Feds mull lowering blood alcohol limit

[Opeeved]

I've said it many times before, test for impairment, not numbers... unless stopping actual impaired drivers isn't part of the equation anymore.

At what point, is any one "impaired"? Please do go on, but we both know impairment is completely subjectice to the person subjecting. Maybe science will prevail, or at least accepting other people's behaviour?

[my5cents]

The problem is the charge isn't always relative to impairment or whether you're even a danger on the road. It would be safer to drive in traffic surrounded by professional drivers at .08 than the candidates from "Canada's Worst Driver" who are completely sober, yet the safer drivers would all lose their licenses. It's a flawed system.

Get the "impaired" part out of you mind.

It's simple. If you drive and your blood alcohol level (at this date and time) is OVER 80 mg, you are breaking the law.

Pretty simple.

If you don't like that law, fight to have politicians change it, until then, obey it.

Simple.

If you check the Criminal Code of Canada. Nothing under that section says you are impaired, just that you have a level over 80 mgs.

Ya, I know some people are fantastic drivers and can do this or do that and some drivers are so stupid they drive worse sober than you do drunk etc etc etc etc.

That and two bits will get you a phone call if you can find a pay phone.

[Randall T]

I can't figure out why people have to have a drink or whatever if they know they are getting behind the wheel. As far as laws go, there isn't one that says you have to imbibe a maximum amount to have a good time. "0" tolerance wouldn't be an issue if it was law for those who are grown up and responsible enough to abstain.

I can hear the argument now about the glass of wine with dinner but it really doesn't wash.

[my5cents]

I can't figure out why people have to have a drink or whatever if they know they are getting behind the wheel. As far as laws go, there isn't one that says you have to imbibe a maximum amount to have a good time. "0" tolerance wouldn't be an issue if it was law for those who are grown up and responsible enough to abstain.

I can hear the argument now about the glass of wine with dinner but it really doesn't wash.

Yes, the minute a person is allowed "a little", someone will have a "little more", and a "little more", and a problem is created.

Having none, is a much simpler concept. Takes the grey out of the equation.

[Opeeved]

I can't figure out why people have to have a drink or whatever if they know they are getting behind the wheel. As far as laws go, there isn't one that says you have to imbibe a maximum amount to have a good time. "0" tolerance wouldn't be an issue if it was law for those who are grown up and responsible enough to abstain.

I can hear the argument now about the glass of wine with dinner but it really doesn't wash.

To you maybe. A glass of wine from where I sit is small potatoes. Aside from the afraid, the rest of us will accept the rules of life. Deal.

[zzontar]

Get the "impaired" part out of you mind.

It's simple. If you drive and your blood alcohol level (at this date and time) is OVER 80 mg, you are breaking the law.

Pretty simple.

If you don't like that law, fight to have politicians change it, until then, obey it.

Simple.

If you check the Criminal Code of Canada. Nothing under that section says you are impaired, just that you have a level over 80 mgs.

Ya, I know some people are fantastic drivers and can do this or do that and some drivers are so stupid they drive worse sober than you do drunk etc etc etc etc.

That and two bits will get you a phone call if you can find a pay phone.

http://barrie.ctvnews.ca/driver-falls-a ... -1.2996420

A man, who allegedly fell asleep while driving, crashed into four vehicles and a home in Barrie on Thursday morning.
Barrie police say the man was driving a black four-door Escalade along Georgian Drive, just after 7 a.m.
According to investigators, the Escalade left the road and continued down an embankment, where it struck the vehicles and the home. A passenger in the vehicle was taken to hospital with minor injuries.
A black SUV crashed into four vehicles and a home in Barrie, Ont. on Thursday, July 21, 2016. (Steve Mansbridge/ CTV Barrie)
The driver, a 21-year-old Richmond Hill man, is accused for falling asleep while behind the wheel.
He has since been charged with careless driving.

Even though it's a fact that driving while tired is driving impaired, this man was only charged with careless driving as he didn't blow a magic number. Simple, isn't it?

[zzontar]

At what point, is any one "impaired"? Please do go on, but we both know impairment is completely subjectice to the person subjecting. Maybe science will prevail, or at least accepting other people's behaviour?

How about roadside sobriety tests for things like reflexes? Wow, that was tough.

[JLives]

At what point, is any one "impaired"? Please do go on, but we both know impairment is completely subjectice to the person subjecting. Maybe science will prevail, or at least accepting other people's behaviour?

That's the point. Individuals are impaired, or not, depending on several circumstances. We should be testing for cognitive ability, not arbitrary numbers.

[gman313]

That's the point. Individuals are impaired, or not, depending on several circumstances. We should be testing for cognitive ability, not arbitrary numbers.

Cognitive ability and minimum reaction times IMO

[my5cents]

Even though it's a fact that driving while tired is driving impaired, this man was only charged with careless driving as he didn't blow a magic number. Simple, isn't it?

Yes it is.

I guess there are lots of situations that we could call "impairment by ...... The person rushing to the hospital after receiving word that a loved one was in serious condition, impaired by anxiety.

This person's ability was impaired by fatigue. If you are hit by his vehicle while he is driving that way you are just as injured or just a dead, but, the impaired section of Criminal Code can't be used because it states "while the person's ability.....is impaired by alcohol or a drug"

Technically even if the driver was under 80 mgs, if his/her breath or blood was tested and it was found to contain some (ie, 70 mgs) they could be charged with impaired by alcohol, but crown isn't likely to.

A charge of Dangerous driving under the criminal code, could also be a possibility, generally dictated if there were severe injuries and phenomenal damage.

In special circumstances there is usually a more severe charge available, if warranted.

Texting or using your phone (in hand), is covered by a special section of our MVA, but you still could be charged under the careless driving section (a more severe penalty) "Driving Without Due Care and Attention".

I gather the new sections in the MVA directed specifically at texting and using electronic devices was created to make it that much easier to charge, in that it doesn't have to be proven that the texting caused anything, just that someone was texting.

Much like the "Over 80 mgs of Alcohol" in the Criminal Code, removes the need to prove impairment.

[zzontar]

I guess there are lots of situations that we could call "impairment by ...... The person rushing to the hospital after receiving word that a loved one was in serious condition, impaired by anxiety.

This person's ability was impaired by fatigue. If you are hit by his vehicle while he is driving that way you are just as injured or just a dead, but, the impaired section of Criminal Code can't be used because it states "while the person's ability.....is impaired by alcohol or a drug"

Like I was saying, it seems they're more interested in numbers than actual impairment as there are cognitive tests to see if you're impaired by anything... some sober bad drivers would probably even fail. Why do people have such a big problem with targeting bad or actually impaired drivers of any sort, and why would anyone be satisfied with a plan that just targets just a percentage of impaired drivers, even if they're great drivers who had a glass of wine?

[my5cents]

Like I was saying, it seems they're more interested in numbers than actual impairment as there are cognitive tests to see if you're impaired by anything... some sober bad drivers would probably even fail. Why do people have such a big problem with targeting bad or actually impaired drivers of any sort, and why would anyone be satisfied with a plan that just targets just a percentage of impaired drivers, even if they're great drivers who had a glass of wine?

I realized you are using "a glass of wine" to emphasize your point, but that's a bad choice. A glass of wine wouldn't likely get anyone in BAC trouble.

There are procedure for police to follow to report just plain bad drivers, usually it's because of age. But it's a cumbersome procedure, the report goes to the government, the person is eventually contacted and required to be retested.

Even the people that do the testing. It's very subjective. I know of a couple of them that I would not like to be in a vehicle that they were driving.

Also, ever wonder why, you can loose your license for having too many tickets, the logic being that the more times you break the traffic laws the more likely it is you will have a collision, BUT nobody takes away your license if you have a lot of collisions.

With police not attending most collisions, less tickets are being issued at collisions. So no ticket at a collision, no scrutiny for the actual act of having a collision.

Do something that might cause a collision and get a caught a few times,,,,, loose your license
Cause collisions, and not get a ticket,,,,,, keep on driving.

The police short sighted theory being that they were attending collision and "doing the investigation for the insurance company".
a) Insurance companies do their own investigation, they never base liability on what the police say
b) Not attending and issuing tickets for violations committed at the time of a collision reduces the scrutiny of drivers that are involved in collisions.

Makes no sense at all.

[zzontar]

I realized you are using "a glass of wine" to emphasize your point, but that's a bad choice. A glass of wine wouldn't likely get anyone in BAC trouble.

Actually, when the laws became stricter CHBC did a story to see how much it took and Claudia Czeglaz (sp?) had 1 glass of wine and to everyone's surprise, blew a "warn."

[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).

[my5cents]

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.

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

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.