B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[simnut]

No we shouldnt. If you dont drink and drive...you have nothing to worry about. Pretty simple concept if you ask me...

But we are allowed to drink and drive (up to .05)....you FORGET that part.......conveniently! I can show you the law if you wish. :D Kind of throws a wrench into your statement...doesn't it?

[Trunk-Monkey]

But we are allowed to drink and drive (up to .05)....you FORGET that part.......conveniently! I can show you the law if you wish. :D Kind of throws a wrench into your statement...doesn't it?

No need to show me the law...I have used it a time or two. As far as throwing a a wrench into my theory...no...I still stand to what I said....even though the law is .05 mg% I choose to have 0mg% when I drive. Safer that way.

[simnut]

No need to show me the law...I have used it a time or two. As far as throwing a a wrench into my theory...no...I still stand to what I said....even though the law is .05 mg% I choose to have 0mg% when I drive. Safer that way.

And I FULLY agree!!!!!!! But, that nagging .05 "safe" limit is always going to be there...and create issues. Now, if we were to treat all drivers like N drivers....0% BAC, it would be the easiest to enforce. You have alcohol in your system, you're toast! Perhaps it will go that way.....perhaps it won't. As long as we have the .05 "pass" limit.....as long as we have .08 fail limit....you will have discrepancies...therefore questions about procedure....equipment...and thus....court cases.

[Trunk-Monkey]

And I FULLY agree!!!!!!! But, that nagging .05 "safe" limit is always going to be there...and create issues. Now, if we were to treat all drivers like N drivers....0% BAC, it would be the easiest to enforce. You have alcohol in your system, you're toast! Perhaps it will go that way.....perhaps it won't. As long as we have the .05 "pass" limit.....as long as we have .08 fail limit....you will have discrepancies...therefore questions about procedure....equipment...and thus....court cases.

True enough but that said if an instrument such as an ASD, used to determine "pass or fail" at current limits and is questioned regarding accuracy...then so will it be questioned if it were used to determine 0mg%. Its actually silly when you look at it. The ASD is an approved instrument....if people would just decide to not drink at all when driving the issue would be moot.

[simnut]

True enough but that said if an instrument such as an ASD, used to determine "pass or fail" at current limits and is questioned regarding accuracy...then so will it be questioned if it were used to determine 0mg%. Its actually silly when you look at it. The ASD is an approved instrument....if people would just decide to not drink at all when driving the issue would be moot.

Hey Trunk, what would happen if you stopped a driver.....they blew a .06 on the first test, then a .05 (pass) on the second test (using these numbers as an example)...and you let them go......and they hit a pedestrian 1/2 block away from where you had stopped them? I'm quite sure, part of the investigation into that accident would be the drinking and driving...as you just had enough concern to give them an ASD test in the first place. I am also quite sure the investigation would include a blood test or a trip to the detachment to get a reading from the Datamaster as it is now a part of the accident investigation. What if your first ASD test on the driver was the correct reading........and the SECOND was incorrect.......and, legally..this driver should NOT have been allowed to drive because of the "warn"? Would your agency come out with a report stating that the second ASD was in error? What other reason could be given? This turns the tables on the officer...where an inaccurate device let the wrong driver go............. Or, would you feel comfortable enough to say, that would never happen? Would you be comfortable enough to say, it COULD happen?

The ASD, criminally speaking, is NOT an approved device for conviction. The BC government has MADE it an approved device for the administrative sanctions. This bothers me a bit........as both "convictions" are for the identical thing....just one is called criminal, the other administrative.

I know the new IRP's make the officers job easier, and therefore quicker when dealing with an impaired driver. This allows officers to spend more time on the road....and THIS, in my opinion...is a major reason more impaired drivers are taken off the road.....more police presence.....NOT the fact that drivers are worried about the new IRP's.

[simnut]

Here is something interesting...and it comes off the OSMV website.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddo ... 0Sheet.pdf

Go to the second page, and read what it says on the top, right hand column. It reads:

the result of the ASD test was not reliable;

This was not there before........and is one of the ground rules the OSMV has given for a reason for dispute. Why is that in there now?

[zzontar]

I wonder how you would dispute the ASD not being reliable. 2 other things that weren't there before:

the ASD registered a WARN, but your blood alcohol
content was less than 0.05% BAC (50mg of alcohol in

As this could happen from using something like breath spray, they should have also made it mandatory to have the 15 minute wait before being tested if there is a chance of residual mouth-alcohol.
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/589 ... efits.html

(And by the way, use of an alcoholic breath freshener can cause you to fail a highway breathalyzer test, should you be unfortunate enough to find yourself in that position.)

Another new one:

your 7– or 30– day prohibition should be reduced
because you did not have any previous IRP(s);

What's that about and why not for a 3 day suspension as well?

[Trunk-Monkey]

Hey Trunk, what would happen if you stopped a driver.....they blew a .06 on the first test, then a .05 (pass) on the second test (using these numbers as an example)...and you let them go......and they hit a pedestrian 1/2 block away from where you had stopped them? I'm quite sure, part of the investigation into that accident would be the drinking and driving...as you just had enough concern to give them an ASD test in the first place. I am also quite sure the investigation would include a blood test or a trip to the detachment to get a reading from the Datamaster as it is now a part of the accident investigation. What if your first ASD test on the driver was the correct reading........and the SECOND was incorrect.......and, legally..this driver should NOT have been allowed to drive because of the "warn"? Would your agency come out with a report stating that the second ASD was in error? What other reason could be given? This turns the tables on the officer...where an inaccurate device let the wrong driver go............. Or, would you feel comfortable enough to say, that would never happen? Would you be comfortable enough to say, it COULD happen?

The ASD, criminally speaking, is NOT an approved device for conviction. The BC government has MADE it an approved device for the administrative sanctions. This bothers me a bit........as both "convictions" are for the identical thing....just one is called criminal, the other administrative.

I know the new IRP's make the officers job easier, and therefore quicker when dealing with an impaired driver. This allows officers to spend more time on the road....and THIS, in my opinion...is a major reason more impaired drivers are taken off the road.....more police presence.....NOT the fact that drivers are worried about the new IRP's.

I'm not going to sit here and answer "what if" questions. We all know where that goes.
You are right the ASD is not used for Criminal Code Convictions of Driving while impaired. It is however used for non criminal like you said...and is approved for the same....by the BC Gov't the Ont Gov't as well.
The IRP's are a wonderful thing and if they increase police presence on the road...GREAT....if trhey get more drunks off the road....EVEN BETTER. I dont care why they do it or how they do it ...if you are drunk....GET OFF OF THE ROAD AND DO NOT DRIVE...end of story.

[simnut]

I'm not going to sit here and answer "what if" questions. We all know where that goes.
You are right the ASD is not used for Criminal Code Convictions of Driving while impaired. It is however used for non criminal like you said...and is approved for the same....by the BC Gov't the Ont Gov't as well.
The IRP's are a wonderful thing and if they increase police presence on the road...GREAT....if trhey get more drunks off the road....EVEN BETTER. I dont care why they do it or how they do it ...if you are drunk....GET OFF OF THE ROAD AND DO NOT DRIVE...end of story.

The IRP's are great if they get more drunks off the road. They aren't so great if their process allows more room for "error". I do know that you don't care how they do it (get more drunks off the road), but you do care not to talk about the possibility of inaccurate ASD readings....which is part of the "i don't care how they do it". "What if's" are a VERY important part of any discussion.....because it is the "what if's" that pop up and surprise everyone.

I don't care if they decriminalize drinking and driving...dont' take short cuts to do it.

[my5cents]

Hey Trunk, what would happen if you stopped a driver.....they blew a .06 on the first test, then a .05 (pass) on the second test (using these numbers as an example

Well for one thing the law reads :

""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."

So,,, .05 is not a pass, its a "warn"

[simnut]

Well for one thing the law reads :

""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."

So,,, .05 is not a pass, its a "warn"

That is why I had (using these numbers as an example)in that line. The whole idea of that reply was to see what the reasoning would be by an agency if the ASD errored AGAINST the police officer........and injury resulted.

Kind of funny, but section 215 states the driver is allowed to drive if the BAC does not EXCEED .05 So, in that case.... .05 is a pass :bump:

[KL3-Something]

Here is something interesting...and it comes off the OSMV website.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddo ... 0Sheet.pdf

Go to the second page, and read what it says on the top, right hand column. It reads:

"the result of the ASD test was not reliable;"


This was not there before........and is one of the ground rules the OSMV has given for a reason for dispute. Why is that in there now?

You are misinterpreting the meaning of that. It is not referring to the unreliability of the instrument itself. The known error in the instruments is already factored in with "fail" set to 100mg% (not 80mg%) and "warn" set to 60mg% (not 50mg%) combined with a right to a second test on a different instrument.

What you found there was the grounds for appeal based on the possibility of an inaccurate test resulting from mouth alcohol. This possibility is supposed to be dealt through the course of the investigation roadside between the cop asking when the driver had their last drink and the driver providing an honest answer.

[zzontar]

What you found there was the grounds for appeal based on the possibility of an inaccurate test resulting from mouth alcohol. This possibility is supposed to be dealt through the course of the investigation roadside between the cop asking when the driver had their last drink and the driver providing an honest answer.

Does this mean that now cops and appeal officers will be taught that mouth alcohol can give a falsely high reading? Too bad that fact was dismissed previously resulting in wrongfully charged people who should rightfully have the charge taken off of their record.

[KL3-Something]

It isn't "new". It was one of the grounds for appeal with the previous legislation as well.

[zzontar]

It isn't "new". It was one of the grounds for appeal with the previous legislation as well.

It is new. The old grounds for appeal were if you were the driver, didn't refuse to blow, and the cop says you blew a warn, you were guilty.