Traffic Laws are changing.... should we be worried ?

[my5cents]

I confess I have never been comfortable with our new drinking and driving laws.

It started with a driving suspension when someone was charged (not convicted) with a drinking and drive offense. What the ??? Isn't the law,,, innocent until PROVEN guilty ? Nope, in BC being charge with drinking and driving got you a provincial suspension BEFORE you either plead guilty or were convicted.

Then the IRP (Immediate Roadside Prohibition). It basically says a police officer, having the ground to demand that you blow in a RSD (Roadside Screening Device) pursuant to an investigation under the Criminal Code of Canada, could then switch tracks and process you under the strength of the RSD reading under the Provincial Motor Vehicle Act and basically find you guilty of an offense (which they carefully avoid calling it) at the side of the road. Depending on the reading there are all sorts of penalties, as high as $4000, all on the say so of Cst Duddly Do Nothing. The IRP can save (depending on how inept the constable is) 7 - 8 hours of paper work processing you under the Criminal Code.

But now we have Pot, yes alcohol hasn't caused enough problems over the decades and decades, we needed to legalize another intoxicant.

At this point there is no reliable test to prove that consumption of Pot in one form or another has impaired your ability to drive. Also, apparently the intoxicant in Pot THC remains in your system so, a test of blood or urine will only reveal previous consumption and can't be linked to a current level of intoxication.

As a result, law enforcement has taken a HUGE step backwards to the investigation of intoxicated driving with ONLY the use of physical tests. To "prove" Cannabis intoxication.

Now police have been investigating impaired driving by drugs for years and years and gathering evidence by physical tests, BUT, the police could NOT proceed against the driver with the IRP, they had to prove the impairment in criminal court before a judge with all the rules of evidence and presumption of inocents.

The IRP, that I admit I don't like, still has the less reliable RSD as a form of additional indications that a driver had consumed too much alcohol, in addition to any physical test.

Yes, I know every cop is extremely well trained, extremely honest and certainly above reproach and can be trusted to be judge and jury at the side of the road. But we do hear about the man who suffers a stroke and the grandfather who is a passenger in his vehicle driven by his sober grandson, who were wrongly (illegally ?) dealt with.

Now are some of us non-drinking, non-pot using motorists going to get in a jackpot because of an infirmity can't perform physical tests to the satisfaction of one of these extremely well trained, honest, trustworthy civil servants ?

I'm guessing there will be same "legally reliable" hearing where a bureaucrat (not a judge) will review the police statement and require the driver to make a statement (you know like some of those countries that don't have a Charter of Rights, like you thought we had)

Where's that going to go ?

Cop, "he was unsteady on his feet, he couldn't touch he nose as instructed".

Driver, "I didn't consume anything, I've got a bum knee, I missed my nose once, I was nervous..."

[TheBoss]

All the times i ahve been stopped by the cops it has been as simple as. Yes sir, no sir and have a goodnight sir. Never have had any issues with cops at all. I was DDing my brother, leave the strippers in vernon go turn up the road past a cop, look in my mirror and see him pull off to the shoulder to do a U-Turn. He gets turned around, i'm pulled over waiting for him. Not even five minutes later i'm on my way again, oh yeah misplaced the wallet in the car and he had no issues with that.
Then their is the one time i was grabbing my buddy a case of beer, leave the beer store parking lot. Cop follows me out and pulls me over. Asks me were my N is, forgot it on the work truck asks me about the rear switch panel being pulled apart and etc. Then asked what sort of alcoholic beverages i have in the car, It was rainier beer, we gave it the Nick name reindeer pee or beer. So i told him that, put a smile on face and all i got was a warning ticket for having no N. Went on my merry way yet again

So i'm not worried at all. I'll get stopped by the cops, make them laugh and then hopefully be on my merry way.

[my5cents]

All the times i ahve been stopped by the cops it has been as simple as. Yes sir, no sir and have a goodnight sir. Never have had any issues with cops at all. I was DDing my brother, leave the strippers in vernon go turn up the road past a cop, look in my mirror and see him pull off to the shoulder to do a U-Turn. He gets turned around, i'm pulled over waiting for him. Not even five minutes later i'm on my way again, oh yeah misplaced the wallet in the car and he had no issues with that.
Then their is the one time i was grabbing my buddy a case of beer, leave the beer store parking lot. Cop follows me out and pulls me over. Asks me were my N is, forgot it on the work truck asks me about the rear switch panel being pulled apart and etc. Then asked what sort of alcoholic beverages i have in the car, It was rainier beer, we gave it the Nick name reindeer pee or beer. So i told him that, put a smile on face and all i got was a warning ticket for having no N. Went on my merry way yet again

So i'm not worried at all. I'll get stopped by the cops, make them laugh and then hopefully be on my merry way.

I'm glad you've had no problems, I haven't either, that doesn't preclude the fact that there is NO sane sober second review of the evidence the cop is going to use against a motorist.

Does the fact that the police have treated many legally, honorably, honestly mean we should do away with trials and let the police find guilt or inocents at roadside ?

[ken531a]

To have a sane sober review of a police man's judgment to many implies lack of trust in the system and even hatred of law enforcement.

Conviction at the roadside takes away all that nasty garbage with lawyers and due process which caused many people to be released from their charges.

I read somewhere some police forces are trying to use program with facial recognition to see if they can pick out criminals before they commit an act.

The future might be like a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movie

[my5cents]

To have a sane sober review of a police man's judgment to many implies lack of trust in the system and even hatred of law enforcement.

Conviction at the roadside takes away all that nasty garbage with lawyers and due process which caused many people to be released from their charges.

I read somewhere some police forces are trying to use program with facial recognition to see if they can pick out criminals before they commit an act.

The future might be like a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movie

Well an example of "that nasty garbage with lawyers" was when a lawyer got justice (YES JUSTICE) for the wrongly penalized grandfather, who was the passenger in his own vehicle driven by his sober grandson.

The grandfather DID go back to the police prior to involving a lawyer and explained what had happened and was told by the POLICE there was nothing they could (would ?) do.

It may come as a shock to you but there are innocent people who have been charged with offenses.

I don't care what occupation one is in. In many cases IF the task being completed could be subject to a review by a higher authority, be the task plumbing a house, fixing a car, conducting a criminal investigation, verses a system where there is NO chance of a review of the task, there is certainly a greater likelihood of quality work when review is possible.

And no, I'm not talking about internal review by readers.

[Rider59]

......
But now we have Pot, yes alcohol hasn't caused enough problems over the decades and decades, we needed to legalize another intoxicant.

Then we should make alcohol illegal to balance it out.

[Gixxer]

The only time Ive had problems with cops and traffic laws is when I was breaking them.

[Merry]

I've never had a problem with police; never been charged with anything, and never had so much as a speeding ticket. I have friends in the RCMP,my brother is a retired police officer, and my grandson is in the military police. But all that said, I agree that allowing police officers to be judge and jury by the road side is NOT appropriate. Because officers are human, and subject to human failings. Sometimes they make mistakes and/or bad judgements, and innocent people need to be able to defend themselves against that possibility.

We should ALL be concerned whenever laws are passed that limit our right to defend ourselves.