it's not. It's available to anyone who meets a certain set of criteria and pass a test. When getting this license we agree to follow a set of rules that will allow us to be able to continue to have the legal ability to drive. Now, we get an IRP. We lose the "privilege" of being able to drive before we have the ability to dispute the accusation. We're not charged with anything criminally, so certain charter rights do not apply. There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to). The dispute process starts with the OSMV but can continue up to a court if you choose to. This may take a while, but the ability to have your day in court is still there. If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive. No rights have been taken away from you if you chose this.

[goatboy]

its really amazing how some get so clouded by the police drinking and driving propaganda they believe anything.
.05 is not drunk.
and the issue really isn't what the law is over its the fact it stripping people of the civil rights people did die fighting for.
i think you may be surprised how many would be more ashamed of guys willing to just roll over and say yes sir.

You may be right that over .05 is not drunk. However, it's called impaired driving and being over .05 can certainly impair your driving ability. The fact is though, regardless of whether you think your not drunk at .05 it's still the law. Every driver knows what it is and if they put themselves in a position to be over this limit, they can only blame themselves.

Personally, I think any veteran that put his life on the line for our freedoms would actually be horrified that people are using them as a reason for opposing the new IRP law. The freedom they were fighting for was most definitely not so someone might not be able to drive for 90 days and to use them in this way is an insult to all those that died for the true meaning of freedom. It's easy to say it's a slippery slope but we have far too many checks and balances in place in this country to ever allow a true infringement of our charter rights to ever become the norm.

[simnut]

But the "accused" can dispute it. Not in the manner that most are familiar with, but still in a manner that the BC Supreme Court has said is OK.

Ok, what you say is true. But.....it's the order of the so called dispute happens. You CAN take it to the Supreme Court of BC (the only UNbiased arena left now in this dispute process), but that happens only after the "accused" has served or made to serve the "penalty" of the administrative sanction. Please don't call the so-called dispute process with the OSMV a fair system.....(please see my remark lower regarding the chickens) So, as of now...it is guilty until proven innocent if the driver wishes to dispute it. And that is the case at ALL levels of drinking and driving levels and sanctions. Pretty soon it will be applied to ALL motor vehicle violations and the disputes developing from them.

The "right" that comes with the criminal "version" of impaired driving (innocent until proven guilty) is removed by going administrative. Removal of a right....no other way to put it.......because whether you like it or not...it still is a criminal act. Now, you can say.. "but it's not a criminal charge now, so there is no right to argue about". You're right...exactly the way the government wants it.....a criminal act with adminstrative consequences.

As mentioned before, lawyers....as much as we hate 'em (or love 'em)...are important for our system. It's like competition in the business world....it keeps both sides honest. I know some of the officers on here will say THAT job is now up to the OSMV, which they will be correct in saying. But just think about that.......isn't that a little like giving the raccoon the keys to the chicken house?

[simnut]

Y

Personally, I think any veteran that put his life on the line for our freedoms would actually be horrified that people are using them as a reason for opposing the new IRP law. The freedom they were fighting for was most definitely not so someone might not be able to drive for 90 days and to use them in this way is an insult to all those that died for the true meaning of freedom. It's easy to say it's a slippery slope but we have far too many checks and balances in place in this country to ever allow a true infringement of our charter rights to ever become the norm.

No, but they did put their life on the line for a free country in which a citizen with a "want" to dispute their "accuser" would be able to do just that.....fairly and justly. What do you think these vet's would think of a government that is setting up "slam dunk" situations such as IRP's, or "appeals" to a government office (OSMV) whose sole job is to "teach drivers a lesson"?

[simnut]

Let me ask you this. Is getting a drivers license a right? No, it's not. It's available to anyone who meets a certain set of criteria and pass a test. When getting this license we agree to follow a set of rules that will allow us to be able to continue to have the legal ability to drive. Now, we get an IRP. We lose the "privilege" of being able to drive before we have the ability to dispute the accusation. We're not charged with anything criminally, so certain charter rights do not apply. There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to). The dispute process starts with the OSMV but can continue up to a court if you choose to. This may take a while, but the ability to have your day in court is still there. If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive. No rights have been taken away from you if you chose this.

Hey Goatboy, has it ever crossed your mind that they eliminated your rights by going administrative in impaired driving, a criminal act? They did.............oh...it may not be rights that you will ever need...or use.....but they did get rid of your rights that were waiting to protect you in case.........

[keith1612]

You may be right that over .05 is not drunk. However, it's called impaired driving and being over .05 can certainly impair your driving ability. The fact is though, regardless of whether you think your not drunk at .05 it's still the law. Every driver knows what it is and if they put themselves in a position to be over this limit, they can only blame themselves.

Personally, I think any veteran that put his life on the line for our freedoms would actually be horrified that people are using them as a reason for opposing the new IRP law. The freedom they were fighting for was most definitely not so someone might not be able to drive for 90 days and to use them in this way is an insult to all those that died for the true meaning of freedom. It's easy to say it's a slippery slope but we have far too many checks and balances in place in this country to ever allow a true infringement of our charter rights to ever become the norm.

its a joke, so its not impaired but you get penalized.
its not truly even a law its just a way cops too lazy to follow through with real impaired drivers have been given a hokey back door to fine honest drivers.
to protect themselves they made it impossible to even go to court and fight it.
yes the police and the BC liberals should be proud they have the biggest cash cow yet with this.
look when the courts found the .05 went against our rights, they still found a way to keep all the cash and not drop charges.
lol must have been some nice christmas gifts somewhere.
no, any person who fought for rights for canadians should be totally disgusted with this.

[zzontar]

Let me ask you this. Is getting a drivers license a right? No, it's not. It's available to anyone who meets a certain set of criteria and pass a test. When getting this license we agree to follow a set of rules that will allow us to be able to continue to have the legal ability to drive. Now, we get an IRP. We lose the "privilege" of being able to drive before we have the ability to dispute the accusation. We're not charged with anything criminally, so certain charter rights do not apply. There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to). The dispute process starts with the OSMV but can continue up to a court if you choose to. This may take a while, but the ability to have your day in court is still there. If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive. No rights have been taken away from you if you chose this.

The old "driving is a right, not a privilege" thing gets so tiresome. Eating, having running water, and having access to medical care is a privilege for some, so nothing is actually a "right."

There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to)

What if you aren't near any transit lines, drive for a living, or if you have to use your vehicle for work to haul tools, etc?

The dispute process starts with the OSMV

I think anyone who had to pay the 100 bucks for the rigged appeal that couldn't be won (dispute process wouldn't be a good choice of words) should get a re-appeal.

If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive.

How many people do you honestly think can just give up driving completely... and simply?

[noneofyourbiz3]

Let me ask you this. Is getting a drivers license a right? No, it's not. It's available to anyone who meets a certain set of criteria and pass a test. When getting this license we agree to follow a set of rules that will allow us to be able to continue to have the legal ability to drive. Now, we get an IRP. We lose the "privilege" of being able to drive before we have the ability to dispute the accusation. We're not charged with anything criminally, so certain charter rights do not apply. There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to). The dispute process starts with the OSMV but can continue up to a court if you choose to. This may take a while, but the ability to have your day in court is still there. If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive. No rights have been taken away from you if you chose this.

Right to speedy trial?

[diggerdick]

Right to speedy trial?

Not a right to a kangaroo court That you paid for and the decision is already made.

Some people, just do not have the mental capability to understand what they've really lost

[simnut]

Let me ask you this. Is getting a drivers license a right?

Let's put it another way then. If YOU, as a BC citizen, fulfills ALL the criteria and perameters required to get a BC drivers license, do you THEN have the right to get one? Every court in BC would uphold your right to receive a license.

When getting this license we agree to follow a set of rules that will allow us to be able to continue to have the legal ability to drive.

Agreed!!! 100%! As does any landed immigrant in Canada.

Now, we get an IRP. We lose the "privilege" of being able to drive before we have the ability to dispute the accusation.

But, what if that accusation is wrong.....why should we lose our right or priviledge to drive IF the driver has done nothing wrong?

We're not charged with anything criminally, so certain charter rights do not apply.

And, THAT is exactly the problem....removal or certain charter rights......dealing with, in the case of an impaired driving charge...a criminal act according to the Criminal Code of Canada..which supersedes any provincial "law".

There are monetary penalties associated to this accusation, but you don't have to pay them before you dispute the accusation (you may not be able to drive unless you pay them, but you don't have to).

Did you know, as a driver that has been "convicted" of an administrative impaired sanction in BC cannot choose between using the interlock device....or just not driving for a year? In a way, I can understand that.....the province wants to make sure you don't drive drunk once you start driving....ok...I'll give them that. Do you know the cost of installing an interlock in BC? Around $750 . You know what it is in the US? $45. Wonder why..........

The dispute process starts with the OSMV

If you EVER have to deal with the OSMV in a dispute, you will know why that is a contradiction of terms....OSMV and dispute process. It isn't, the OSMV and the province have their system pretty well setup....like a 2 headed coin...unfair for one party and I'll let you guess which one.

........ but can continue up to a court if you choose to. This may take a while, but the ability to have your day in court is still there.

And while this "while" takes a while....like maybe 2 years....you've already served your "sentence" for something that you have the right to dispute..or else this process wouldn't even be here. You know, I would be ok if the OSMV would stay any sanctions at this point UNTIL the courts have made their decision...but they won't....why.....because they don't have too. They call it protecting the public on the roads.......from someone that MAY not be correctly "accused" in the first place! You think going to this office first is a fair dispute process?

If you don't agree with any of the procedures you can simply choose not to drive. No rights have been taken away from you if you chose this.

Do you think a citizen of BC should have less rights because they want to drive?

[theyeti]

wanna see something scary look up the definition of citizen !

[Trunk-Monkey]

its a joke, so its not impaired but you get penalized.
its not truly even a law its just a way cops too lazy to follow through with real impaired drivers have been given a hokey back door to fine honest drivers.
to protect themselves they made it impossible to even go to court and fight it.
yes the police and the BC liberals should be proud they have the biggest cash cow yet with this.
look when the courts found the .05 went against our rights, they still found a way to keep all the cash and not drop charges.
lol must have been some nice christmas gifts somewhere.
no, any person who fought for rights for canadians should be totally disgusted with this.

You should really do some research on this topic. At least when others put forth an arguement regarding the IRP's most have actually read something or studied what it is they are talking about. Your posts make no sense and your wanted hatred for cops bleeds thru on anything and everything you say.
Lets explore this shall we??
1) .05 has been proven and has been made what experts deemed impaired and such the BAC limit has been dropped to .05. Accept that because frankly it doesnt matter what you think..at the end of the day if you drive with a BAC over .05 and get caught you will be busted.
2) The IRP's were not the inception of the police. Yes the police had a voice in the inception of them and a say as to the "do's and dont's" but try and look past you obvious hatred toward the men and women in blue for one second and realize this LAW is here to stay...you dont have to like it...and I am sure there are ppl like myself who could careless if you do....but if you are going to go and slam something you know little to nothing about, at least have your facts straight.
3).05 has never been considered unconstitutional - it was other things in the 1st IRP set forth that were changed because they were part of the growing pains. Lets be clear, NO ONE had their civil rights trampled on here. It is NOT a civil right to drive...period.
4) I have fought for our freedoms and I support the IRP's 100%. I would think most people would....most that dont elect to drink and drive anyway...then again if you do drink and drive of course you are going to hate them because the penalties are swift and pretty big as far as hitting you in the pocket book. For those of us that do not drink and drive....they are a perfect way to keep the roads safer and to me..THAT would be a civil right of mine that would be trampled on if the IRPs were suddenly gone.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Do you think a citizen of BC should have less rights because they want to drive?

No but when you start the process of getting a BCDL and you sign on the dotted line you are agreeing to follow the rules and laws set forth as they relate to driving a motor vehicle on the road. I know your situation Simnut but you have to agree that the IRP's in it and of themselve work. Yes the appeal process is lengthy bit there is one in place and you will have your day in court...