You'd be surprised what the status quo is.

I grew up in a small town where losing friends in high school to drinking and driving was common. Why? There were no cabs, no buses, and what else is there to do in a small town but drink? :)

When I moved into a city for university I was surprised at how unacceptable drinking and driving was. Sure, there are some who still drank and drove, yet most people seemed aware of the options to avoid drinking and driving.

Despite the complaints against Translink, I think Vancouver has some excellent choices to avoid drinking and driving, it is about the only time I use the bus.

Unfortunately, choosing a place to live requires many tough decisions. I grew up in Vancouver, and will continue to live in Vancouver in small older apartments, because I like living here (not the downtown core - Yaletown, West End, Coal Harbour, etc...). I have friends who live out in Surrey or Maple Ridge, because they like the large affordable houses - BUT they understand that if they work in Vancouver, they have a long commute. They understand that if they want to go drinking in Vancouver, they have to plan ahead. There are compromises both ways. If you decide to live further away from the city centre, you know exactly what you were getting yourself into.

Don't think that's quite it. I mean, we had it drilled into our heads pretty strongly in high school (25 years ago) about what a bad thing it was. A cop actually told us once, he'd prefer to see an unlicensed 15-year-old driving her drunk dad home, than to see Dad behind the wheel (granted, this was in the BC Interior, where most people lived far from the bars, there were maybe three cabs within a 50-mile radius, and no transit system whatsoever... and also where most kids could drive a standard by the age of 12).

No, it's always been a problem... but over the years, the penalties have consistently not been enough of a deterrent, other than maybe just temporarily. I mean, look when the 24-hour roadsides came in... I know some people for whom that WAS a deterrent... for the first few months, then they were back to their previous behavior.

I think it's just gotten to the point (and to be fair, helped along by some high-profile incidents recently) where lawmakers are tired of the ineffectiveness of half-assed measures.

A big part of the problem I see, based on some of the whining I've heard, is that so many people think they can ONLY go into downtown Vancouver to get their lush on.

Like really... I live in Pitt Meadows, there are at least three bars/pubs/drinking establishments within a 15 minute walk (or a 30-minute crawl) of my place. I'm two blocks from Roosters, FFS, if going out to drink is that important, I can be there in five minutes and watch all the tight-skirted little city girls do the topless bull-riding.

And if that's too far, there are two liquor stores within a 5-minute walk as well... for the price of cover and a couple of beers at Roosters, I can chill at home with PPV porn and a 26er of some really good vodka.

Why would I even WANT to make the *hour* drive downtown just to get loaded??

Cause thats where the cool kids play. ;)

Most of the cool kids are assholes anyway...

I agree 100 %. :thumbsup:

^
of course you do.
The more power you have, the more control the individual officer can have over society. And I thought the taser cops in the airport were bad. Now they're one step closer to absolute power.

Am I the only one who is scared by this?


Now here's the meat of the matter.
Soundy is pissed about sitting at home alone touching himself while the "cool" kids are out socializing.

The typical attitude of a have not is to take away from the have's. This is apparent here.

Society employs police officers to enforce the laws of society.
Society elects politicians to pass the laws of society.

There's always going to be right wing people who complain about infringement of rights/freedoms mistaking our Canadians laws for US laws from TV shows. The rest of society has accepted these new laws.

Ask around: parents, seniors, kids, ... and you'll find overwhelmingly people have no problem punishing drunk drivers. You might even notice a large percentage will think the punishment should be stricter.

Drunk drivers take the lives from their victims and families. That is all that matters.

There's a problem with people's rights being slowly erroded away. Folks such as yourself who blindly support the errosion of one's rights in the interest of the illusion of public safety are making it worse for everyone else who do follow the law and want their rights protected.

I suppose you want random breath testing, too.

Since when was drinking and driving a "right"?

And remember that driving in the first place is a "privilege" not a "right".

As a non drink-driver (or drinker for that matter) I feel that I should not be presumed guilty before innocent, pulled over randomly, subjected to the humiliation of being made to walk a line and blow into a tube and then being told to have a nice day.

Yes, you have a right to drive on a road free of drunks, as do I. But subjecting me to the unpleasantries of RBT will do nothing to make anything better for you.

And how many times has this happened to you so far?

I can remember one time, maybe 3 am, coming back from Whistler and running into a roadblock in West Van... I was dead tired, with half-closed eyes due to dried out contact lenses, but hadn't had anything to drink... I was asked to blow, and of course blew a green light... but I digress.

I hardly ever see cops anywhere... nevertheless pulling over innocent people and forcing them to submit to a battery of tests. There are many easy-to-catch people out there to attract an officer's attention.

This is the only right that matters.

An officer can confirm, yet random roadside stops to test for DUI are not done. Ride programs are, yet then everyone goes through the same check so there is nothing to humiliate you vs anyone else.

If you have no symptoms at all of impairment I can't see any point in subjecting you to a RSD test, certainly you would not also be given a SFST (field sobriety test= 'walk the line") as well. You start with the HGN test and then proceed to the "walk the line":....IF you detect HGN in your eyes.

If there is no odour of comsumption of liquor, no physical coordination symptoms, slurred speech, red eyes then you would not move to a SFST and a RSD test...all in an effort to find symptoms of impairment. From the Cop's viewpoint, If there is no reasonable suspicion that is backed up by symptoms, then you would be wasting everybody's time and leaving yourself open to discipline and complaints. Unless there are incredibly unusual circumstances involved, a Cop trained to use an ASD or give a SFST would be going completely against their training to do what you said above.

I am trained in both and it is easy to almost instantly tell if someone has consumed liquor...the only thing at stake then is IF the consumption has resulted in impairment...that is what the tests you described accomplish. No smell, no symptoms, no reasonable suspicion...no detention...and no utube...no point in going there.....but that is only my opinion based on thousands of interactions while searching for impaireds.

sebberry is referring to the new law that they have up on the table right now where we (the police) will be able to do random roadside testing, as is done in several other countries around the world.

Even if that law is passed, I don't see many police officers making much use of it. As it stands right now, in order to make an ASD Demand, we only need reasonable suspicion that the person has consumed alcohol. There are enough things that can make a police officer suspect that a driver has consumed alcohol and read the ASD Demand without needing this proposed new law.

Will police make use of the new law if its passed? I'm sure some will. Will it get more impaired drivers off the road? A few, I'm sure. Will I personally be making everyone I pull over provide a breath sample if the law comes into effect? Nope. I'll stick with using the same indicators that raise my suspicion that I do now.

*edit* zulu beat me to responding.

I was on holiday in Australia where they have the completely random testing laws...I was stopped twice and required to provide a sample. As I was riding a motorcycle with a full face helmet it would be difficult to see any symptoms of impairment. I removed my helmet and provided a sample and was on my way withing 5 minutes...as a non-drinker I knew that there would be no grounds/symptoms at all. It was a minor delay and I didn't feel singled out. Canada is one of the few places where drivers are not required to provide "groundless" samples as a condition of getting their DL.

Funny.. I was thinking the same about this thread... :rofl:

whats the drinking limit currently? or like a beer or something like that? I hear its even more strict now which is basically no alcohol in your system at all. Thanks

It always has been .05% for provincial legislation and .08 for criminal code laws. The limits have not changed, what has changed is that the penalty for failing the provincial legislation is being inforced with fines, a 3 day suspension instead of a 1 day suspension, and longer vehicle impounds instead of a 24 hour seizure.

I find it interesting how you as a peace officer singled out the word groundless. People will often do that to separate the meaning of the word from their own beliefs, leading me to think that you take the shoot-first, ask questions later sort of approach when it comes to people's rights against unjustifiable searches. You also didn't feel singled out when made to provide a breath sample even tho you had no other symptoms of intoxication. If I knew that the officer in the marked car behind me held those same beliefs, I'd be getting a little anxious, even with nothing to hide.

Just an observation, that is all.

I used that word, and so do all other Canadian Cops, because it describes a situation where no "visible grounds" are present...in other words, there were no symptoms of impairment...smell,speech,movements, denial of consumption where you could smell the booze...that sort of thing. You should be apologizing for your lack of knowledge that is... "leading me to think that you take the shoot-first, ask questions later sort of approach when it comes to people's rights against unjustifiable searches"..
It has nothing to do with what I posted. You need "grounds" to successfully pursue an impaired charge. In Canada the crown will not proceed with charges if your "grounds" are non-existant or even weak.

In those other countries the courts there do not require it. The end result is our impaired charges take about 10 hours to process, their take maybe 1/10th the time. I was not nervous as I knew I had nothing to fear...if you are not drinking, why would you? It would never fly in court if you were charged and no evidence was present. Trust me on this, the barrier is set SO high that any weakness in a case would be tossed within minutes of landing on crown's desk. I have had them toss some of mine done at a CA roadcheck because the driver didn't stagger and slobber enough, even after showing a fail on the ASD. A 110 reading was not high enough for them to go ahead.

I'm well aware that convictions can be thrown out if the processes aren't followed correctly. I also bet that many drivers don't know that they can refuse an officer's request to search their car, but it doesn't stop the officer from asking. I'm not trying to be a prick, but it's the nature of your business to ask questions people may not have to answer and gauge their nervous reactions.

I also know your stance on the new speed laws where operator and/or equipment error can result in someone's car being taken away. Another shoot first, ask questions later scenario.

If I have nothing to hide, what do you have to gain by searching me? I'm not driving around waiting to satisfy an officer's curiosity. I'd be nervous because I am naturally an anxious person. If you pulled me over, you'd probably think I am carrying a kilo of cocaine in the trunk.

As for random breath testing, I'm not ok with people thinking I was stopped for driving drunk. I don't even like to buy alcohol let alone drink it and drive, I'd be mortified if you had me out of the car at the side of the road blowing into a tube. Somehow you're ok with putting innocent people in that position and that's what scares me. Part of an officer's job is to secure the rights and freedoms of responsible, law-abiding people, not detain and humiliate them.

The erosion of rights continues.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the SCCs recent decision on having lawyers present during questioning of a suspect?

You don't even know the procedure, yet you're complaining. :facepalm:

You perform the test in the back of the cruiser, not on the side of the road. Thus it is not like people are going to drive by and point "OMG look at that loser".

Plus you'd have to show some signs of impairment for the officer to proceed with the test - so you might randomly get pulled over and if the officer notices any "grounds" for the test you'll be asked to provide a sample.

We already agree to be pulled over randomly when going through checkpoint - so what are you so afraid of?

PS: the "rights and freedoms" you quote don't always apply. Driving is a privilege, you have the right and freedom to not drive, yet if you want the privilege to drive it comes with certain restrictions.

Correction: The erosion of common sense continues.

zulutango has been very clear that no officer is going to randomly test you for zero signs (aka grounds) of impairment. It is a waste of the officer's time and opens the officer to complains and a discipline.

That would be common sense, the common sense that you lack.

"Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the SCCs recent decision on having lawyers present during questioning of a suspect?'

It may be a recent decision but it simply reinforces the status quo in Cdn law that has always existed. In a practical sense I don't see how having a lawyer present during questioning would "help" the justice system? You would have Olson and pickton walking free today and many other hardcore criminals too. Their confessions/statements were obtained during interrogation and to have to stop repeatedly and to not be permitted to ask questions based on the whim or a lawyer or criminal would obstruct the finding of the truth of the matter. Cops don't want someone they are questioning to lie to them, they want the truth. Most people also believe that the justice system wants the same thing.

The one main factor is that any lawyer who was present during the questioning has now become a hostile crown witness and subject to cross examination themselves. This effectively prevents them from defending their client in court as they must be excluded from court until their testimony is heard. It also affects the "weight" of their testimony. They would have to be there at every stage of the trial and this would quickly burn up their availability for any court proceedings. Then there comes the matter of when you would have the right to have them present...If you get stopped for a speeding ticket does that mean the Cops wait till your lawyer arrives to ask you questions? How about if the speeding stop finds that you are a prohibited driver...or that you are driving a stolen car, or how about if you are injured in a crash that you caused...do they hold the ambulance until the lawyer arrives as the Cop may want to ask you basic questions that may become contentious in court?

The existing law in Canada says that you have the right, upon arrest/detention to consult with legal council. When you do talk with them they invariably tell their clients to not say anything...the client has been instructed in the exercise of their Charter rights. It's up to them to decide to follow or ignore that advice. The presence of a lawyer during "questioning" will cause huge practical problems with no benifity to society and that is likely why the ruling was made as it was....and the defendants already have been told that they don't have to talk to the Police. If you read the decision you will see that this was basically their reasoning.