Warning suspension

[goatboy]

like I said it was the old 24 hour deal.it was the cops call and that's it.most cops did not do a onsite BAA and therefore issued a 24 hour based on their gut feeling. there was never a defined between .05 and .08 and that's why they came out and quit the 24 hour judgement call and made the RSD mandatory before they could do a roadside suspention

So you're saying the written MVA LAW from 1996 is wrong, that the LAW did not refer to 50mg as being the threshold for a suspension, because that is what you were arguing:

.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?

its not insight its what is what !! .05 has been around since 2010. look it up. there has(was) never a law in BC that fined you etc because u were .05 till 2010

KL posted that .05 driving infraction has been in affect since 1978.I said it has not and until someone posts a written law dating back and stating this to be true I continue to say not true.The first .05 driving ban law was introduced in 2010
the only deal we use to have was a cop could give you a 24 hour suspention

Pretty sure a driving ban and a 24 hour suspension are the same thing........

I will post for the one dumb person who changed his story and started to actually be correct....

I will repeat for the dumb and dumber .05 warn 3 day suspention did not start in 1978 0r 1977 it started in 2010

as said in bc .05 was never a chargeable offense till 2010

As pointed out, incorrect.

that's not true .05 has only become a so called conditional situation since 2010. back in the old days .05 meant squat all

Oh dear, back to being wrong again. How dumb.

SHOW (for the umpteence time) a written stat that says .05 driving was a driving offence since 1977 as u have stated on here a few times

OK, shown, now can you move on.

there was never a defined between .05 and .08

Unless, of course, you include the actual MVA.

[dwelsh11]

KL-3, you might as well talk to your fridge, it'll understand better I think :-/

[Treblehook]

[]you guys kill me.I have only said this about six times on here.I will say again .I have never known .05 to mean a thing up and until the new pass,warn,fail system came into law in 2010. Yes I know a cop could give a 24 hour but that was never based on a reading per say.SHOW (for the umpteence time) a written stat that says .05 driving was a driving offence since 1977 as u have stated on here a few times

Yes, it was based on a reading. A WARN on a roadside screening device indicated that the driver was between 50 and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood!!! And when that occurred, the driver was not prosecuted, rather was issued a 24 hours suspension as provided for under the Provincial statute. Are you pulling everyone's chain here, because this stuff is not that hard to grasp!!

[atenbacon]

that's not true .05 has only become a so called conditional situation since 2010. back in the old days .05 meant squat all

You are welcome to re-write history as much as you please, but because you are incorrect please understand that there are others that do understand the history that will stand up and correct you.

[rvrepairnut]

[
Yes, it was based on a reading. A WARN on a roadside screening device indicated that the driver was between 50 and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood!!! And when that occurred, the driver was not prosecuted, rather was issued a 24 hours suspension as provided for under the Provincial statute. Are you pulling everyone's chain here, because this stuff is not that hard to grasp!![/quote]

in 1977 there was no such thing as a RSD used in bc

[KL3-Something]

Yes, it was based on a reading. A WARN on a roadside screening device indicated that the driver was between 50 and 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood!!! And when that occurred, the driver was not prosecuted, rather was issued a 24 hours suspension as provided for under the Provincial statute. Are you pulling everyone's chain here, because this stuff is not that hard to grasp!!

in 1977 there was no such thing as a RSD used in bc

so?

[Treblehook]

Now he wishes to debate the year that the roadside screening device was introduced in BC, This is truly a waste of time!

[KL3-Something]

With enough time we may find him arguing with himself here.

[Donald G]

A couple of the posts on this thread remind me about what a guy once told me about a completely brainless dog he owned. It yapped at completely inapprorpiate times. The dog constantly frustrated him but he could not bring himself to do away with it. So he traded it off for an equally worthless book and burned the book.

[deedub]

Don G ,any thoughts on the comment that they were only stopping vehicles with 2 or more occupants ?

[goatboy]

This is the same guy that thinks women shouldn't be in the RCMP, so.................