B.C. drunk driving law could be overturned

[KL3-Something]

:sleepdeprived:

[simnut]

Follow the thread there, Bud. I'm not referring to your kid's suspension for being a crappy class 7 driver. I was done with that topic weeks ago so I am not in need of "getting" your point of view on it. This was about whether or not mouth alcohol could be considered as part of the ground for an appeal on an IRP. Period. It could before and it can now.

First of all, Sir, experience or "case law" as you put it.....was used to show you that your statement of "first level of quality control" (which by the way, is IN this thread) doesn't exist when it comes to the OSMV. Secondly, this WHOLE thread is about the new IRP's and adminstrative sanctions that have EVERYTHING to do with the OSMV, and NOT the courts.....and how the province is steam rolling their way through this all....as in a situation I am FULLY informed about.....not hearsay.

[zzontar]

Maybe you needed to present your evidence in a more compelling manner. If you didn't know how best to go about it.....that is what lawyers are for. It's that same if you had a criminal charge. Is it better for you to self-represent or get a lawyer?

Compelling manner? If someone states that alcohol-based breath spray was used just prior to the test, there really shouldn't be any need to add more on the topic if the appeal officer is knowledgeable in his field. With a criminal charge, if you hire a lawyer they can represent you in court, with the IRP you're told you can't take it to court as a written appeal is the only avenue... much different.

[jerome2877]

Where did you read these "appeals"? In how many of these appeals did the driver present evidence that they had mouth alcohol that the cop either knew about or ought to have known about?

Unless you either were allowed into the file room at the OSMV adjudication office or have "many" friends who were issued IRP's, appealed them and then let you read the adjudicators decision that was sent to them, you cannot have access to adjudicators decisions because they are not public record. Only if the appeals then go to the Supreme Court do the decisions enter the public domain. And, of course, those are all published for all to read as they then form case law. So again, where did you read all these appeal decisions? Links please. Try the websites below. They have great search engines and all of these many Supreme Court appeals will be found contained within:

Unfortunately I have been privy to information on specific situations that I cannot share in this manner.

I did, however, find the information here: http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/D1742851 ... -00022.PDF
:dyinglaughing:

[KL3-Something]

Where did you read these "appeals"? In how many of these appeals did the driver present evidence that they had mouth alcohol that the cop either knew about or ought to have known about?

Unless you either were allowed into the file room at the OSMV adjudication office or have "many" friends who were issued IRP's, appealed them and then let you read the adjudicators decision that was sent to them, you cannot have access to adjudicators decisions because they are not public record. Only if the appeals then go to the Supreme Court do the decisions enter the public domain. And, of course, those are all published for all to read as they then form case law. So again, where did you read all these appeal decisions? Links please. Try the websites below. They have great search engines and all of these many Supreme Court appeals will be found contained within:

Unfortunately I have been privy to information on specific situations that I cannot share in this manner.

I did, however, find the information here: http://docs.openinfo.gov.bc.ca/D1742851 ... -00022.PDF
:dyinglaughing:

Well first of all thank you for locating that. I am happy that they are now publishing vetted versions of adjudications. Then I can read through them and always improve on my approach with drivers who refuse or fail to comply to help ensure that my work stands up to appeal.

However, what you provided was 331 pages of decision with respect to refusals. In refusals the possibility of mouth alcohol is not an issue because there is no ASD result to be analyzed. This document obviously released after someone had submitted an FOI request for refusal cases.

As as far as your opening line above...I have a reason that I can't reveal specific situations, I can lose my job. You are just using that as an excuse to keep from having to validate your opinion.

[Trunk-Monkey]

Here is a pretty good artricle about the new IRPs. At 1st I was a bit unsure how to take what was writen here but after re-reading it I think its well writen and seems to make some good points.
http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#77056
Lets rehash this thing AGAIN!!

[logicalview]

In the future, check your label and make sure you aren't spraying an alcohol-based breath spray into your mouth when you are about to get behind the wheel or when you see a road check up ahead. You never know where those darn things will pop up.

A new law has come into force in France making it compulsory for drivers to carry a breathalyser kit in their vehicles or risk an on-the-spot fine.

It is the latest move by the government aimed at bringing down the number of road deaths caused by alcohol.

All motorists must also have with them a high-visibility safety vest and a warning triangle.

The drink-driving limit in France is 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

[goatboy]

A new law has come into force in France making it compulsory for drivers to carry a breathalyser kit in their vehicles or risk an on-the-spot fine.

While that seems like a good idea, I can see it now "but officer, I just blew into my own breathalyzer and I'm fine to drive" "not according to my ASD your not".

[simnut]

If you look at the Coroner of BC's stats, the drinking and driving deaths have been on a steady decline, even before the "new" drinking and driving laws came into effect. Why? I believe it is because of more police presence on the roads. There are JUST as many people drinking and driving with the new sanctions as there was before....a common theme of many of the government branches is the shock as to the increase of drunk drivers. First of all, they see an increase ONLY because of increased contact of drunk drivers with the police......the only way that "statistic" is generated (more police presence on the road)! It is the ACT of the officer taking the drunk OFF the road at the TIME of being drunk that is saving lives......NOT the consequences....and that is why the numbers have been declining the past few years.

I would love the government to try something for the next year. Setup up DOUBLE the number of roadblocks from the year 2010, and give all impaired/slightly impaired drivers a 24 hour suspension ( this would get them off the road WHILE they are drunk). Then, there would be far less drunk drivers on the road....right? The greater the chance of being caught is a much greater deterrent than the "change" of the consequences.

To put it a different way.....have EVERY driver in BC have an interlock device(like your own personal officer) installed into their vehicle. Then we would have NO drunks on the road....therefore...NO drunk driving deaths.

Sure, some drivers will learn their lesson and not want to get caught (as opposed to not want to drink and drive) again because of the new sanctions. But I think a majority of those willing to drink and drive the first time...will drink and drive again. The AVERAGE drunk driver has driven drunk 87 times before getting caught. What would change this? More police presence........ Take a look at this:

c) How much do hardcore drunk drivers contribute to the problem?

Although hardcore drinking drivers are a relatively small group in the total driving population, they continue to account for a very large portion of the impaired driving problem, including fatal and serious injury crashes. They account for almost one-third (27%) of all fatally injured drivers and about two-thirds (65%) of all fatally injured drivers who are drinking (Simpson et al. 1996). To illustrate the impact that this subgroup of offenders has, consider the following:

- hardcore drinking drivers account for only 1% of all drivers on the road at night during the weekend, but they represent nearly half of all fatal crashes that occur during that time;
- among fatally injured drivers who were legally impaired, 79% had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15% or above;
- over 60% of seriously injured drivers have a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 0.15%;
-the hardcore impaired driver is estimated nationally to account for 15-20% of all drivers injured in all road crashes; (all crashes...not just drinking and driving crashes!)
- drivers with high BACs are over 200 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than the average non-drinking driver and those with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 0.20% are 460 times more likely to be involved in a crash; and,
-about 84% of all drinking and driving trips are accounted for by only 10% of all drivers who by their frequent driving after drinking behaviour are considered to be hardcore.

The only way to catch the "hardcore" drunk driver or even a first time drunk driver.......more police presence....BEFORE they get into an accident.

[zzontar]

To put it a different way.....have EVERY driver in BC have an interlock device(like your own personal officer) installed into their vehicle. Then we would have NO drunks on the road....therefore...NO drunk driving deaths.

What about collisions that don't involve drinking? These are BC stats from 1997 but are the most current I could find:

The top five most frequently reported contributing factors in
2007 injury collisions (as a percentage of total injury collisions)
were, in order of magnitude:
(1) Driver inattentive (34.3%);
(2) Driver error/confusion (20.6%);
(3) Speed (19.9%);
(4) Failing to yield to the right of way (14.7%);
(5) Road Condition (14.5%).

I don't see drinking in there, but let's not focus on the main cause of collisions seeing as you and everyone else are probably guilty of some of the above. Getting drunk drivers off the road is a good idea, but I see numerous drivers who are probably sober but shouldn't be on the road daily.

[goatboy]

What about collisions that don't involve drinking? These are BC stats from 1997 but are the most current I could find:


The top five most frequently reported contributing factors in
2007 injury collisions (as a percentage of total injury collisions)
were, in order of magnitude:
(1) Driver inattentive (34.3%);
(2) Driver error/confusion (20.6%);
(3) Speed (19.9%);
(4) Failing to yield to the right of way (14.7%);
(5) Road Condition (14.5%).


I don't see drinking in there, but let's not focus on the main cause of collisions seeing as you and everyone else are probably guilty of some of the above. Getting drunk drivers off the road is a good idea, but I see numerous drivers who are probably sober but shouldn't be on the road daily.

Who says the police aren't focusing on these other causes? Are IRP the only tickets that the police hand out? I bet there is a far higher % of tickets given for speeding than anything else.

[zzontar]

^^ Just think about the number one cause and how many times you see that daily as opposed to seeing a drunk driver. Drunk drivers make the headlines and even though texting while driving is considered to be more dangerous, so many people do it that the general consensus is that we should focus on drunk drivers. :127:

[goatboy]

^^ Just think about the number one cause and how many times you see that daily as opposed to seeing a drunk driver. Drunk drivers make the headlines and even though texting while driving is considered to be more dangerous, so many people do it that the general consensus is that we should focus on drunk drivers. :127:

Here's the difference and why it seems that more emphasis is put on drinking and driving. You're parked at a light and you look over at the car beside you. You can tell instantly if someone is texting, it's plain to see. Now, can you look over and tell if someone is drunk? Sometimes, yes, but a lot of the time you have no idea, so there requires a different type of enforcement for drunk drivers.

Here's the bottom line, that even you cannot argue. Drunk driving kills people, so some form of enforcement is needed. Is it the only thing that needs to be enforced? No, of course not. Is it the only thing that is enforced? No, of course not.

[steven lloyd]

What about collisions that don't involve drinking?

You're right. Statistically, most accidents are caused by a sober driver.
By your reasoning, therefore, we should make driving sober illegal.

[zzontar]

You're right. Statistically, most accidents are caused by a sober driver.
By your reasoning, therefore, we should make driving sober illegal.

I was thinking more along the lines of getting people off the road who's driving when sober is as dangerous as driving drunk.