Warning suspension

[deedub]

I was under the impression that the immediate suspension and vehicle impound had been defeated awile back . A friend lost their license for 3 days and had vehicle impounded for a " Warning ? "
Was not even informed if .01 ,.02 , .03 or whatever . Any info would be appreciated .

[Bsuds]

Explained here.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/prohibit ... riving.htm

[rvrepairnut]

I was under the impression that the immediate suspension and vehicle impound had been defeated awile back . A friend lost their license for 3 days and had vehicle impounded for a " Warning ? "
Was not even informed if .01 ,.02 , .03 or whatever . Any info would be appreciated .

would have to be .05 -08 never would have got a warn at .01 02 03 04 and the cop would have told him if he or she asked
so not sure what your point is or is not + your friend is an idiot if hes saying he does not have a clue why his licence and vehicle were suspended and impounded

If the device reads WARN (Your breath sample contains a BAC of not less than 0.05) police may:
•Seize your driver’s licence
•Issue you a 'Notice of Prohibition' which will start immediately – removing your driving privileges – the length of which depends on prior IRP convictions (if any) •3-day driving prohibition if it is the first time caught in the warn range;

[LoneWolf_53]

Then there's also the "N" driver who is not allowed to have any alcohol period.

Perhaps this was such a driver.

I'm certainly not buying that the driver doesn't know why the vehicle was taken.

The officer(s) would have made that abundantly clear.

[KL3-Something]

I was under the impression that the immediate suspension and vehicle impound had been defeated awile back . A friend lost their license for 3 days and had vehicle impounded for a " Warning ? "
Was not even informed if .01 ,.02 , .03 or whatever . Any info would be appreciated .

Only the "fail" sanctions were suspended. That was from Nov 30, 2011 until June 15, 2012 while the legislation was rewritten to address the Sivia decision. The "warn" IRP's were never suspended.

Your "friend" blew somewhere between 60mg and 99mg%. With the Criminal Code legal limit at 80mg% and the 90day IRP technically beginning at 80mg% as well, but no action there actually taken until 100mg%. If your "friend" blew under 60mg% the instrument would have shown the BAC in actual numbers. If that number was 50-59mg% there would have been a 24hr prohibition. Under 50mg% and they would have been allowed to carry on their way.

And it isn't a "warning". The instrument indicated a "warn" on the ASD. Significant difference.

[rvrepairnut]

Then there's also the "N" driver who is not allowed to have any alcohol period.

Perhaps this was such a driver.

I'm certainly not buying that the driver doesn't know why the vehicle was taken.

The officer(s) would have made that abundantly clear.

he knew what the reason was if u read the OP post he just said(and I don't believe it) the cop would not tell him what he blew

[rvrepairnut]

Only the "fail" sanctions were suspended. That was from Nov 30, 2011 until June 15, 2012 while the legislation was rewritten to address the Sivia decision. The "warn" IRP's were never suspended.

Your "friend" blew somewhere between 60mg and 99mg%. With the Criminal Code legal limit at 80mg% and the 90day IRP technically beginning at 80mg% as well, but no action there actually taken until 100mg%. If your "friend" blew under 60mg% the instrument would have shown the BAC in actual numbers. If that number was 50-59mg% there would have been a 24hr prohibition. Under 50mg% and they would have been allowed to carry on their way.

And it isn't a "warning". The instrument indicated a "warn" on the ASD. Significant difference.

[/quote]same dahm thing.Under -05 no warn.nada.Between .05 and .08 gets a warn and 3 day suspention over .08 gets a 90 day deal
and its called impaired driving.BIG BIG money involved except its not always under the criminal act like the the old deal

[KL3-Something]

The "old deal" didn't go anywhere. It's still there and it's still used very frequently.

[rvrepairnut]

The "old deal" didn't go anywhere. It's still there and it's still used very frequently.

yes except instead of automatic its not.The whole thing makes no sence to me.Should have kept it as the old days.
Blow over 08 at the police office and your charged with impaired and then its up to u if u want your day in court
under 08 you keep on trucking, this 05 warn deal sucks

[KL3-Something]

Well this ".05 deal" isn't exactly "new". It's been around since 1978. Maybe that's new to you. It all depends on your perspective I guess.

[maryjane48]

if was up to me it would be zero limit

[rvrepairnut]

Well this ".05 deal" isn't exactly "new". It's been around since 1978. Maybe that's new to you. It all depends on your perspective I guess.

.05 has NOT been around since 1978. its only been in the last very few years where u got suspended for .05
where did u dream up u can be suspended for over .05 from 1978?

[rvrepairnut]

if was up to me it would be zero limit

well get over it as its not up to you thank god

[zzontar]

if was up to me it would be zero limit

Yes, then you just have to deal with things like this...

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... htm#106318

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/10 ... r-rollover

... and you can feel safe on the streets again.

[maryjane48]

lol you did notice the if part right? why should be able to drive after consuming any amount of booze? lets hear 3 reasons