Supreme Court of Canada, IRP decision.

[Smurf]

I am against impaired driving of any form, period. I could care less if someone drinks, or how much as long as they do not drive impaired or deliberately endanger other peoples lives in some way.

I am 100% in favor of a system. IRP included, that keeps impaired drivers of any type off the road. The IRP system uses approved equipment and methods which were corrected in accordance with court rulings. From there on in it is a persons choice if they want to gamble and I do not feel sorry for them.

It wouldn't bother me if they started a similar system for texting, talking on a cell phone, excessive speeding, tailgating and probably many more. Get the idiots off the road. If I get picked up in the outcome, so be it. I would probably deserve it even if it was only a momentary lapse in speed or something, it would be no less dangerous.

I am a lot less worried about how a policeman might treat me and the end resuts than I am about all the idiots on the road.
I would take my chances with the officer any time.


EDIT TO ADD:

MAP you said "What you're suggesting is that people live in a constant state of fear for having a drink". What about living in fear of all the idiots who have a drink, speed, use cell phones while driving. I'll bet there are a lot more people already doing that than worrying about whether or not they can have a drink and drive. Or at least there should be.

[simnut]

I am against impaired driving of any form, period. I could care less if someone drinks, or how much as long as they do not drive impaired or deliberately endanger other peoples lives in some way.

I am in 100% agreeance with you, and I'm quite sure EVERYONE on this forum would agree also.

I am 100% in favor of a system. IRP included, that keeps impaired drivers of any type off the road. The IRP system uses approved equipment and methods which were corrected in accordance with court rulings. From there on in it is a persons choice if they want to gamble and I do not feel sorry for them.

I am 80% in favor of the IRP's, because of the fact they allow more officer hours on the road. But that is it. Their lack of a proper appeal ruins what may be a good system. If they would stop a driver, give them a 24 hour to take them off the road...and proceed with the IRP two days later I would like them more. Give the driver time to begin the appeal process with the OSMV. IF a driver wants to take it to the Supreme Court of BC, the OSMV "should" put everything on hold until the MVA/officer aspect of the "case" is decided to be correct or incorrect, THEN make it's decision based on that. Then I would be 100% behind the IRPS.

It wouldn't bother me if they started a similar system for texting, talking on a cell phone, excessive speeding, tailgating and probably many more. Get the idiots off the road. If I get picked up in the outcome, so be it. I would probably deserve it even if it was only a momentary lapse in speed or something, it would be no less dangerous.

You will see that, once they start a system , or way of getting around the court system....it will be implemented more and more. Hang on, they are doing that already! Traffic court will be a thing of the past. In it's place is ...yea.....the OSMV.

I am a lot less worried about how a policeman might treat me and the end resuts than I am about all the idiots on the road.
I would take my chances with the officer any time.

Until YOU are the one that serves a 4 months suspension for something you never did. Think about it.....not driving for 4 months because and officer and the OSMV have no one looking over their shoulder to make sure things are being done right.


Like I said, if the IRP's had the Supreme Court of BC involved WHEN a driver has a valid appeal, and is willing to pay for that appeal......AND "stays" all penalties while a case is before the Supreme Court...I'd be 100% behind them.

[MAPearce]

MAP you said "What you're suggesting is that people live in a constant state of fear for having a drink". What about living in fear of all the idiots who have a drink, speed, use cell phones while driving. I'll bet there are a lot more people already doing that than worrying about whether or not they can have a drink and drive. Or at least there should be.

we should have to live in fear of being charged with something that we can't defend ourselves over... The IRP levies harsh "administrative " fines and and punishment based on fallible technology ..

And I bet a million bucks against a pinch of your own $*%T that the idiots who have a problem with speeding , cell phone use , tailgating et al , but had just one before driving helped increase the over all "alcohol related" accident stats to achieve the 35% that the RDP pushes in its classrooms.

[Smurf]

At least we all have a choice whether to have a drink, drive and fear the IRP. The only choice we have not to constantly fear the idiots drinking, speeding, texting and whatever other stupid things they can think of is to stay completely off the roads. Never drive, never be a passenger in any vehicle, never ride a bike on the road, in fact even being a pedestrian can be dangerous. Makes fear of the IRP where you actually have the choice look pretty ridiculous doesn't it.

[simnut]

At least we all have a choice whether to have a drink, drive and fear the IRP. The only choice we have not to constantly fear the idiots drinking, speeding, texting and whatever other stupid things they can think of is to stay completely off the roads. Never drive, never be a passenger in any vehicle, never ride a bike on the road, in fact even being a pedestrian can be dangerous. Makes fear of the IRP where you actually have the choice look pretty ridiculous doesn't it.

Hey Smurf....I drive professionally for a living, and you bring up a couple of things that come to MY mind regarding my job. This post you just made, basically is based on decisions of people. Decide to drink, decide to speed....decide to...."whatever". But it's not just the evil drunks and speeders that are the issue...actually neither of those during the day.


Every day, all day....I see driving that could and does result in accidents resulting in injuries and the odd time, death. Drivers that are impatient, pulling in front of oncoming traffic or crossing double solid yellow lines because something is in their lane, bicyclists that all of a sudden turn to use a crosswalk(while riding on the sidewalk) and expect everyone to have read their minds etc. You mention pedestrians.....some of them are the dumbest people in the world....along with the bicycle riders. All day I see people make stupid decisions while being amongst traffic, many of whom I would love to see ticketed. But we just don't have enough police on the road. Yea, a pedestrian or bicyclist will more than likely lose when "encountering" my larger vehicle, but I still don't want to be the one that gets out and looks at their smushed head or body parts, regardless it not being my fault. I see many drivers that shouldn't have a license at all, and yes...I mean many of the older drivers also.

People just need to get smarter. Make smarter decisions when driving....walking.....bicycling.

[Smurf]

Agree with you 100% simnut. In our travels I also see all the things you are talking about. I'm sure I'm not perfect but I make every attempt to be the best I can. I find everyone is just in such a rush these days.

[MAPearce]

At least we all have a choice whether to have a drink, drive and fear the IRP.

And thats the rub for me and probably most who oppose the IRP...

If people choose to obey the law , as it is written , there would be no reason to fear it IF it was enforced as it is written.... That won't always happen.

Makes fear of the IRP where you actually have the choice look pretty ridiculous doesn't it.

No... When an accused's right to defend themselves in court is legislated away is what looks ridiculous..

Even more so than the people whom support forfeiture of them...

[my5cents]

"Smurf : I am against impaired driving of any form, period. I could care less if someone drinks, or how much as long as they do not drive impaired or deliberately endanger other peoples lives in some way."
I am in 100% agreeance with you, and I'm quite sure EVERYONE on this forum would agree also.

"Smurf : I am 100% in favor of a system. IRP included, that keeps impaired drivers of any type off the road. The IRP system uses approved equipment and methods which were corrected in accordance with court rulings. From there on in it is a persons choice if they want to gamble and I do not feel sorry for them."
I am 80% in favor of the IRP's, because of the fact they allow more officer hours on the road. But that is it. Their lack of a proper appeal ruins what may be a good system. If they would stop a driver, give them a 24 hour to take them off the road...and proceed with the IRP two days later I would like them more. Give the driver time to begin the appeal process with the OSMV. IF a driver wants to take it to the Supreme Court of BC, the OSMV "should" put everything on hold until the MVA/officer aspect of the "case" is decided to be correct or incorrect, THEN make it's decision based on that. Then I would be 100% behind the IRPS.

"Smurf : It wouldn't bother me if they started a similar system for texting, talking on a cell phone, excessive speeding, tailgating and probably many more. Get the idiots off the road. If I get picked up in the outcome, so be it. I would probably deserve it even if it was only a momentary lapse in speed or something, it would be no less dangerous."
You will see that, once they start a system , or way of getting around the court system....it will be implemented more and more. Hang on, they are doing that already! Traffic court will be a thing of the past. In it's place is ...yea.....the OSMV.

"Smurf : I am a lot less worried about how a policeman might treat me and the end resuts than I am about all the idiots on the road.
I would take my chances with the officer any time."
Until YOU are the one that serves a 4 months suspension for something you never did. Think about it.....not driving for 4 months because and officer and the OSMV have no one looking over their shoulder to make sure things are being done right.

Like I said, if the IRP's had the Supreme Court of BC involved WHEN a driver has a valid appeal, and is willing to pay for that appeal......AND "stays" all penalties while a case is before the Supreme Court...I'd be 100% behind them.

(Everyone on this forum is against (drinking and) driving). I also agree 100%. It is frustrating for me to voice my opposition to the government implementing a system of street "justice", and it being suggested that I am a proponent for drinking and driving.

The time taken by some police to complete an impaired driving investigation is onerous. However with the laws as they now exist every investigation has become increasingly time consuming.

Does anyone see the irony that the increases in investigative time came about to increase the "fail safes" for accuseds. (rightly or wrongly)
The provincial government has implemented a system to circumvent all those hoops and steps to basically convict someone at curb side ?

The new power tool has so many safety features that the users disable them all resulting in a more dangerous power tool.

The further irony is that the offences we are talking about (now drinking and driving, soon all traffic offenses) are the ones that most frequently involve citizens who are honest contributing members of our society, not your hardened criminal.

I don't know why you indicate, simnut, that the alternative to the IRP is the "Supreme Court of BC". If the system was modified to a situation where the alleged drinking drive was suspended for 24 hours and then could either accept further punishment or request a trial, such a trial would be at the Provincial Court level, not Supreme Court.

At present the Supreme Court is involved because the process is an appeal of an OSMV ruling.

[simnut]

I don't know why you indicate, simnut, that the alternative to the IRP is the "Supreme Court of BC". If the system was modified to a situation where the alleged drinking drive was suspended for 24 hours and then could either accept further punishment or request a trial, such a trial would be at the Provincial Court level, not Supreme Court.

At present the Supreme Court is involved because the process is an appeal of an OSMV ruling.

It's a compromise......and would "qualify" and thin out bogus appeals. The Supreme Court of BC costs a bit more than going to the provincial court level. If I had a valid reason to appeal, I (and that's my opinion) would be willing to pay a little to prove my case. I know it's not perfect...why should I have to go to that level to prove my innocence ..... This would ONLY work though, IF the OSMV would stay all "penalties" WHEN an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court of BC and until the MVA aspect of the case was proven to be correct or wrong. Then the OSMV could apply penalties according to the courts decision if a "charge" is valid or not. As it stands now, the OSMV doesn't even have to give a "you know what" regarding the Supreme Court of BC.

[MAPearce]

So , what you are saying is , People get to pay MORE to prove their innocence ?

Oh JOY !

[simnut]

So , what you are saying is , People get to pay MORE to prove their innocence ?

Oh JOY !

It's a compromise that , in MY opinion, I am willing to pay a little more for IF I feel I have a VALID appeal!

Lawyers have a saying going around right now....its:

"You can beat the MVA, but you can't beat the OSMV".

And when they say "beat", they mean you can prove your innocence in a court of law, but there is no such thing regarding the OSMV. So, if a citizen is willing to put up as opposed to shut up.....this may be a method to filter out bogus appeals. Citizens have the right to prove innocence in a court of law, even with the IRPS whom many say is administrative, not a charge. The new IRP's are administrative sanctions resulting from MVA violations......TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS of a case. The MVA violation (as conducted by the police officer) requires a valid appeal process, THEN the OSMV (which has nothing to do with whether the officer has done THEIR job correctly) can issue it's administrative sanctions. Two aspects of a "case" running parallel to each other, never meeting.


Right now, this isn't the case. The OSMV can issues penalties even while the driver has the same case waiting in the Supreme Court of BC questioning the validity of the original charge. There is something VERY wrong when there is the possibility that a citizen has "paid the price" and later on have the Supreme Court of BC find the original violation invalid.

[Donald G]

The words "lawyers beat" the MVA or OSMV identifies that someone is viewing our system as some kind of a competitive game like football, that you win or lose. The truth and true justice is thus (again) only a bystander in the process.

[my5cents]

The words "lawyers beat" the MVA or OSMV identifies that someone is viewing our system as some kind of a competitive game like football, that you win or lose. The truth and true justice is thus (again) only a bystander in the process.

You make a good point. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to matter if someone was innocent of a charge and found not guilty or was morally guilty of a charge and was found not guilty (for whatever reason), in most of people's minds the accused "beat the charge".

For example I don't think grandpa, who was a passenger in his own vehicle, and was hammered with the IRP "beat the charge", he was exonerated and should have been.

Those in favor of the IRP will say "you see the system works", he "got off" (in other words, beat the charge). For me any system where an innocent person serves the majority of his sentence and is then exonerated, isn't a good system.

As for the stats that tout the numbers of impaired driving related collisions, does anyone know how they are derived ?

They use a formula in which the profile of a drinking driver is arrived at. For example Age 19 - 35, driving between 11:00 PM - 4:00 AM, 75% will have been drinking. (I've made up the parameters, but you get the idea) Every claim for a collision that is received by ICBC that falls under that category they take that established percentage and that is the number of drinking and driving related collisions. Doesn't matter if drinking and driving is proven or even factors into the claims, that will give the number of "drinking and driving related collisions"

It would be like the Canucks knowing that on average 35% of attendees at a home games are female. At a game with 20,000 fans, they announce, sounding assured "last night 7,000 females attended Rogers Arena".

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just how these numbers are arrived at.

[Donald G]

To my5cents ...

I can buy your comments except that to me there is far less moral difference between an innocent man being found guilty and a guilty man being found innocent than most lawyers would have us believe. In both cases, justice is absent. Having our present system skewed so drastically in favour of the first simply, in itself, offers all but unlimited legal opportunities for lawyers and their accused clients to unfairly benefit.

The world is not a perfect place but having "built in" VERY LUCRATIVE technical defences is the largest injustice in the present system. It benefits lawyers and accused criminals far more than it benefits the course of justice.

[my5cents]

To my5cents ...

I can buy your comments except that to me there is far less moral difference between an innocent man being found guilty and a guilty man being found innocent than most lawyers would have us believe. In both cases, justice is absent. Having our present system skewed so drastically in favour of the first simply, in itself, offers all but unlimited legal opportunities for lawyers and their accused clients to unfairly benefit.

The world is not a perfect place but having "built in" VERY LUCRATIVE technical defences is the largest injustice in the present system. It benefits lawyers and accused criminals far more than it benefits the course of justice.

Yes in both cases (guilty goes free, innocent is punished) it is.

The principle that if an error is made it is better for the guilty to go free than the innocent be punished goes back a long ways. In one variation it's called the "Blackstone Formulation", stating that "better that ten guilty persons escape (punishment) than that one innocent suffer"

The solution to the problem of police time, and low conviction percentage, in relation to drinking and driving, IMO is NOT doing away with the Charter in favor for a kangaroo system called the IRP.

In a society that releases incarcerated criminals after 2/3's of their (already minimal) sentence is served, it seems strange to have such draconian laws for driving offences.