BC should use Norway's drunk driving laws

[Veovis]

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".

Do so all you like, certainly this was 15-20 years ago now and perhaps they have removed "tired" from the list however I am certain that a long haul trucker in an accident over the time they should be driving will still receive an impaired for this issue to this day, and that the $$$ in fines paid by my friends were imaginary, but there are many that see drowsy driving as just as dangerous as drunk.

Heck why are we still focused on the 3rd driving issue right now. Why are we not running billions in campaigns by MADD etc against the actual #1 driving cause of death and accidents?

Little Kimmy kills 5 gets told off, Bill has 1 beer people want him lynched though he caused no accident. Odd Priority but at least Kimmy live facebooked the accident. (this has happened) Priorities are certainly off for actual prevention and reduction right now.

[my5cents]

Do so all you like, certainly this was 15-20 years ago now and perhaps they have removed "tired" from the list however I am certain that a long haul trucker in an accident over the time they should be driving will still receive an impaired for this issue to this day, and that the $$$ in fines paid by my friends were imaginary, but there are many that see drowsy driving as just as dangerous as drunk.

Heck why are we still focused on the 3rd driving issue right now. Why are we not running billions in campaigns by MADD etc against the actual #1 driving cause of death and accidents?

Little Kimmy kills 5 gets told off, Bill has 1 beer people want him lynched though he caused no accident. Odd Priority but at least Kimmy live facebooked the accident. (this has happened) Priorities are certainly off for actual prevention and reduction right now.

No there was no "tired" as an element of impaired driving 15 - 20 years ago, not 50 years ago either.

[Veovis]

Doesn't change the fact that they issued fines under the term impaired.

Drunk drivers used to get big fines while stoned individuals received impaired fines. Thankfully that has gotten better but pretending it's never been done serves no point.

Distracted driving like texting is still fines but people still call for lifetime bans for 1 drink. Why the number 1 cause is ok for many yet crucifying others seems right is just odd to me. I think one charge for all top 3-5 should be more sensible personally

[my5cents]

Doesn't change the fact that they issued fines under the term impaired.

"under the term impaired" ?,,, as I've said there was NO CHARGE of "Impaired by Fatigue" I've no idea where you came up with this. Even if a driver was charged under the Motor Vehicle Act for being too tired to drive, the charge would be "Driving Without Due Care and Attention" (no mention of impaired by fatigue).

Drunk drivers used to get big fines while stoned individuals received impaired fines. Thankfully that has gotten better but pretending it's never been done serves no point.

A "Drunk driver" IS and impaired driver. A "stoned individual" is ALSO and impaired driver. Same section of the Criminal Code of Canada.

If you are talking about the inconstancies of charging stoned drivers verses alcohol impaired drivers. Yes there is a problem, I fear that will get even worse with the pending legalization of pot. But impaired by pot and impaired by alcohol is the same charge, different evidence but the same charge.

At this time there is no equivalent charge for driving with a quantity of THC in you system (the drug that gets you stoned on pot) that there is with alcohol "Over the limit (80 mg)"

Distracted driving like texting is still fines but people still call for lifetime bans for 1 drink. Why the number 1 cause is ok for many yet crucifying others seems right is just odd to me. I think one charge for all top 3-5 should be more sensible personally

A lot of people, seeing the authorities announce that a collision was caused by "Distracted Driving", link that to texting or something similar. IF the authorities announce that the driver was charged with using an electronic device then yes it was. I could be looking at a hot chick in a short skirt walking down the street and pile into a line of cars and be "distracted". The charge, then would be "Driving Without due Care and Attention, but the collision would be caused by "distracted driving"

Just because there is a MVA (Motor Vehicle Act) charge for "Distracted Driving" that doesn't preclude the authorities from charging with something more serious, such as "Dangerous Driving" under the Criminal Code if the nature and conditions warrant it.

A "lifetime ban for 1 drink" is nonsense, stick to facts