It's baaaaaaack!
 

Local News Story

So what has changed?

The unconstitutionally back in November 2011 is now okay? The quote doesn't talk about the over 0.08, which is the one in debate.

how about reduce that shit to a 0.00, you shouldn't be drinking anytime

..uh, unless you're not driving.

yea, that's the topic of this thread... :derp:

Your wording just had me confused a little.

This is really hard, I completely understand you because my neighbors son was killed by a drunk driver...

But at the same time we all have a beer or two at dinner when we are out with friends... But that doesnt put me over the limit but 0 is really hard.

Or perhaps eating food cooked with alcohol.

I completely agree that if you drink dont drive but something 1 beer is okay.

I'm trying to understand why it is so difficult to take the alleged drunk back to HQ for a breath sample on a more reliable machine. These laws do not deal with the fact that the ASDs are prone to error, nor do they hold the driver criminally responsible for breaking what is a criminal law.

They're reporting that the officer needs to inform the driver that he's entitled to a second test on a second machine like it's a new rule. I wonder how many officers offered up a second test last time this law was in place?

Seb I think thatswhat the second test is all about. Going back to the station where the more reliable machine is.

No, it's a second test on a second ASD, not back at the station.

I think you only go back to the station if you blow over 0.10, which is 0.02 over the criminal limit.

In a nutshell, the officer is now required to inform you that if you fail the ASD, you're allowed to request a second test on a different ASD. You were always allowed to do this, but few people were aware of it... so now they have to tell you.

The court declared certain parts of the law unconstitutional, so those parts were changed accordingly... now they're not unconstitutional anymore.

when you cook with something like wine or brandy or something like that, the alcohol burns off while cooking. so there is very little, if any, alcohol content left over.

Hey, just want to clarify a few things because I think a lot of these "rules" or "laws" are confusing to some people.

My undestanding is that you will be going back to the station if you are involved in some sort of accident involving drinking and driving.

You can also be taken back if it is your second drinking and driving offence. When i say offence, I am not including 24hr or 3 day suspensions. I am talking the 90 day suspension or a criminal conviction.

The ASD is calibrated to read WARN if your BAC is between .06 and .1

Anything over .1 will read as a FAIL

Bear in mind that the actual laws are .05 to .08 readings to be a WARN and anything over .08 to be a FAIL. Drunk driver's get a pretty huge buffer when it comes to the ASD.

I'm going to end my little essay with this: One or two drinks does not Impair someone from driving. Some people are delusional when they actually believe this statement, as in reality, it probably takes something along the lines of 5-10...depending on time frame, food consumption, etc etc. I'm sure a Police Officer who frequents these message boards can verify as they have had actual training on stuff like this.

Yup, there is still alcohol content... but I am answering to someone that says 0 alcohol.

But after blowing the fail, I believe they still take you back to the station for another test because they will be using that as evidence for a criminally impaired driving charge.

Not necessarily....as the officer does NOT have to complete criminal charges in BC. The officer can complete the "evening" by only giving the administrative sanctions...which is what will more than likely happen.....as the administrative "charges" carry MUCH less paper work, time and "hassle" than the criminal charge. The whole idea of these administrative sanctions is to cut down the man hours required, allow officers to maintain more hours on the road as opposed to being at the detachment....and, my biggest sore point.......an appeal process that gives the driver a MUCH less PROPER appeal process.!!!

I would really love to see the number of "criminal" impaired charges given out in the year before these new sanctions...compared to the year of the new sanctions. I'm thinking those numbers would be VERY telling........:moderatorban:

1) you only go back to the station if you are being charged criminally.

2) before, the driver had a right to the 2nd test, although it was not mandatory to inform them. I'm pretty sure all officers across BC were trained to offer the 2nd test as due diligence. Now they MUST inform them of their right to the 2nd test on a different ASD.

3) Before, if the 2nd test was done, that result prevailed, whether it was higher or lower. Now, the LOWER result prevails.

4) Before, officers had to complete a mini form with check boxes and short paragraphs to send to the OSMV in the event a driver contests the suspension. Now, a full written report and maintenance forms of each ASD's used must be all sent to the OSMV. Again, many officers were doing this anyways prior to the requirement.

5) Typically a driver would be charged criminally if there was an accident, or if the driver had an extensive history of impaired driving. The IRP is the "administrative" alternative which avoids criminal charges altogether.

6) To hire a lawyer for criminal impaired driving and driver over 80mg% charges, you're looking at paying at least 9-10k if it goes to trial (if you don't plead guilty). A 90-day "fail" IRP will typically cost you around $4500-$5000 in the end, however no criminal record!

7) The legal limits for BAC content have been the same since 1977 in BC - .05 under the MVA and .08 under the CCC (canada wide). This IRP legislation has NOT changed the amount of alcohol content that you are allowed in your blood. In fact, the "buffer" zones have actually grown.

8) The IRP legislation is awesome. :woot2:

The only thing I have with this, is that 1 beer affects people different. I am sure the majority of the popultation is okay driving after 1-2 beers, but what about that one person who can't? Maybe these harsher consequences took him off the road after a glass.

I know, for me its kinda biased since I don't really drink (and even if I have a beer I do feel tipsy), but this is one subject I rather 95% of the population (just throwing a number out) will be inconvenienced, than seeing more "drunk' drivers on the road.

I can understand what you are saying, but in the same sense then.....eating a burger while driving shouldn't be allowed also...as this will also "slightly impair" a driver's driving. There are many things that will "impair" the driving of someone....kids in the back seat...talking to the passengers....listening to your favorite song on the radio..being a little tired.....ANYTHING that takes your attention away from the road and driving.

In a perfect world....a driver does JUST that...drive....no distractions. But that will never happen........

And this makes the appeal process more fair? This didn't need to change...as the OSMV didn't "listen" to pertinent evidence from the driver anyway.......only from the officers....whether verbal, one line statement...or an essay.

This sounds REALLY good IF you are caught....legally impaired!! But.....this still just sugar coats the poor appeal process when dealing with the OSMV for those that are mistakenly charged, or errors occur during the process of the impaired investigation.

Well I guess we can put up with a poor appeal process to save dozens of lives per year in BC alone.

Yup....easy for you to say......but if or when YOU have to deal with this poor appeal process....we'll talk again! ;)

I'm not sure if we can accept the "statistics" that the provincial government gave us for a reduction of 40% in drunk driving deaths for the ONE year that the new IRP's came out.

First of all, they are taking one year of data and comparing it to the AVERAGE of the previous 5 years. Now...does that make sense? You know why they did that.....so the numbers work in their favor. 4 years ago there was a higher than average number of drunk driving deaths that DO help this "5" year comparison for the givernment. Did you know there was ONE less drunk driving death in BC the year BEFORE the new IRP's as compared to the year OF the IRP's? Whoa.....if the government was to compare one year of data to the previous year of data.....there would have been an INCREASE in the year of the IRP's!!!!


Take a gander at this......

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/p...report2009.pdf

If you go to page 38, you will see a set of statistics (accurate as per year) and notice that there was a steady decline of deaths in motor vehicle accidents caused by drugs and alcohol in a steady decline since 2007. A 15% decrease from 2007 to 2008, and a 25% decrease from 2008 to 2009. Oh, and NO IRP's!!!

You will also notice that the year 2005 had a real spike in the alcohol/drug related highway deaths. Now....makes you wonder why the government went back FIVE years to get their "average". I'm thinking they "cooked" the stats a bit........

Ever heard the saying....that statistics can be made to say anything? Keep that in mind when you get informational stats from the government.

Pretty freakin' easy to avoid altogether: DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. End of problem.

It's not like something that's easy to do "accidentally", like going 10-15k over the limit by not paying attention to your speed, or forgetting/neglecting to put on your seatbelt for a short trip.

There's no way you can get anywhere near the point of blowing even a WARN without knowing exactly what you're doing and how you got there - you have to make the conscious decision to take that first drink. And the second. And any more after that.

So, easy fix: don't have the first, and you'll never have to worry about it.