| Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events The off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum. |
 | | 
10-25-2010, 08:53 PM
|
#126 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 680
Thanked 220 Times in 95 Posts
Failed 205 Times in 73 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像  Dunno, have to ask SkinnyPupp or another admin.
Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument. | nah, hes probably busy posting the same shit he posts here on the 20 other forums hes subscribed to
| 
|  | |
10-25-2010, 09:43 PM
|
#127 | | Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Victoria
Posts: 10,847
Thanked 5,463 Times in 2,010 Posts
Failed 188 Times in 103 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像 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. | Thanks.
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2
2014 F150 5.0L XTR 4x4
A vehicle for all occasions
| |
| | |
10-25-2010, 10:43 PM
|
#128 | | The Lone Wanderator
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,091
Thanked 4,385 Times in 1,138 Posts
Failed 192 Times in 75 Posts
|
One thing I'd like to point out: A Police Union is there to voice not just the "union agenda", but also what the union members feel. The Department puts out press releases that its own media department first creates and then vets; if the chief releases anything you can bet that it's probably gone through a few hands first.
| |
| | |
10-30-2010, 08:34 PM
|
#129 | | Even when im right, revscene.net is still right!
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,394
Thanked 266 Times in 91 Posts
Failed 74 Times in 19 Posts
|
I think this is a good read. It states that quite a bit of breathalyzers have about .005 margin of error. Sorry if it's repost Quote:
Loads of error for drinking-driving penalties
Machine readings can make difference
BY ETHAN BARON, THE PROVINCE OCTOBER 29, 2010 COMMENTS (53)
STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )
Province columnist Ethan Baron
Photograph by: File photo, The Province
The provincial government is imposing drinking-driving fines, licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments without regard for margins of error in breath-test devices, making it possible for drivers under legal limits to be punished for impaired driving.
The portable breathalyzers police carry in their vehicles have a margin of error of five milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or .005 of blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), according to the B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and solicitor-general.
When these devices detect a BAC between .05 and .08, they read "warn," which subjects the driver, on a first offence, to an immediate three-day licence suspension, a three-day vehicle impoundment plus towing and impoundment fees, a $200 fine and a $250-licence-reinstatement fee.
B.C. RCMP Traffic Services spokesman Cpl. Jamie Chung admitted that because of the margin of error, a person below the legal .05 limit -- at .046 for example -- could produce a "warn" reading and have their licence immediately suspended, their vehicle seized, and the fines and fees imposed.
A driver at the high end of the "warn" range -- at .076 for example -- could produce a "fail" reading and receive the much higher penalties of a 90-day licence suspension and 30-day vehicle impoundment. Total costs of a "fail" reading are about $4,000, according to the B.C. Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (OSMV).
Chung pointed out that a driver who is above the .05 limit could produce a reading in the "pass" range or a driver actually over .08 could produce a "warn" reading.
Ministry of Public Safety and solicitor-general spokesman Ian Indridson said the error margin of the roadside devices is not factored in when penalties are imposed because the devices are tested every 28 days and recalibrated if necessary.
Chung, who recalibrates the devices, said they are "usually" not off by more than 1 mg, or .001 BAC.
Breathalyzers at B.C. RCMP detachments have a wider margin of error of 10 mg or .01, Chung said. But when it comes to criminal impaired driving, B.C. RCMP don't recommend charges unless the detachment breathalyzer reads .1 or higher, he said.
Vancouver police did not provide requested information on their charge threshold, but Vancouver lawyer Reza Mansoori-Dara said, in his experience, they follow a similar policy to RCMP.
However, the non-criminal "administrative" penalties of fines, suspensions and vehicle seizures are based solely on the roadside device reading, whether the driver is sanctioned for being over .05 or receives more severe penalties for being over .08, Indridson said.
Drivers given administrative penalties who appeal to the OSMV may get an unfair hearing from the adjudicator, Mansoori-Dara said.
"[Some adjudicators] don't understand the evidence, and yet they go ahead and uphold these prohibitions," Mansoori-Dara said.
On Monday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge overturned the licence suspension of a man who failed a roadside breathalyzer test in Fort Nelson, on the basis that the OSMV adjudicator improperly interpreted breathalyzer-related evidence.
Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Load...#ixzz13u5Zs0RJ | | |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:10 AM
|
#130 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
|
It has already been posted in the Police section that the police use 0.050 to 0.099 for the "warn" range": http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...22&postcount=6
Thus there is very little likelihood you'll blow a 0.076 and be out by 0.005 to blow a 0.081 as the article states. Notice how the article even has a statement from Chung that 0.010 is used, yet still provides the ridiculous example.
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:12 AM
|
#131 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by PMCR 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. | JD13, these are the type of people who agree with your opinion. Thankfully I don't have these types of supporters.
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:15 AM
|
#132 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像 Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument. | I issued a challenge: Quote: |
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.
| You failed to accept this challenge, thus I have nothing left to prove. Your inability to prove me wrong speaks for itself. Keep posting your "opinion" to continue proving yourself wrong - I'll stick to the facts and continue to be correct.
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:19 AM
|
#133 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S One thing I'd like to point out: A Police Union is there to voice not just the "union agenda", but also what the union members feel. | I subscribe to facts and figures when making law, not feelings.
I have many friends as officers in various levels of policing - despite my support for the police, I would not want some some of their feelings becoming law.
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:38 AM
|
#134 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像 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. | Some facts, not opinion: Quote:
Drinking and driving continues to take a deadly toll on our roads. In an average year:
- Police attend approximately 4 ,800 motor vehicle
crashes where alcohol is involved
- 2,900 people are injured *
- 115 people die — more than one-quarter of all
motor vehicle fatalities.
| Compared to: Quote: |
Police reported 88 homicides in 2007
| Thus more people are killed by alcohol related crashes that by homicides in BC, and those alcohol related crashes represent 25% of all crashes leading to death.
Thus assigning resources to wait for tow trucks rather than expensive and lengthy homicide investigations might be a better use of police resources since more people are killed in BC by drinking and driving.
Yet for some reason the VPD union didn't hit on this, or any other fact related to decreasing the number of alcohol related injuries or fatalities... yet did mention money and staffing a couple times... I wonder if they have a hidden agenda... or if you'll be smart enough to see it.
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 11:04 AM
|
#135 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Noitacol
Posts: 3,843
Thanked 644 Times in 231 Posts
Failed 153 Times in 41 Posts
| | |
| | |
10-31-2010, 03:23 PM
|
#136 | | The Lone Wanderator
Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,091
Thanked 4,385 Times in 1,138 Posts
Failed 192 Times in 75 Posts
|
I wonder how people would feel about the installation of mandatory alcohol interlock devices equipped on cars. This would eliminate the need for as heavy police enforcement, and would accomplish an even greater disruption of drinking and driving.
And in the end, wouldn't it be nearly as cost effective?
| |
| | |
10-31-2010, 09:28 PM
|
#137 | | I Wanna Go Fast!
Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nomadic
Posts: 5,935
Thanked 2,448 Times in 608 Posts
Failed 367 Times in 102 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192 Some facts, not opinion:
Compared to:
Thus more people are killed by alcohol related crashes that by homicides in BC, and those alcohol related crashes represent 25% of all crashes leading to death. | LOLOLOLOL  Good comparison bud. If everyone that had a drivers license had a gun to shoot off everyday I wonder what the stats would look like then? Keep trying to justify your position with completely unrelated arguments, it really is a good laugh  | |
| | |
11-01-2010, 03:49 PM
|
#138 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,074
Thanked 187 Times in 74 Posts
Failed 97 Times in 34 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像 LOLOLOLOL Good comparison bud. If everyone that had a drivers license had a gun to shoot off everyday I wonder what the stats would look like then? Keep trying to justify your position with completely unrelated arguments, it really is a good laugh | Lol logic really evades you eh
__________________
Surf, Party, Sleep.
| |
| | |
11-01-2010, 04:05 PM
|
#139 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,688
Thanked 10,397 Times in 3,920 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael Lol logic really evades you eh | he's a roid monkey that loves to speed and drink&drive on his motorcycle logic isn't part of his repertoire
| |
| | |
11-01-2010, 05:02 PM
|
#140 | | I Wanna Go Fast!
Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nomadic
Posts: 5,935
Thanked 2,448 Times in 608 Posts
Failed 367 Times in 102 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by StylinRed he's a roid monkey that loves to speed and drink&drive on his motorcycle logic isn't part of his repertoire | | |
| | |
11-02-2010, 09:48 AM
|
#141 | | RS Veteran Mod
Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: online
Posts: 19,749
Thanked 3,993 Times in 1,374 Posts
Failed 187 Times in 91 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192 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. | I supplement my income very nicely by renting out my properties. That's where my credibility comes in.
What about you? When are you going to put your money where your mouth is?
If you as smart as you think you are, you would pull your head out of your ass and act on all that knowledge you think you have, instead of wasting your life fighting with random people on the internet. Face it, you're a nobody, driving an old wannabe baller ride with fake wheels, wasting literally hours online trying to push your ideas on others. You're the true definition of a troll. Like a Marco911, but without a single ounce of success to back your claims.
You make me want to log out.
| |
| | |
11-02-2010, 12:01 PM
|
#142 | | I Wanna Go Fast!
Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nomadic
Posts: 5,935
Thanked 2,448 Times in 608 Posts
Failed 367 Times in 102 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael Lol logic really evades you eh | It was a joke, I was just pulling a Chris Taylor  | |
| | |
11-02-2010, 12:19 PM
|
#143 | | I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,688
Thanked 10,397 Times in 3,920 Posts
Failed 1,390 Times in 625 Posts
|
ROFL AT THE GOOGLE AD  Quote:
Originally Posted by JD像 |  | |
| | |
11-02-2010, 11:49 PM
|
#144 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by originalhypa I supplement my income very nicely by renting out my properties. That's where my credibility comes in.
What about you? When are you going to put your money where your mouth is? | I did, I sold my property and invested the profits.
You instead continued to give the members here advice to buy properties and rent them out, despite not being able to produce a single cash flow positive property in Vancouver when asked. That's where credibility is earned. The LottoMax winner isn't any more credible than you are, just as lucky.
If you were as smart as you claim, you'd sell your rental properties. A $500K condo fully paid off rented for $2500/mn only generates a cash flow of $24K/yr, or 4.8% return that is income and taxed accordingly. If you have a mortgage, the return is even less- and you're holding leveraged assets with reasonably risky potential to decrease in value over the next 5-10 years.
Instead the equity could be invested in guaranteed Canadian dividend producing investments, making you 6% with would be very tax advantaged with no potential loss of asset value. You could then buy back into real estate when prices boom again, since you accurately predicted the latest boom. Quote:
Originally Posted by originalhypa If you as smart as you think you are, you would pull your head out of your ass and act on all that knowledge you think you have, instead of wasting your life fighting with random people on the internet. Face it, you're a nobody, driving an old wannabe baller ride with fake wheels, wasting literally hours online trying to push your ideas on others. You're the true definition of a troll. Like a Marco911, but without a single ounce of success to back your claims.
You make me want to log out. | Who's to say I cannot do both?
I have a 6 figure investment, RRSP account, and salary at 31yo. Enough to afford me the same luxury you enjoy: wasting time posting online, you didn't get to ~17K posts without wasting some time online  Sure, I don't have the riches you have, yet I'm not a glorified lottery winner giving bad advice to others that will only serve to lose them money in the current market - we cannot go back in time to reproduce your lucky decision - and it is obviously luck as no-one who knows rental properties would advise anyone to buy one in the current Vancouver market - yet you did, and stubbornly stood behind it even when challenged.
The definition of a troll is someone who posts nothing of use. I'd call you a troll, yet you're worse than that. Your advise could actually cause harm if some member buys a rental property in today's market thinking they could repeat your luck.
Please log out, people do not need to be fooled to follow your bad advice based on lucky decisions.
You should thank me for having my car, otherwise you'd have nothing to make fun of.
Last edited by taylor192; 11-03-2010 at 11:05 AM.
| |
| | |
11-02-2010, 11:55 PM
|
#145 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by m!chael Lol logic really evades you eh | Pretty much everything goes over his head. Quote: |
Originally Posted by JD13 lIt was a joke, I was just pulling a Chris Taylor | You'd have to have done your research and backed up your opinion with facts to do that.
| |
| | |
11-03-2010, 12:17 AM
|
#146 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by adambomb Damn Taylor192, Judging by the times of your posts. you just spent another 28 mins of your life arguing on the internet. Not to mention the hours of research you do so it looks like you have a credible position. | Judging by your posts you wasted 10 mins surfing RS making useless posts with no credible position At least I spent some time learning 
In all seriousness, I'm an information junkie. This why I read/post on so many different forums and blogs.
| |
| | |
11-03-2010, 10:40 AM
|
#147 | | I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Noitacol
Posts: 3,843
Thanked 644 Times in 231 Posts
Failed 153 Times in 41 Posts
|
And the cat came back, the very next day, and the cat came back, thought he was a goner... 
Man, its one thing to be opinionated and passionate about your topic. But when you start linking posts by RS members from other forums, which are about comepletely unrelated topics, Then you look like a creepy douche bag who spends their time googlin' someones username in a effort to discredit them.
That's childish man. You say you're 31 and successful. Then why are you posting like an immature 14 dolla baller?  | |
| | |
11-03-2010, 10:58 AM
|
#148 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by adambomb Man, its one thing to be opinionated and passionate about your topic. But when you start linking posts by RS members from other forums, which are about comepletely unrelated topics, Then you look like a creepy douche bag who spends their time googlin' someones username in a effort to discredit them.
That's childish man. You say you're 31 and successful. Then why are you posting like an immature 14 dolla baller? | You might want to review some history before you point the finger in the wrong direction.
Read this thread from beginning to end, you'll find the first insulting post here: http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...8&postcount=73
and the next here: http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...&postcount=100
There are your immature members who cannot have an educated discussion without bringing in unrelated insults. If you find a post of mine that is insulting or unrelated prior to those posts, please link it.
Since you may be unaware, JD13 previously called me out for being banned on the forum BCSB. I don't know his username on BCSB, he knew mine. Otherwise I wouldn't have known to provide a link to BCSB. I don't think he is stalking me anymore than I am stalking him, I just use a common name and we surf the same forums.
| |
| | |
11-03-2010, 11:17 AM
|
#149 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: W.R.
Posts: 3,385
Thanked 2,101 Times in 351 Posts
Failed 29 Times in 18 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192 There are your immature members who cannot have an educated discussion without bringing in unrelated insults. If you find a post of mine that is insulting or unrelated prior to those posts, please link it. | I found this comment both immature and unnecessarily insulting: Quote:
Originally Posted by taylor192 It is not hate, it is stupidity. Look at the people responding against this new law, they cannot even put together a sentence properly, nevermind construct a valid argument. | http://www.revscene.net/forums/showp...&postcount=113
You come across as a well-educated person, however, the hostility is totally unnecessary. When challenged, you become condescending and combative. It really brings the forum down having to read an insult match between two people in an otherwise informative thread. And lately, the commonality I see in those threads is that it's taylor192 vs _________ .
Your opinions are often unpopular. That's fine. However, you come across with your "too bad so sad" tone and then try to justify it by riding what you believe to be the facts. And with those facts, you turn into a total dick towards anyone that tries to offer a differing viewpoint, as evidenced above. If someone doesn't buy your facts, they are either incapable of basic comprehension, can't formulate sentences or otherwise.
Truthfully, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I welcomed your initial return to this forum. However, at this point, I'm not sure why you have been kept around. Either your tone has to change or the staff on this site should remove you for betterment of this forum.
Kev
| |
| | |
11-03-2010, 12:44 PM
|
#150 | | Banned (ABWS)
Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Kits/Richmond
Posts: 4,409
Thanked 1,105 Times in 540 Posts
Failed 555 Times in 222 Posts
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach I found this comment both immature and unnecessarily insulting: | I will agree that comment was condescending - if you'll agree it is far from the first immature and unnecessarily insulting post in that thread (not to be mistaken for this thread), and that my post is not the first of the unnecessary posts. Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach You come across as a well-educated person, however, the hostility is totally unnecessary. When challenged, you become condescending and combative. | Read this thread from the beginning. With the exception of one "drama queen" post I have responded to every challenge with facts and opinion, leaving the condescending and combative attitude for the most part out.
What I am guilty of is not ignoring the few members who consistently engage me in negative behaviour. The moderators have asked me to, and I try to, yet if someone openly insults you, and also taunts you about not being able to do anything about it - what would you do? Yes I should be better than that, and so should they. So why does the finger get pointed at my rather than them? as you point out: Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach Your opinions are often unpopular. | Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach Truthfully, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I welcomed your initial return to this forum. However, at this point, I'm not sure why you have been kept around. Either your tone has to change or the staff on this site should remove you for betterment of this forum. | The staff have asked me to keep my tone down, and if you review this thread I have except when engaged first by a few members. If you review my posts in every other section except AC/OT you'll find none of the same issues.
Thus the commonality is not "taylor vs all of RS". It is "taylor vs a few select members", yet those select members are given more leeway to post unnecessary material cause they share the popular opinion.
| |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:10 PM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
