Between .05 and .08 fines

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Nobody here is defending drinking and driving, rather we are protesting the fact that people are being pronounced guilty and punished without the right to a trial. As for your units located at the police station, I agree that they are probably much more accurate, but here in Alberta, we don't have the option of being taken to the station to be tested on more accurate equipment. People are being suspended and their vehicles are being impounded based on the reading of the local roadside unit, which in the case of the study done in B.C. are not accurate. I doubt that these types of laws where people are being denied a trial would go over well in the USA, where you work.

Who did the study in BC? Because as you mentioned about government studies whoever does the study gets the results to say what they want. And all your .05 and .08 arguing is defending drinking and driving because the only way to get to .05 is to drink alcohol. As I said .08 is arbitrary and just because your above or below it doesn’t necessarily mean your impaired. Except that the government has said per say above .08 they deem that impairment.

The problem with people who drink and drive, no matter how little is they have the mentality of it won’t happen to me. I’m better then that more capable not as susceptible. Tell that to the soccer mom whose van you just hit...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

Who did the study in BC? Because as you mentioned about government studies whoever does the study gets the results to say what they want. And all your .05 and .08 arguing is defending drinking and driving because the only way to get to .05 is to drink alcohol. As I said .08 is arbitrary and just because your above or below it doesn’t necessarily mean your impaired. Except that the government has said per say above .08 they deem that impairment.

The point is that the government chose .08 and .05 for numbers, so those are the numbers that they are enforcing. So if they are assessing suspensions and impounding vehicles based n those readings, they need accurate readings, that they can rove in court. In any case, you should have the right to a trial , and not just e sentenced base n an officer taking a reading with a roadside unit.

As to having to drink alcohol to produce a reading of .05, how do yu explain this taken from the link that I posted?

"When tested, the machine showed a reading of 32 (milligrams of alcohol)," said Doroshenko, referring to an RCMP Kamloops note to Davtech, the Ottawa firm that fixes the machine.

"The second test after calibration showed a reading of 172."

"The highest I think we saw, there was one unit from Abbotsford that just issued a fail when the officer tested it for basic functionality at the beginning and then they said 'retired unit'," Doroshenko said.

"He hadn't been drinking at all. It just gave a fail."

And take notice, that this information came from RCMP notes to the company that fixes the machines

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

And by the time that I arranged a blood test, The vehicle is towed and impounded, and my license is suspended, whether I am guilty or not. And by the time a blood test is arranged and taken, the elapsed time would make the results worthless in court, even if I was able to challenge this in court, which I am not. That is exactly how this type of law is designed to work. It simply bypasses a persons right to be tried and convicted before sentence is passed,to make things easier and cheaper for the government. In this case sentence being the financial cost of the tow and impound fees. As for the stats, if they are from a government source, they will indicate whatever the government wants them to indicate.

If you don't trust the screening test ask for the regular test on an authorized instrument that has to be proven every time in court. If you don't trust that you must be one of the ones that the state is out to get. If things get that bad then the state would probably arrange for the blood test to be fixed as well.

The stats from the government source is from the link you provided. In future when you post a link, tell us which parts we should buy into or not

No one is asking as you say to give up all of your rights to save a single life but death due to drinking is big. I think that willingness to co-operate and a bit of compromise is not a violation of my rights and saving a single life is well worthwhile.

If I was accused with no booze in my system I would retain a lawyer. Sometime innocent people have to hire lawyers. That is the way the system works. I can not understand someone who lives in this country who is always suspicious that the state is out to get them

[Twist]

Originally Posted by Scott N

The main issues I have with this law is that the federal law is .08. If AB wants to penalize drivers for operating a vehicle over .05, they should rally to have the federal law change and lower the BAC to .05.

I'm most opposed to AB's policy due to the fact you have no chance to defend yourself - you will be punished, whether you are guilty or not, and you are not allowed to defend yourself.

Well put. This is the crux of my argument against it as well.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Nobody here is defending drinking and driving, rather we are protesting the fact that people are being pronounced guilty and punished without the right to a trial. As for your units located at the police station, I agree that they are probably much more accurate, but here in Alberta, we don't have the option of being taken to the station to be tested on more accurate equipment. People are being suspended and their vehicles are being impounded based on the reading of the local roadside unit, which in the case of the study done in B.C. are not accurate. I doubt that these types of laws where people are being denied a trial would go over well in the USA, where you work.

In Alberta you do have the option of being taken to where an authorized instrument is used. Most often that involves being walked to a very large van where an authorized tech has the equipment to do the court authorized test.

[coastalhunter]

Easy to see who is probably all for the LGR "if it just saves one life"

[vcmm]

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...07oqeBVgvS_0sX

[Twist]

Originally Posted by coastalhunter

Easy to see who is probably all for the LGR "if it just saves one life"

Yup.

Or just outright confiscation of firearms.

Or any property for that matter.

We don't sterilize welfare leeches who have 8 kids to get their dope money. The stats are in there. Those kids will likely hit the justice system. The family court system.

What about saving their life?

This just get ridiculous.

[58thecat]

This is still going eh....

[C2C3PO]

Just so everyone is clear here, there are only but a few instances where blood would be drawn to satisfy the requirement for blood alcohol readings.

Those instances are typically where a suspect has been involved in a injury collision and is unable to provide consent ( unconscious) or unable to provide a breath test ( injury). The officer is still required to obtain a blood warrant as it is seen by the courts as a last/final solution since they deem it to be an incredibly invasive ( and rightfully so) method of gathering evidence.
You don't have the "right" to request a blood test just because you want one.
While ideally it would be great if you could the realities around the logistics of taking the blood samples is daunting.

I have personally had doctors refuse to take the samples even with a blood warrant because they do not want to be involved in court proceedings (testifying) down the road. Then there is the incredible backlog of tests waiting to be done on evidence sent to the RCMP labs......
These are but a few challenges police face when collecting this type of evidence.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

In Alberta you do have the option of being taken to where an authorized instrument is used. Most often that involves being walked to a very large van where an authorized tech has the equipment to do the court authorized test.

So is that option available for ever person who blows .05 , no matter where you are in Alberta, either urban or rural?

[oldgutpile]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Like I said you make a choice and then live with it, really simple stupid but we push the limits every time and when the police do the thinking for us they are the ones who are blamed for our bad decisions...always surrounded with excuses.

Yes faulty equipment, yes a mistake made, yes, yes, yes, but and yes the dreaded but and think real hard about this as I know the facts if we could dig that up would lean way over to the fact that for every 10000 idiots pulled over breaking the law maybe one, yes one was partially innocent...I'll take the odds to keep law and order to,our streets because if not the streets would run amuck with common folk being overwhelmed by criminals...think about it, hard.

You go on a rant about your own opinions. I was trying to make the point that .05 is NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as being impaired.
If you want to push for zero alcohol, go for it. My statement was that .05 was established as a vote gathering tool. The majority of places in the world recognize .08. I have a problem with the province jumping on the .05 issue, when it has not been proven that .05 is a state of impairment. A very long-established guideline.
This is a police state issue. If you want to continue going on about .05 drivers going out and running over a little kid. coulda, woulda, shoulda!!
When we roll-over to this type of beuracracy, we are opening the gates for more stupid laws to be introduced.
WHAT?!! There are people living here with guns? But what about the children?
Go on. Roll over and take it some more.

[58thecat]

The police face challenges everyday, every shift, funny though how it is the crooks, criminals, people caught breaking the laws that keep the police busy and constantly facing challenges to do what is only right. Amazing.
Have another for the road and see how that works out for ya

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by oldgutpile

You go on a rant about your own opinions. I was trying to make the point that .05 is NOT LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as being impaired.
If you want to push for zero alcohol, go for it. My statement was that .05 was established as a vote gathering tool. The majority of places in the world recognize .08. I have a problem with the province jumping on the .05 issue, when it has not been proven that .05 is a state of impairment. A very long-established guideline.
This is a police state issue. If you want to continue going on about .05 drivers going out and running over a little kid. coulda, woulda, shoulda!!
When we roll-over to this type of beuracracy, we are opening the gates for more stupid laws to be introduced.
WHAT?!! There are people living here with guns? But what about the children?
Go on. Roll over and take it some more.

Care to provide some proof for that statement because a quick google search shows that you are wrong.

More countries use .05 BAC as a limit for Impaired driving than .08 BAC. Add in to those that use LESS than .05 BAC and out of 82 countries on the chart including some of the heaviest drinking countries in the world, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Germany etc.. 59 have .05 BAC or LOWER. I even left out those 5 countries where ANY alcohol is illegal.

Oh and I have something to reference.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/blo...its-worldwide/


Oh and here is a study by Austrians lowering the limit from .08 BAC to .05 BAC and its correlation to a reduction in accidents.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/low...lated-crashes/

Well back to my tinfoil hat and government conspiracies....

[Little Valy]

Originally Posted by sns2

If you can afford to drink, you can afford to take a cab. It's really that simple. Vehicles are missiles. The rest is semantics.

I was just about to post this exact thing
If you're at a bar,pub,restaurant or any place they serve alcohol chances are you are with other people in your group.If they all had something to drink split cab fare,probably cheaper than another round of drinks

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

Care to provide some proof for that statement because a quick google search shows that you are wrong.

More countries use .05 BAC as a limit for Impaired driving than .08 BAC. Add in to those that use LESS than .05 BAC and out of 82 countries on the chart including some of the heaviest drinking countries in the world, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Russia, Germany etc.. 59 have .05 BAC or LOWER. I even left out those 5 countries where ANY alcohol is illegal.

Oh and I have something to reference.
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/blo...its-worldwide/


Oh and here is a study by Austrians lowering the limit from .08 BAC to .05 BAC and its correlation to a reduction in accidents.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/low...lated-crashes/

Well back to my tinfoil hat and government conspiracies....

Is DSA a private non for profit Corporation?

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by vcmm

Is DSA a private non for profit Corporation?

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/site...earch_2002.pdf

[vcmm]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/site...earch_2002.pdf

Good Try . What I do is non of your business. Nice cheap shot at elk

[Jamie]

This all needs to change. Whats the next Federal law they will see fit to change?
.05 is not the law.. .08 is...
We need a change in all this. I always assumed we were innocent until proven guilty. 10 guilty people going fee is better than one innocent being convicted.

This all MUST change and we need the Feds to support us and take ownership of the laws.

Jamie

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by fordtruckin

Not sure but hard to argue a number such as they give and a country as personal opinion. I googled several sites and all say the same thing, the majority of the world is .05 or lower. Even this 34 page recommendation by the Canada safety council says Canada is lagging behind by keeping a .08 limit when the majority of the world has gone to .05 or lower. Me thinks if your fighting to keep a higher bac you probably have a bit of a drinking problem. Having a DD or calling a cab ain’t that bloody hard.... well apparently it is for some here on AO, eh elk???

https://canadasafetycouncil.org/site...earch_2002.pdf

I never once argued against the .05 limit, my concern is losing the right to a trial before being pronounced guilty. But then again you are easily confused , as was proven by your asinine assumption that I was suggesting that the police take roadside blood samples.

By the way, how do you feel about the accused having the right to a trial?

[Big Lou]

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Big Lou

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

And yet some people are fine with not having the right to a trial.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Like I mentioned earlier, I know a few scumbags that were guilty and hired a scumbag lawyer that combed over everything, twisted everything to the point the court handed down a lesser sentence, looser forked out 10K to the scumbag lawyer and moved on, guilty as hell.

Police are going to police, for the most part protect us from many bad decisions that we common folk tend to make everyday, just some really cross the line and then in comes the police to put things back into prospective...someone has to do the thinking for stupid!

Here is a story for you.

Have a friend that was getting something out of his girlfriends SUV last winter and as he was digging around in the hatch when a passing cop decided to see what he was up to. He explained he was getting something out of the back and long story short, was charged with impaired. It didn't matter to the cop that it was bone chilling cold out and if he was going to drive it likely would of been warming it up, but the keys were in his pocket and that's all the cop cared about.

He needed his DL for work and was relieved of his job because he dosent get his DL back until its resolved in court, he is still waiting for his day in court.

If the new law wasn't in place he would of got to keep his licence and job until his court date.

He is being punished for something he did not do BEFORE he has the right to a fair trial, and that is not ok.

It's not allways cut and dry

[elk396]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

By the same token, by the time a murderer is punished, the damage is done. The same applies to many other crimes, but I am not willing to give up all of my rights in order to try and save one life. The anti gun people use the same argument to try and ban all private ownership of firearms. It doesn't matter what offense we are charged with, we should be entitled to our day in court. And if the law specifies that .05 should result in a license being suspended, and vehicles be towed and impounded for a specified time, then it should be up to the authorities to provide an accurate test that proves that the driver was .05 or greater in a court of law. If they are going to tow and impound a vehicle before a trial, then reimburse the person for all related expenses if he is found not guilty. It's not like most people would spend the time going to court over the towing and impound fees, but a person should have that option.

thats a fair argument.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Big Lou

As an individual that was charged one time with impaired driving, I’ve got to say I’m against this. When I was charged I knew immediately it was wrong. Growing up, the RCMP had started performing breath tests at school dances every so often and I had a pretty solid idea on what I’d blow per unit of consumption over a certain time period. Everyone processes alcohol differently. The sole reason I was pulled over was because the police had been marking vehicles in a lot. If I wasn’t able to defend myself in court it would have been life changing. If I was guilty then rightfully so, it should have been. If I’m guilty of something, I’ll take my lumps and I have. But when a person is innocent and knows such, there needs to be a course that can be followed to defend themselves. Subscribing to a system in which you’re guilty just because they say you are is downright scary.

Agreed.

[260 Rem]

Would be nice if the “right to trial” included the obligation to pay for all the costs associated with the trial if found guilty.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by vcmm

Good Try . What I do is non of your business. Nice cheap shot at elk

I call it like I see it. Best part is I know I’m not alone in thinking this, I just happened to be the one to say it.


Personally I don’t care what you do. I couldn’t give 2 squirts if you were here today and gone tomorrow. If you get loaded and decide to drive the more power to you super chief but if you hurt or kill someone else because of your arrogance I do care about that and will help however I can to crucify you.

[Wolftrapper]

Originally Posted by does it ALL outdoors

Here is a story for you.

Have a friend that was getting something out of his girlfriends SUV last winter and as he was digging around in the hatch when a passing cop decided to see what he was up to. He explained he was getting something out of the back and long story short, was charged with impaired. It didn't matter to the cop that it was bone chilling cold out and if he was going to drive it likely would of been warming it up, but the keys were in his pocket and that's all the cop cared about.

He needed his DL for work and was relieved of his job because he dosent get his DL back until its resolved in court, he is still waiting for his day in court.

If the new law wasn't in place he would of got to keep his licence and job until his court date.

He is being punished for something he did not do BEFORE he has the right to a fair trial, and that is not ok.

It's not allways cut and dry

Interesting story indeed.

[fordtruckin]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I never once argued against the .05 limit, my concern is losing the right to a trial before being pronounced guilty. But then again you are easily confused , as was proven by your asinine assumption that I was suggesting that the police take roadside blood samples.

By the way, how do you feel about the accused having the right to a trial?

I’m sorry what were we talking about again? I got confused ..... meh waste of time posting replies to you anyhow, I could say the sky is blue grass is green the sun is yellow and you’d find some way to disagree. Personally it’s a slow day and getting your knickers in a knot is the best entertainment option I have. Ooooh squirrel.... wait what were we talking about again?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Would be nice if the “right to trial” included the obligation to pay for all the costs associated with the trial if found guilty.

And if found not guilty, should the person who charged him be held accountable for associated costs? (Loss of work, towing, impound....etc.)