Drunk driving deaths down by 46% in B.C.

[theyeti]

they say they r after drunks but there net is much bigger they r using the drunks as an excuse to crack down on anything .

[my5cents]

they say they r after drunks but there net is much bigger they r using the drunks as an excuse to crack down on anything .

They need an excuse ?

[theyeti]

no but they know there is less resistance if u trick ppl . u can control a lot more ppl with propaganda than u can with boots on the ground . cops know this

[my5cents]

no but they know there is less resistance if u trick ppl . u can control a lot more ppl with propaganda than u can with boots on the ground . cops know this

Sorry I don't have a clue what you are getting at "less resistance if u trick ppl" ?

The police don't have to trick people or look for excuses to enforce traffic laws, that is part of their mandate. We have some police who are General Duty, who occupy their time doing all sorts of police work, which, when they have the time, can include traffic enforcement.

We have others whose job is traffic enforcement. That's what they do. (with the exception of serious events, covering other members, etc)

Tricking people is setting up a drinking driving road check with lots of lights and flares that can be seen for a couple of blocks, manned by one constable, just waving vehicles through. I suggest you don't turn off at the intersection before the check. That's tricking. Tricking the drinking driver into identifying him/herself.

[crazylike]

drunk driving is only down because hockey has been cancelled... i think that hockey should stay cancelled if its gonna continue to keep drinking and driving down. why hasn't M.A.D.D figured this out yet.

[burton420]

drunk driving is only down because hockey has been cancelled... i think that hockey should stay cancelled if its gonna continue to keep drinking and driving down. why hasn't M.A.D.D figured this out yet.

interesting theory, anyone have proof of this? has there been a study?

[CountryAtHeart]

What I don't get though, is that under the New driver program people who are of legal age to drink are hampered by only being able to take 1 other person with them.
In the 1980's when I was partying with my friends, I was always DD and was able to fit at least 4-5 people in the car.
So I really don't understand what the purpose of the new rule is.

[zzontar]

From the Castanet editorial:
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#85356

How big is BC's collision problem?
by Contributed - Story: 85356
Jan 5, 2013 / 5:00 am

Every year on the first of January I restart the collision counter on the DriveSmartBC website. In order to try and keep it accurate I check ICBC's latest collision statistics, calculate the daily average and tweak the code that produces the display. This year, I can't get data on the number of people injured by impaired drivers. I'm sure that you will agree that it is an important statistic to know.

Hoping for an answer, I contacted ICBC as they are the official keepers of the data. Sorry was the prompt response, since the provincial government removed the requirement to report collisions to the police in 2008 we can no longer provide that data. As ICBC does know how many collisions involve impaired drivers I find this answer somewhat suspect but it should still make us all pause and wonder. Are we losing touch with how often the bad things are happening on our highways?

I suspect that the main reason for the removal of the requirement to report collisions to police is the simple fact that there were just too darned many of them for the police to keep up with. This alone is a bad sign. To me it shows that we don't care about traffic safety because our insurance scheme will smooth things over and no one will really hurt too much. It's just another day on the highway.

At minimum, the police should attend and report on all injury and fatal collisions. The causes of the collision should be determined and the violators held to account, both by the insurance company and the justice system. If there are no consequences for having a collision other than inconvenience there will be less incentive to drive safely.

ICBC knows how many people were injured by impaired drivers yet won't release the info to the public, or even to a cop writing an editorial. I guess this means they can now make up whatever stats they want which means the stats they release should be very suspect indeed, but no matter how much corruption flows from ICBC, we as citizens have no choice but to keep giving them our money.

I suspect that the main reason for the removal of the requirement to report collisions to police is the simple fact that there were just too darned many of them for the police to keep up with. This alone is a bad sign.

Maybe ICBC should implement a stricter road test as the rest of the country should. It's been proven to reduce collisions significantly like in Germany, but they won't. They refuse to implement the easiest and best way to reduce the majority of collisions, but when you can jack up a new drivers insurance by 75% for a fender bender, perhaps they don't really want to lessen collisions, which might be why they have taken away almost any incentive for one to take drivers ed as well.

[KL3-Something]

Actually the reason that Section 67 of the MVA (the requirement for people to report minor collisions to police) was repealed in 2008 had nothing to do with how many were being reported. It had everything to do with a 2006 court decision (R. v. Powers) that essentially tied the hand of police when attending collision where there was criminal involvement. Whether it was Criminal Negligence, Dangerous Operation or Impaired driving, when police arrived at a collision scene (especially single vehicle collisions with no independent witnesses) what was the first question they needed to ask? Who was the driver, right? Well Powers lawyer successfully argued that a person's statutory obligation under Section 67 MVA to report collisions to police renders any statements to police about being the driver as inadmissible for the purposes of a Criminal investigation (i.e. to make an ASD demand or a Breath Demand).

I remember after that decision came out the rigamarole we had to go through when it came to asking people at collisions who the driver was. It really tied our hands so the powers that be sat down and asked why that section of the MVA was still in effect and weighed the options of how they were going to deal with the dilemma. In the end they decided that repealing that section of the MVA and removing the requirement removed the conundrum people (theoretically) found themselves in.

I have to say though, that they probably saw the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone on that. All the police were doing in 90% of the cases where people reported collisions to them was collect stats that were already being collected by ICBC. It was time-consuming and redundant. I just wish everyone out there who gets into little fender benders where no one is hurt would just exchange information and carry on instead of calling the police. Because when they call the police it triggers a whole host of requirements of police that just burns up valuable time.

I'm surprised that the learned retired constable didn't know about this. Maybe he's been retired since before the time when this all happened.

[simnut]

Just read about this in the news today......and was wondering.....what protection do we drivers have running into a police officer like this with the new IRPs and drinking and driving legislations?

http://gma.yahoo.com/former-cop-accused ... ories.html

Video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuphz9Nhovw

Please, don't take this as a shot at police officers in BC, that is not my intent. My intent is to show where the lack of being able to FIRST go to court over the charge BEFORE penalties, both time suspended and fees are issued IS important. Sure, the government can pay back any fees or monetary penalties...but how can the government give back time?

And yes, this also shows that you...the ones that promote "just don't drink and drive", that it isn't always the ones that just drink and drive that have issues. Even all of us "innocent" drivers should worry

[simnut]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/impair ... story.html


Can ANYONE make any sense of what this guy just said?

But the numbers may not mean the number of people who drink and drive has gone up, but rather that B.C. tough laws allowing roadside penalties are working, says Andrew Murie, the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers Canada.

They have not gone down either sir, just more are getting caught. Again, it is more police hours on the road, not the worry of impaired drivers regarding the new laws!!! The penalties are NOT working.....or their method.....it's the officers on the road are doing the job! Issuing 24 hour prohibitions will do the same thing!

[diggerdick]

Fact is in British Columbia we have no protection If something like this happened. especially if you were charged with the new civil law

The one bad apple defense is the only plea law enforcement could use in this case

She was trooper of the year

[my5cents]

Fact is in British Columbia we have no protection If something like this happened. especially if you were charged with the new civil law

The one bad apple defense is the only plea law enforcement could use in this case

She was trooper of the year

Ya but that's in the USA, we have the RCMP. They never lie.

[simnut]

Ya but that's in the USA, we have the RCMP. They never lie.

Hey 5cents, you and I agree on a lot of things.....can we word that a little differently? lol

RCMP are human, so the potential of one lying is there......THAT is what we need to protect ourselves from! I'd like to think a majority of the RCMP DO try to do a good, honest job.

[my5cents]

I certainly agree.

My point is and was that there are some who think "well it's different here".

In actuality it can happen anywhere. That's why we need proper checks and balances.

The vast majority of our police in the entire province are honest and doing the best job they can.

I am, though, saddened to see the degradation of many aspects of law enforcement in BC because of the government and police administration.

We have police determining guilt at the curb. We have police administration going along with private individuals rewarding police officer for making a certain number of drinking and driving charges and IRP (?) (I don't know what to call it, the IRP isn't a "charge", it's a "finding of roadside guilt") per year.

Now we've heard that same process of "guilty at the curb appeal to a bureocrat" for moving offences other than drinking and driving.

Then we have some of the public with the solution "well just don't drink and drive" nonsense.