Castanet

This discussion involves the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) laws in BC and their application.

News Item :

Baby on board -

Vancouver Island RCMP got more than they bargained for after pulling over the driver of a car that had been seen crashing into parked cars in Langford this past weekend.

When they caught up to the vehicle they found two women in the car and an infant as well.

Witnesses reported seeing the vehicle swerving and hitting parked cars on Sooke Road Sunday night.

Officers gave the driver a breathalyzer and issued a 90-day roadside prohibition, the Ministry of Children and family services was also notified because there was a baby involved.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#213383

The IRP was a process that was designed and intended for "NON-Collision" Drinking and Driving events.

More and more we are seeing the misuse of this legislation.

For instance, we all pay for car insurance here in BC. Every collision increases our premiums.

IF this driver was charged under the criminal code, at least her vehicle would not be covered by ICBC and any payments paid out to the owners of the parked vehicles would be collected back from her.

With the police sluffing off this investigation with a 15 minutes application of the IRP, ICBC will be fixing her vehicle and the parked vehicles on her insurance.

Is that what we want to see ?

I doubt icbc will be fixing her vehicle they will fix the others and most likely go after the driver for the costs involved

LTD wrote:I doubt icbc will be fixing her vehicle they will fix the others and most likely go after the driver for the costs involved

You can doubt it all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

Do you think they just pull denials out of thin air ?

The grounds for a breach are determined in the Insurance Vehicle Act and Regs.

An IRP isn't even a Motor Vehicle Act ticket.

A breach would be, if the driver lied to ICBC in her statement, committed a Criminal driver offense, etc.

This is the problem. Cop saves several hours of work and costs ICBC tens of thousands of dollars.

an incident involving alcohol will make your insurance null and void perhaps you should do some research there will still be a police report that icbc will request a copy of so yes I seriously doubt they will pay for it

LTD wrote:an incident involving alcohol will make your insurance null and void perhaps you should do some research there will still be a police report that icbc will request a copy of so yes I seriously doubt they will pay for it

Oh, if only you were even close.

There are circumstances where for some reason a person is charged with a Criminal Driving Offense and for a technicality they got off. In some cases the police can still provide enough admissible evidence that it can be proven:

"the insured is operating a vehicle while the insured is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug or other intoxicating substance to such an extent that he is incapable of proper control of the vehicle"

But in a case where the police opted NOT to lay charges, I've never heard of it. The cop would basically be saying "yes, the driver was impaired, but I didn't do my job in charging."

The actual section of the Ins Veh Act Regs, that lays out the breach conditions can be found here :

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... #section55

^^^ I'm not a big supporter IRP (even though it does get drinking drivers off the road). I'd rather see the police officers do their due diligence and get a conviction in the court of law.

Plus see both Fed's & Provinces drop the criminal code blood alcohol level down as close to zero as possible (if not zero tolerance). As well add zero tolerance to drug impairment while operating a motor vehicle.

GordonH wrote:^^^ I'm not a big supporter IRP (even though it does get drinking drivers off the road). I'd rather see the police officers do their due diligence and get a conviction in the court of law.

Plus see both Fed's & Provinces drop the criminal code blood alcohol level down as close to zero as possible (if not zero tolerance). As well add zero tolerance to drug impairment while operating a motor vehicle.

Couldn't agree more.

As for tolerance, as soon as the law makers open the door with any allowable BAC, the flood gates open.

Lots will think nothing of travelling 15 - 20 or more over the limit, risking a 3 point (or more) ticket, but will arrive at a red traffic light and never dream of going through it, even if there is no cross traffic, a 2 point ticket.

The reason, one (speeding) is graduated [ie, grey], the other (red traffic light) is absolute [ie, black & white].

When you allow a driver to have some BAC it a graduated situation.

my5cents wrote:This discussion involves the Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) laws in BC and their application.

News Item :

Baby on board -

Vancouver Island RCMP got more than they bargained for after pulling over the driver of a car that had been seen crashing into parked cars in Langford this past weekend.

When they caught up to the vehicle they found two women in the car and an infant as well.

Witnesses reported seeing the vehicle swerving and hitting parked cars on Sooke Road Sunday night.

Officers gave the driver a breathalyzer and issued a 90-day roadside prohibition, the Ministry of Children and family services was also notified because there was a baby involved.

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#213383

The IRP was a process that was designed and intended for "NON-Collision" Drinking and Driving events.

More and more we are seeing the misuse of this legislation.

For instance, we all pay for car insurance here in BC. Every collision increases our premiums.

IF this driver was charged under the criminal code, at least her vehicle would not be covered by ICBC and any payments paid out to the owners of the parked vehicles would be collected back from her.

With the police sluffing off this investigation with a 15 minutes application of the IRP, ICBC will be fixing her vehicle and the parked vehicles on her insurance.

Is that what we want to see ?

No.

But we will continue to see them so long as we have police officers who are out the applying various proportions of laziness and ineptness with impaired driving investigations. And supervisors who seem hesitant to take them to task on it.

The IRP has done wonders for reducing impaired driving deaths in BC, but it is unfortunately also breeding a generation of police officers who will be unable to conduct competent criminal impaired driving investigations when necessary.

Zero tolerance is whst canada,needs . Like europe

maryjane48 wrote:Zero tolerance is whst canada,needs . Like europe

You're not getting it.

If the police aren't following through with charges when the drinking and driving results in collisions, there's a problem no matter if there is a 50mg limit, a 80mg limit or a zero mg limit.

my5cents wrote:But in a case where the police opted NOT to lay charges, I've never heard of it. The cop would basically be saying "yes, the driver was impaired, but I didn't do my job in charging."

The story may be incomplete as the police don't lay charges but forward a recommendation to Crown.

Fancy wrote:The story may be incomplete as the police don't lay charges but forward a recommendation to Crown.

If the police had processed the driver under the CC of C, they would have applied a different type of Provincial supension. This is a case of collision happening, IRO being applied.

Not a case of charges being requested and not being approved.

Got it - I'm confused as to why no charges then either.

Fancy wrote:Got it - I'm confused as to why no charges then either.

I suspect it a choice one or the other, can't do both..... like most people take the easy route. Other takes a lot more effort.

GordonH wrote:I suspect it a choice one or the other, can't do both..... like most people take the easy route. Other takes a lot more effort.

The IRP was supposedly not created to replace criminal charges, it was a means of penalizing the non-collision driver who wasn't a complete menace on the road.

Consider the ramifications for we the others who pay for auto insurance. A person totals their $50,000 car into a store front. Total cost $100,000. Since no charges ICBC pays. But hey its saved the cop four hours work !

Now IF the $100,000 was a cost to the RCMP, the bosses would likely be more concerned about the members actions, but the RCMP essentially have a blank cheque on ICBC's account from which to pay for their laziness.