Quote:
Originally Posted by yvrnycracer
(Post 6083146)
I totally agree with you!
On any night out the car stays home... it is not worth risking my life, the lives of others and my car, even the thought of having it on a tow truck and sitting in an impound makes me sick...
I am more interested in the inconsistencies between canadian law and those that govern our province. I am curious why in BC you will get a driving prohibition when the government of canada says it is okay... the same can be said for tint, front license plates and any other law that is NOT consistent across the country. This is why I question these things and I am grateful to have a forum where those who enforce the laws can have an open discussion about them and maybe offer knoledge that cannot be found any other way than questioning those who may know more or be educated through personal experience or other as to why things are the way they are... simple :thumbsup:
|
Good to know the car stays at home on the nights out, I respect that.
As far as the inconsistencies, I don't believe the impaired driving is an inconsistency, instead more of a varying degree of punishment. Research has shown (I will find a source later if somebody really wants it, I don't have it on my computer it was just taught to me by somebody with a masters in science on my Datamaster course) that ALL persons are impaired by alcohol at a blood alcohol content of 100mg%, which as luck would have it is where the "FAIL" sets in on the ASD. So basically that means that every single person no matter what their gender, race, size, body composition, alcohol tolerance, what they have eaten, etc will be impaired at a blood alcohol content of 100mg%. So basically at time of driving when you blow a "FAIL", you are impaired. That means that every person that gets criminal charges and a 3 month driving suspension is without a doubt impaired by alcohol.
On the other hand, you have section 215 under the BC Motor Vehicle Act. A persons ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol at 50mg%. Notice the difference in wording, where at 100mg% (criminal charges and 3 month driving suspension) you are "impaired" by alcohol and at 50mg% (24 hour suspension) your "ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected" by alcohol. It is serious life affecting consequences when a person is impaired. It is a 24 hour suspension (no fine, usually just a tow bill) and a black mark on your driving record if you are driving while your ability is affected by alcohol. The impaired person is receiving a strict punishment for their actions whereas the person who has just had a few too many is having their license taken away for public safety concerns. I say good on the BC government for taking a tough stance on impaired driving.
As for the other stuff you mentioned, I don't feel as strongly about personally but I will throw in my 2 cents. Tinted windows, yes it looks much better without a doubt. I have my rear windows tinted legally for the look and to hide what is inside of my car. The one problem I do have with my tinted windows is on a dark and rainy night I can hardly see out the back of my car. Now if I had this on the front side windows, it would be hard to see out of them too. This would make it difficult to see my mirrors, traffic beside me, and traffic coming from side streets. I know a really light tint may not do this, but I think for the politicians it is difficult to draw a line as to what is okay and what is not, so they just make it illegal just to cover themselves. From my stand point as a police officer, when I approach a vehicle I have stopped, I like to see what is inside. There isn't many feelings worse than approaching a car with all the windows rolled up and tinted, I have no idea what is behind that window and they can see me clearly. Why this is not consistent across Canada, I can honestly say I have no idea.
Front license plates, I will admit I find them ugly too. In my opinion, the main purpose of the front plate is simply to make the car more identifiable. A situational example is say you are sitting there in your car and another vehicle runs into you head on. The vehicle that just hit you has no front plate on, slams it into reverse, peels out backwards and takes off. You never saw the back of the vehicle so you have no idea who hit you. That is $300 out of your pocket for the deductible. Change the situation a little, car that hits you still takes off, but has a front plate on it. You write down the plate number, call ICBC, and that person will be paying your deductible. Again, why it is not consistent across Canada I don't have a clue. I don't know if the reasons I just listed are why those things are laws, just my opinion on why they may be laws.
