This is really rich
 

So, was it 7 hours between the time he passed out and pulled over? I've drank enough, back in the early days, that when I woke up, I was still inebriated. This guy is a Croat, and they know how to drink!

So you're allowed to drink and drive if you save a kid from drowning? Woo hoo!

Here we go, someone didn't read the whole article...

wait... he didnt drink and drive... he woke up still "intoxicated" lol


did you read?

I've done that as well.

I've even woke up once, and felt completely sober. Started walking around and the alcohol started to hit me again - so basically - I still had plenty of alcohol in my blood stream, but I just did feel it till a good hour later.

In general - your liver can process about 1oz of liquor an hour, or about one standard drink. Now, we don't have any details about how much he drank the night before - but I can tell you that even me as a 140lb chinese guy has gone nights having drank a good 10-15 drinks. It's very possible that you wake up still being over the legal limit for BAC%.

That article caught my attention too. I had to write about it:

http://www.drivesmartbc.ca/impaired-...te-are-stories

The article states that the ASD alone cannot be used as evidence against the er.. perp in a criminal trial and that the ASD simply provides the grounds on which to detain the individual for further testing on the datamaster.

Is that correct?

Perhaps the ASD alone cannot be used as evidence in a "criminal" trial, but it is sufficient for the new penalties that the "province" is now giving. Not sure if you read this yet....

http://www.filkowcriminallaw.com/imp...iving-laws.pdf

This is an example of the OSMV and the province "bending the rules" or devices to accomplish something that was not intended by said rules or devices. Whether you believe me or not....I believe in .......you do the "crime", you do the "time". BUT....we have laws so we know where we "civilians" stand, not just the police and the courts!!! This is an important fact, one that we should ALL keep a close eye on!

The thing is, even if the first breathalyer test was wrong, the second one would have been conducted on a totally seperate device. So unless both units weren't working properly...

I wonder how many people know that they are entitled to blow on another device...

After you blow a warning or fail, the officer tells you that you have the right to take the test again on a different machine.

To say that two readings of over 100mg% were inaccurate, when the fail level is set at 110mg%...and the legal limit is .08mg%, is not believable. I agree with Skidmark's response. This once again is all about sensationalism and not about accuracy. Yes it is possible to be legally impaired after you stopped drinking and awoke the next morning. To have readinngs in excess of 110mg% shows that you drank a lot the nightbefore. You are legally impaired. I have stopped people the afternoon of the day following a blitz and they were still impaired. As Skid said, intoxicated is falling down drunk, impaired is just that...your responses are impaired and you don't need to be intoxicated to have your responses and driving ability impaired, according to law. There is nothing in this sensationalized fable to indicate at all that the screening device used on the occasion was inaccurate. This was brought up to manipulate the readers to support an impaired driver who got caught.

I think what the driver did to save a life was remarkable and should be fully commended, but by driving impaired he risked his life and that of others at a level in excess of 110mg%. One thing has nothing to do with the other and one deed does not cancel out the other. Saving a life a year ago has nothing to do with his actions that day. After partying all night he headed out to get more booze and got stopped on the way home, impaired. He wasn't rushing the child to hospital and I wonder if the writer would even be bothering to manipulate readers to support him if he had crashed on the way to buy more booze, injuring or killing someone?