BC should use Norway's drunk driving laws

[westbankkid]

Having lost an immediate family member to a drunk *bleep* on a highway, I can't say that I am able to find it in my heart to rationalize a similarity.

When a drunk causes:
Collision causing death = Charge them with murder in the first degree.
Collision with significant injury to someone else = Charge them with attempted murder in the first degree.
Collision with minor injury = Charge them with assault with a deadly weapon.

I take full responsibility for my emotions being the ruling factor in my opinion.

There was a case in the states a couple weeks ago, {i don't remember the article} where the drunk was charged with "MURDER" and found guilty.
I'll be honest. I have no use for drunk drivers.

[Donald G]

I think that "Kid West" has more of a bounty hunter ring to it than Westbank Kid.

[westbankkid]

Watching KTLA news tonight. Another drunk driver has been charged with murder for running down a cop under the influence. Wish we had that here. Might smarten up the drunks in BC like the joker that got stopped in the Okanagan last week and had his car impounded. Guess what?? He got caught again. Blew 4 times the limit.

[Donald G]

To Kid West ...

Maybe ICBC should offer a $100.00 bounty as a reward to anyone who turns in a drunk driver before the driver has driven far enough to have an accident. They could save millions and keep many unknown and unidentified people alive to graduate or see their children graduate.

[westbankkid]

To Kid West ...

Maybe ICBC should offer a $100.00 bounty as a reward to anyone who turns in a drunk driver before the driver has driven far enough to have an accident. They could save millions and keep many unknown and unidentified people alive to graduate or see their children graduate.

Sounds like a hell of an idea.

[twobits]

To Kid West ...

Maybe ICBC should offer a $100.00 bounty as a reward to anyone who turns in a drunk driver before the driver has driven far enough to have an accident. They could save millions and keep many unknown and unidentified people alive to graduate or see their children graduate.

Sounds good in theory but I also see people staking out bars and pubs and calling the cops and wasting their time every time someone leaves and gets into a vehicle. How will they differentiate between a 6 beer person and a 1 beer and a burger person.

[GordonH]

Bumped

Looked for a older thread that existed on the subject of Drinking and driving.
Those who do drink & drive may not like this one, impo to damn f ing bad.
https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/20 ... imit-to-05

[jimmy4321]

I'm in favor of them lowering , personally i favor a zero tolerance for any alcohol.

[Merry]

The majority of drivers who drink too much and cause accidents are not those who only have a glass of wine with a meal. So the debate about lowering the legal level is irrelevant IMO, because most of those causing the accidents are usually 3 or 4 times higher than the current limit and lowering that limit will not impact such folks.

All lowering the limit does is make it almost impossible for folks to have even one glass of wine with dinner (for many women that one glass is all they can have and still be within the limit). If I truly believed that not even allowing a single glass of wine with a meal would save lives, I'd support such an idea. But I don't believe that, and I don't think there's any evidence to support that.

The kind of driver who drinks excessively and then drives is not going to change his or her habit just because we've lowered the limit to the point that most folks can't enjoy even one drink with a meal. So the only solution for those who drink to excess and then drive is to increase the penalties. Impounding their car would be a good start; that should get their attention.

[my5cents]

I'm in favor of them lowering , personally i favor a zero tolerance for any alcohol.

Yes, that is actually the problem.

It's just like a lot of situations, sometimes described as.... "give someone an inch and they will take a mile"

We as humans tend to react much better to black and white situations. Not all of us but most.

Example, you travel along a roadway at or slightly above the speed limit, another vehicle passes you obviously speeding. A mile (or 1.61 kms) down the road, you come upon the same vehicle stopped at a red light. So why is this driver, who risked a fine and 3 demerit points for speeding, stopped at a red light (obeying the red light), that would result in a lesser fine and 2 points. Because speeding isn't in their mind black and white, it's a varying scale, "well if I just go a little over, nothing will happen [which is correct]" then a little becomes a little more and a little more.

It's just like ICBC selling pleasure use only insurance, and then saying BUT you can use the car 2 (I think) days a month. So whenever you're in an accident in your "pleasure use only vehicle" that you drive every day to and from work, you will just say the day of the accident was one of the two days. Don't try it they check, with co-workers, gas purchases, etc etc.

It would be quite impossible to police our roadways so strictly that if one travelled 51 kph they could expect a ticket, but we have as a society have demonstrated we tend to obey absolute rules "Yes / No" much better than ones bases on personal judgement, "around 50 kph", "some alcohol but not TOO much".

Zero, yes, would work.

[maryjane48]

The majority of drivers who drink too much and cause accidents are not those who only have a glass of wine with a meal. So the debate about lowering the legal level is irrelevant IMO, because most of those causing the accidents are usually 3 or 4 times higher than the current limit and lowering that limit will not impact such folks.

All lowering the limit does is make it almost impossible for folks to have even one glass of wine with dinner (for many women that one glass is all they can have and still be within the limit). If I truly believed that not even allowing a single glass of wine with a meal would save lives, I'd support such an idea. But I don't believe that, and I don't think there's any evidence to support that.

The kind of driver who drinks excessively and then drives is not going to change his or her habit just because we've lowered the limit to the point that most folks can't enjoy even one drink with a meal. So the only solution for those who drink to excess and then drive is to increase the penalties. Impounding their car would be a good start; that should get their attention.

your wrong the research shows at the new limit they want to put in your chance of crashing doubles while the limit now is tripled . zero tolerance is the goal but slow increments towards there is improvment .

[the truth]

I'm in favor of them lowering , personally i favor a zero tolerance for any alcohol.

yup

[my5cents]

The majority of drivers who drink too much and cause accidents are not those who only have a glass of wine with a meal. So the debate about lowering the legal level is irrelevant IMO, because most of those causing the accidents are usually 3 or 4 times higher than the current limit and lowering that limit will not impact such folks.

All lowering the limit does is make it almost impossible for folks to have even one glass of wine with dinner (for many women that one glass is all they can have and still be within the limit). If I truly believed that not even allowing a single glass of wine with a meal would save lives, I'd support such an idea. But I don't believe that, and I don't think there's any evidence to support that.

The kind of driver who drinks excessively and then drives is not going to change his or her habit just because we've lowered the limit to the point that most folks can't enjoy even one drink with a meal. So the only solution for those who drink to excess and then drive is to increase the penalties. Impounding their car would be a good start; that should get their attention.

Well, for example it you are a normal sized person, especially a male and you have a GLASS of wine "with dinner", ie, the wine comes before the meal, you enjoy it prior to the meal and perhaps take the last sip during the meal, finish the meal an ? hour, 45 minutes later. Drive away, are stopped and given a test, you will likely blow zero or very close to it.

"because most of those causing the accidents are usually 3 or 4 times higher than the current limit"... Actually it really varies. The real "experienced" drinker can generally function pretty well at a much higher level, but impaired drivers come in all types and sizes. There aren't a lot of drivers at 4 times (320 mg per 100 ml) driving around. Most of us would be out like a light before they got to 320.

Ask most police officers, who have taken the BTA course. They are usually given the opportunity to drink and test or be tested for how they react, and complete physical tests, at various levels of BAC. Rides home are supplied.

Most, unless they are one of those "experienced" drinkers are blitzed at MUCH lower limits than they ever expected. The reason, perhaps because the drinking isn't really in a slow social setting, but it does drive home, how likely impaired those "border-line" 100 mg in 100 ml of blood, drinkers that they have dealt with during their career up to this point really were.

But human nature being what it is, a glass of wine, becomes a glass and a half, two....

Personally I don't think I'd miss it. Nor a beer or two at a hockey game.

[Veovis]

sorry man I just can not quit get the connection between driving drunk and driving tired?

Both actually count as impaired driving. I've known guys who got an impaired fine of around $600 (years ago) for being to tired.

[my5cents]

Both actually count as impaired driving. I've known guys who got an impaired fine of around $600 (years ago) for being to tired.

Sorry, I've gota call BS on that one.

The term "impaired driving" describes a particular offense under the criminal code. Your statement "both count as impaired driving",,,, and "got an impaired fine"..... Nope.

Being excessively tired, impairs one's ability to think and do just about anything, including driving. That's why it's one form of enhance interrogation, "sleep depravation".

It isn't described in any "impaired driving" legislation as a form of impairment. You could be charged with "Driving without Due Care and Attention" under the Motor Vehicle Act" but such as charge is along way from "Impaired".