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

[twobits]

Just imagine all the undesirables we could have off of our streets and out of our communities if we granted the police the same powers they have with dui to other crimes. Smack someone and get a 600 ticket and 90 days for assault on the spot. Caught with a bag of weed, 600 ticket and 90 days for trafficking on the spot. Caught with a flea market bargain that turns out to be stolen, 600 ticket and 90 days on the spot for theft. Think of all the police time saved in investigation and court time!!
Of course they might be able to spend 10k to appeal and maybe even win but they'll never get the 90 days back so it's a win win for society. After all, isn't the right to due process a silly loophole just for the benefit of criminals?

[797hauler]

Just imagine all the undesirables we could have off of our streets and out of our communities if we granted the police the same powers they have with dui to other crimes. Smack someone and get a 600 ticket and 90 days for assault on the spot. Caught with a bag of weed, 600 ticket and 90 days for trafficking on the spot. Caught with a flea market bargain that turns out to be stolen, 600 ticket and 90 days on the spot for theft. Think of all the police time saved in investigation and court time!!
Of course they might be able to spend 10k to appeal and maybe even win but they'll never get the 90 days back so it's a win win for society. After all, isn't the right to due process a silly loophole just for the benefit of criminals?

Problem with your statement, is the jails would be so over populated. and wheres the fair trial? wheres the appeal? seems dumb to me. and wheres the win? more tax payer dollars spent on jails. and what happens if that flea market bargin was just that? throw me in jail for 90 days and give ma a $600 fine...pfft. good luck with that one.

[twobits]

Guess you missed the heavy sarcasm.

[797hauler]

Guess you missed the heavy sarcasm.

guess so

[ukcanuck]

Guess you missed the heavy sarcasm.

The problem is if you spend a week or two reading around these forums you will have heard many similar suggestions or worse! lol

The place is over run with hanging judges...

As for the topic I got two things to say

Deterrence doesn't work, education does.

Educating the public has taken far more impaired drivers off the road than any law on the books.

And to Christie Clark and any of the BC Liberals who might be reading here:
I dont give a toss what stats you massage and toss out for the great unwashed, I'm still not voting for your morally bankrupt organisation. I have not forgotten Gordon Campbell refusal to resign over his own impaired driving episode in Hawaii...

[twobits]

The problem is if you spend a week or two reading around these forums you will have heard many similar suggestions or worse! lol

I am sure most read it and recognized it as a sarcastic comment. The silence of the ardent supporters of this blatent trampelling of due process is deafening when faced with the ludicrous senario's of instant justice I proposed. Due process is due process and the ends never justify the means. When we try to make exceptions to the right to due process, we are on that slippery slope.
Next up.......our rights with regard to search and seizure when you will be compelled to provide a breath sample for no other reason than......well, just to make sure because you were seen drinking a beer once before or that perfume could be being used to conceal the smell of alcohol. And the Madd folks will brandish stats showing only 23 deaths and pronounce the laws as good and just.

[my5cents]

I am sure most read it and recognized it as a sarcastic comment. The silence of the ardent supporters of this blatent trampelling of due process is deafening when faced with the ludicrous senario's of instant justice I proposed. Due process is due process and the ends never justify the means. When we try to make exceptions to the right to due process, we are on that slippery slope.
Next up.......our rights with regard to search and seizure when you will be compelled to provide a breath sample for no other reason than......well, just to make sure because you were seen drinking a beer once before or that perfume could be being used to conceal the smell of alcohol. And the Madd folks will brandish stats showing only 23 deaths and pronounce the laws as good and just.

Completely agree.

Not sure which forum, but one contained a complaint from a person who had dropped off something for an employee of a bar, as the person drove out of the driveway of the bar, they were stopped by police who demanded a sample.

I get frustrated when I hear comments such as :

- "Well just don't drink and drive and you'll have nothing to worry about"
- "Well, if it saves just one life, I'm all for it" ("it" being the loss of rights)
- "What about the right we have to not be hit by a drunk driver ?"

I am further frustrated when I am labeled as someone who thinks drinking and driving is OK.

I think drinking and driving is wrong. I also think robbery and murder is wrong. BUT I think all of those offences need to be processed in a court with all the rights afforded Canadians.

[diggerdick]

The maDD Fanatics try to make it seem so simple. There cannot be no defense For this crime. Because when this is allowed ,It has being found out on many occasions A judge finds the people innocent Because the cops fail to follow Procedures.

The denial of a day in court Because of a fanatical Mentality of self-righteousness Borderlines on being a religious zealot.

Burning people at the stake because they are witches

[dudlee]

The Canadian Press
Posted: Nov 21, 2012 3:14 PM PT
Last Updated: Nov 21, 2012 6:39 PM PT

The B.C. government says a tough drunk driving law brought in two years ago has reduced the number of impaired driving deaths in the province by 46 per cent.

It says since the law took effect in September 2010, the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has fallen to an average of 62 a year from about 114 in each of the previous five years.

The government says that means an estimated 104 lives have been saved.

It also says a roadside survey in several areas of the province has found a 44 per cent drop in the number of drivers with a blood alcohol count of 0.05 per cent and over, and a 60-per-cent drop among drivers with higher alcohol counts.

The government says these are the lowest levels of impaired drivers in the history of seven similar surveys.

Attorney General Shirley Bond says more people are getting the message not to drink and drive.
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Actually law enforcement funding has been greatly reduced , while BC is , by liberal admissions , the population is growing . I have not gone thru or seen a roadblock for the last three years , less roadblocks , less people caught , nicer looking stats .

It's kinda the same as when the Christy Club announce back in May of this year that they would ot allow a 50% increase in electricity rates , well ow many out there have had their electricity rates go up significantly recently , see they think that we're all stupid and have bad memories . They also said no CARBON TAX and now we have it on our gasoline , they also said NO HST , and they did it . They've sold off all the wind power programs to California companies , Gordos friends , and though while proclaiming to be against drugs and drunk driving , the exPremier is arrested for drunk driving and POT sales of BC us are up , because of their LET IT GROW , LET IT GROW, attitude .

Yah, the stats say drinking and driving is down 46% , they love to manipulate statistics .just before an election . The Liberal Propaganda Machine is just allowed to do and say what ever they want without any real critisim because the media is bought and paid for

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -down.html

[ukcanuck]

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Actually law enforcement funding has been greatly reduced , while BC is , by liberal admissions , the population is growing . I have not gone thru or seen a roadblock for the last three years , less roadblocks , less people caught , nicer looking stats .

It's kinda the same as when the Christy Club announce back in May of this year that they would ot allow a 50% increase in electricity rates , well ow many out there have had their electricity rates go up significantly recently , see they think that we're all stupid and have bad memories . They also said no CARBON TAX and now we have it on our gasoline , they also said NO HST , and they did it . They've sold off all the wind power programs to California companies , Gordos friends , and though while proclaiming to be against drugs and drunk driving , the exPremier is arrested for drunk driving and POT sales of BC us are up , because of their LET IT GROW , LET IT GROW, attitude .

Yah, the stats say drinking and driving is down 46% , they love to manipulate statistics .just before an election . The Liberal Propaganda Machine is just allowed to do and say what ever they want without any real critisim because the media is bought and paid for

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -down.html

I hear dat!
What picks at my bottom is the right wing people, who buy into the blatant manipulation of the media, has no one ever read 1984 for gawds sake!

[burton420]

this has been a very interesting thread.

i don't know if anyone is still reading it, but i would like to chime in as someone directly affected by the new laws.

last February i was charged with DUI, given a 90 day suspension, required to take a 16hr Responsible Driving Course, and am now half way through my year of using a 'blow and go' in my car.

the 90 day suspension was tough, but it made me realize how dependent we are on our vehicles. the driving course was very informative and gave me a great insight into the extent of this problem and how it affects all aspects of our society. i think everyone about to get their license should be made to take this course. and the interlock device in my car would be a very good deterrent for someone who continues to drink after going through something like this. as for myself, i swore off alcohol and have been grateful that choice was as easy as it has been.

i now face a court date where i may lose my license for up to a year, a $1000 fine, and a criminal record. my only concern is losing my license as the $1000 is just a drop in the bucket at this point, and the criminal record will not affect me in the near future and can be appealed after 3 years.

if anyone truly wants this problem seriously reduced two things should happen:

1: zero tolerance
giving people the ability to judge their own alcohol level is ridiculous. especially when that judgment comes after consuming something that impairs their judgement.

2: as part of the penalty of being caught drinking and driving, make the offender spend an appropriate amount of time testing people's BA level when leaving an establishment, give the patrons options for getting home safely, and even pay for their cab ride home.

but i have a feeling that would make too much sense and people would start losing money. (drinking establishments, lawyers, all of the people that i have had to deal with who are making a lot of money off people like me.)

do you really think lawyers were acting on the citizen's best interest when they fought the new DUI laws? do you suppose the fact they weren't getting as many clients to defend might have had something to do with it?

i am grateful for what happened to me as it has taken alcohol out of my life, i hope it does the same for others. alcohol is a sadistic drug, and a government that allows it should also take some responsibility for it.

[Graphite]

I am not sure what you mean when you say " alcohol is a sadistic drug, and a government that allows it should also take some responsibility for it"

[burton420]

I am not sure what you mean when you say " alcohol is a sadistic drug, and a government that allows it should also take some responsibility for it"

i guess sadistic is a little strong. but i think alcohol is a lot worse than what we are made to believe. with links to long term diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia. and i think that when our government makes money on the sale of such a drug, those profits should be used to combat the problem. or am i wrong, do alcohol taxes go towards our health care? where does the money go after fines are paid from alcohol related charges? that statement i made is a little uneducated, but i would be interested in knowing what really does happen...

[FreeRights]

No, it's NOT either way, the laws are doing their job!!! They ARE allowing more police officers on the road (a good thing), but they ALSO are eliminating a proper legal appeal process (a bad thing for the citizens)!!!! If we want to stop more drunk drivers on the road....increase police budgets and personnel.......yup....it's will cost us from our wallets...but we don't lose the legal aspect that we have (sorry, HAD) as being citizens of BC, and more importantly...Canada. I know, some of you that NEVER make mistakes or don't get involved in being wrongfully charged will like the laws...REGARDLESS of what it does to the appeals....but your time MAY come.

It is WRONG to use the premise that the laws are scaring people into NOT drinking and driving..when that is NOT the case at all!!! It is the presence of the police on the road, STOPPING them that is cutting down the drunk driving deaths. So basically......legal aspects of a recognized CRIMINAL act have been removed...but it is still a criminal act. Go figure.....

By the way, 24 hour prohibitions will reduce the impaired driving deaths as effectively as these new laws. Why? Because it is the "getting caught" part resulting of increased police presence ......it still gets the drunks off the road.....effectively...and keeps officers on the road!

All other points aside, how do you prove that the deterrence factor of these drunk driving laws have nothing to do with the decreased stats? I'm not going to claim that the new drunk driving laws are the sole cause of a decrease in stats, but to argue, without proof, that it is not the case that it had any influence at all would be foolish.

[simnut]

All other points aside, how do you prove that the deterrence factor of these drunk driving laws have nothing to do with the decreased stats? I'm not going to claim that the new drunk driving laws are the sole cause of a decrease in stats, but to argue, without proof, that it is not the case that it had any influence at all would be foolish.

If it was the new laws that were deterring people, would you not think that the police would see a decrease in numbers of impaired drivers they deal with? IF the new laws were the deterrent, why are they "applying" more officer time out on the road to counteract impaired driving...when there should be less impaired drivers out there? The only way these new laws help is by allowing more officer time on the road...therefore catching more impaired drivers BEFORE they become a statistic!