The only sheep are those who read the police article without understanding what it is saying. Instead of attacks, respond to this:

Statistically these stricter rules reduce alcohol related accidents. Thus the police union president is technically correct that they are targeting the wrong people - yet he completely ignores that these measures do more to prevent alcohol related accidents than targeting the right people.

They have been handing out 24hr suspensions for decades yet are only criticizing now that it has been increased to 3 days. If they meant this they would have challenged the original law - instead this is just political pandering.

Moreso, anyone on this forum who has gotten a VI and been towed knows they have no problem being judge and jury. Thus this media statement is just a bunch of hypocritical BS.

Why does he care? Oh ya, which union has their hands out for the biggest increase every budget? Remember, this comes from the police union president NOT THE POLICE CHIEF. Conflict of interest? Absolutely.

Considering the 10K excessive speeding tickets handed out are 1.5% of the 650K tickets handed out yearly, I'd say the claim of stretching resources thin is a flat out lie. Plus both VPD and the RCMP just had a hiring spree for the Olympics and are very well staffed. Oh and the RCMP agree:
I wonder why VPD are so against it, considering VPD only patrols 0.5M of the 4.5M people in BC... oh ya it is the union complaining about wanting more money.

So waiting for a to truck is not new... wow. More pandering.

The only part of the article that matters. Statistically it does, so the police will be happy and the rest of the article is moot.
What is interesting is the police union did not address this at all. They just want more staff and money - not safer roads.

Now you're informed and hopefully nolonger a sheep. RS is better with the correct information, not a bunch of whining that will do absolutely NOTHING to change the law. If you just want to whine and cry, go ahead.

This = FUCKING GOOF

Oh Taylor, here we go again. Thanks for the fail, as is your usual defence. I'm sure your candy-ass reported me to moderators as well. You're like a rich kid that runs to daddy everytime something doesn't go his way.

LOL first you fail me then cry when it happens to you. Hypocrite much? Did you're mother teach you about do onto others as you'd want done onto you? Perhaps not.

You wanna talk about hypocrisy? How about the fact that you think the VPD press release is some conspiracy about getting more money for the union and yet you take the RCMP statements regarding the new legislation as gospel! The RCMP is never wrong!

As originalhypa said, you're just an argumentative asshole.

Yes cause questioning what the police UNION tells me makes me a sheep. :rolleyes:

Thanks for cutting my point off to try and make yours. I'll take the word of the police CHIEF not the police UNION PRESIDENT.

Then you ignore the RCMP in favour of the VPD. Both have atrocious misuses of police power, yet for someone reason you're biases towards the UNION not the actual police force representing most of BC.

Incorrect. You're in violation of the MVA for BAC of 0.05 to 0.08 and the MVA defines the punishments.

Statistics > common sense. Statistically these stricter punishments decrease alcohol related accidents. You and the VPD union have ignored this. Try to debate that - oh wait you cannot thus why you try to squirm around it.

Wanna whine and cry some more?

Get your head out of your ass. The measures statistically reduce alcohol related accidents. /end argument.

That's insignificant. These laws do MORE than any other policing initiative to reduce alcohol related deaths. Thus they may feel like they are wasting time and resources, yet it is statistically doing more than any other policing initiative they could legally be doing.

There are lots of FACTS online if you wish to find them that support this, instead of your common sense which is actually INCORRECT.


I have repeatedly stated that these stricter punishments decrease alcohol related accidents. Until you disprove this, you're the one dancing while ignoring the point of these new laws - increased public safety.

You have not presented one single fact, only common sense which is statistically incorrect. Keep whining and crying. :thumbsup:

PS, even your friends at BCSillyBikes don't care about these new laws, so you're in the minority even amongst those who should support you: http://bcsportbikes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126755

Did you just link me to a poll about the laws regarding going 40+ and being impounded when we're arguing about the drinking and driving legislation? Did you just try to belittle my arguments by deflecting my stance to something COMPLETELY unrelated? You're SMRT, and you wonder why noone takes you seriously :rofl:

originalhypa lost all credibility when he cold not provide a single property in Vancouver he could buy and rent out for a profit, and he is correct to call me an argumentative asshole cause I called him out and he couldn't back up his words.

Lets get this correct: THIS IS NOT A VPD PRESS RELEASE. This is a press release from the VPD UNION who are more concerned about their officers times, money and benefits than the safety of the citizens of BC.

Now instead of just calling me an argumentative asshole you have a challenge just like I gave originalhypa: prove that these measures will not statistically decrease alcohol related accidents. If you do so, you'll shut me up. If you cannot, then you concede I am an argumentative asshole for a very valid reason - to stop people from spreading incorrect material.

Games on dude, good luck. :thumbsup:

Unlucky for you I am smart.

It is all part of the same law: Bill 14. I assume that a waste of resources to wait for towing is equal, whether it is for .05 BAC or 40km+.

Unless of course it is not a waste of resources to wait as the RCMP stated.

There are many things they can do to increase driver safety by some margin, would you be cool with all new cars being governed at 120km/h so we don't have assholes going 160 down the highway? Point being if you are so concerned with safety then anything "reasonable" that can be done to statistically save lives should be implemented right
Posted via RS Mobile

I've got better things to do than continue to argue with your dumbass on the the internet. The point is you're MISSING THE POINT of the article the OP posted. The new legislation will reduce the number of alcohol related accidents YES in the same way that implementing martial law in a city will kill the crime rate if noone's allowed out of their house after 7pm. The point is it's overkill and a blanket punishment on those who have done nothing wrong in order to catch the small number of truly bad drivers that deserve to have their vehicles impounded. It's a waste of police resources to enforce this kind of law just like it's a waste of the military's time to post troops in a city that isn't completely out of control.

That you fail to realize this on your own, and not because anyone else has said so, and think the Union Presidents remarks are some conspiracy to get more funding is unbelievable.

One thing that is annoying me about this thread;

All you people crying about not being able to a have 'a drink or two with dinner' are fucking jokes. First of all, this law doesn't affect you one bit. One or two drinks with dinner is called responsible drinking, and will keep you well below the limit under normal circumstances. Sure two shots of 151 on an empty stomach 5 seconds before you get behind the wheel might not, but that's not what we're talking about is it.

To be honest, the goal of this law change was to get people to drink less, and be more aware of their consumption. Actually all of the bitching in the thread is evidence in itself that the new laws are having the desired effect.

The real reason people are upset is because those 1 or 2 occasionally lead to a few more. With the seemingly more strict regulations, we are in dangerous >.05 territory after a few more.

Personally, I am not really worried about a .06 driver on the road around me. I am more concerned about an 80 year old pre-cataract op fogey in a Buick.

If MADD took their heads out of their asses they would realize what actually has happened is that drinking and driving has basically become decriminalized. No record, no day in court, just some money and missed driving time. Apparently its no longer criminal to be drunk behind the wheel.

The fact is, there is a huge range of drivers on the road. There are great drivers, and horrible ones. Some people likely drive better and safer at almost twice the limit than others who haven't drank a thing. Problem is, how do you enforce it all fairly? Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with the changes, find me one person you know who is more comfortable with drinking and driving under the new changes.

Also, just because the most heinous and shocking drinking/driving accidents are reportedly committed by people who are many times over the limit, doesn't mean the middle aged couple who go out and have a bottle of wine, and some nightcaps aren't involved in accidents that could have possibly been avoided. Hell, unless the people reek of alcohol, or it's open in the car, cops often overlook this unknowingly. I know many people who have been in accidents, but were poised enough not to get nailed for being drunk.

It's only a matter of time until we get to 0.0 BAC. Something like a drunk politician mowing down a group of little girls on the side of the road. I believe it was something similar which led to the 0.0 BAC law in Japan.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to have a few drinks still. Say you have had nothing, and make sure your not exhibiting any slap in the face obvious signs of intoxication. Don't believe me, drive through a roadblock sober, see how many times they make you blow.

If you're truly worried about getting busted, you ARE drinking too much. I've been there more times than I'd care to remember.

Is there a point in even advocating a law you do not follow then? A couple drinks with dinner and you may even be one of those statistics that you speak so highly of.
Posted via RS Mobile

Ya no kidding. It's not all about justice in this world.
This guy sits behind a computer, writes large paragraphs of how fucking the LAW LAW blah blah.
Taylor msg me if you want to get got ass beat and I'll show you THE LAW.


Posted via RS Mobile

I couldn't have said it better myself.

No one drinks 1-2 beers after a day at the office. Many people I know hammer down 4-5 pints in an hour. That's why people are complaining - because they can't do this anymore without it costing an arm and a leg.

I am of a normal weight for my height/age, have a pretty good tolerance, but according to online blood alcohol calculators, 1 pint of beer per hour is over the limit just barely. In other provinces however, according to the same calculator, 1 pint of beer per hour would be under the limit.

Couple of drinks + 1-2 hour dinner = over limit in bc, under limit in other provinces. THAT is what i am complaining about.

Regarding your point of people have more than a few drinks though, i do agree. But those people shouldn't be complaining or driving. However, to disallow a pint in an hour is RIDICULOUS.

Which calculator are you using?

Using the CAA one here http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/blood-alcohol-calculator

If you weighed 88lbs you would still be under the limit at a pint per hour

So unless your an 11/12 year old elementary school student you're not average height/weight, or your doing something wrong.

On the other hand, if you weigh about 180lbs, you will be right at the .05 if you're drinking at a rate of three bottles of beer/hr.

So two bottles per hour is well in the safety zone. Also confirmed on this site http://www.bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

PS. Keep in mind two pints is almost equivalent to three bottles

woops ur right...when i calculate it, i can have 1 pint, but if i have 2 pints per hour, my level is just over 0.05, making it technically illegal. So i think taht's what i remembered.

So i guess i still can't have 2 pints, but if i have 2 in an hour and...10 minutes, i can...so not as ridiculous as i thought lol

Talking about BAC calculators and stuff is alright in theory. However, in reality, you have to blow into the road side breathalyser when you get pulled over by the popo. Since it is not 100% accurate, the fucken thing could blow a warning regardless if you had only 1 beer per hour etc... So with this new law, you are now out of a license for 3 months and your car gets impounded because automatic roadside suspension.

because people should really be driving after hammering down 4-5 pints an hour......... :rolleyes:

You're stating this as a problem? What about the value of human life?

What is the revenue made from drunk drivers and what is the cost paid out in alcohol-related accident claims? I'm not an actuary, but I can guess which figure is higher.

Lol, look on the bright side, ur retirement savings will go up because u'r spending less on alcohol. And ur liver will thank u for it too.

why the fuck i still cant thank you
:bullshit:

Dunno, have to ask SkinnyPupp or another admin.

Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument.

Well of course not, but I'm sure that it happens (or happened) a lot more than people liked to admit because the consequences weren't as drastic had they gotten caught. I have friends who did this regularly and of course, some were DUI'ed, but they didn't get their cars towed.

Until someone on this board actually gets caught at over 0.05 and can honestly say that he had 1-2 drinks (beers and not single malt scotch) in an hour, then all of this talk about the laws being draconian is overblown.