Feds mull lowering blood alcohol limit

[neilsimon]

Unfortunately, as with most traffic enforcement, we have failed to measure that which is important (the danger that the driver presents) and instead made important that which we can easily measure (alcohol levels & speed).

That goes for many areas of enforcement. Criminal cases for example video, DNA, at least finger prints.

In fairness, those are very strong indicators, but in the case of driving, exceeding the speed limit, especially in certain cases, is not only not unsafe, it is the only safe course of action and while driving with a BAC over 0.08 is unlikely to be safer than having a level below, it is a relatively poor measure of impairment.

Eye witness evidence, verbal evidence of police observations, accused's statements don't hold a candle to the above.

Unfortunately, eye-witnesses are notoriously bad and police have earned a bad reputation with the general public (though judges still give their testimony greater weight than those accused of crimes). That said, I get where you are coming from. The CSI factor is a bit unfortunate for conviction rates, but possibly good for keeping innocent people out of gaol.

Impaired driving evidence at one time was just the police officer's observations of the driving, driver's physical appearance, speech, ability to complete physical tests and smell of breath. No roadside screening device, BTA, zip.

Ask a traffic cop how many times a violator has demanded to "see the reading" on the radar or laser.

Well, I support their need to be provided evidence where it is appropriate, but I also think that with cameras (which we can put everywhere for next to nothing), it should be possible for the police to show reckless/dangerous behaviour without having to resort to verbal evidence and we could then start dealing with the traffic offences that matter.

[my5cents]

Well, I support their need to be provided evidence where it is appropriate, but I also think that with cameras (which we can put everywhere for next to nothing), it should be possible for the police to show reckless/dangerous behaviour without having to resort to verbal evidence and we could then start dealing with the traffic offences that matter.

For starters no police officer is prepared to discuss or tender whatever evidence they have to the accused at the time of issuing a ticket. At least at this moment the police member's verbal evidence of what was observed is all that is required.

"it should be possible for the police to show reckless/dangerous behaviour without having to resort to verbal evidence"

What ? "having to resort" ?

Perhaps all our police vehicles should have a battery of cameras and sensors, monitoring everything around. Also our police members affixed with numerous cameras and audio recording devices.

Basically the police and police vehicle become just a means of recording "reliable evidence" for the judge or jury to watch.

Camera stops working, the police officer and vehicle are out of service because they can't be relied on to gather reliable evidence.

What a world you want !

I don't get the feeling that in Canada there is the concern for the credibility of our police, except on some of these forums.

Since the number of questionable acts by our police seems rare, where is this coming from ? TV ? Our proximity to the USA.

The USA has a completely difference situation. Their police are generally poorly paid and like the rest of the population in the USA, prone to shoot first and ask questions later.