Police union says tough drunk-driving laws targetting the wrong drinkers

[Great68]

Yesterday there was an article in the Victoria paper that our impound lots are having trouble keeping up with the number of cars being impounded. A lot of people with beaters are just abandoning their cars at the impound lot... hahahaha

BC's drunk driving penalties have cars flooding impound lots


Even after buying more land, Cheryl Parker is having a tough time squeezing in all the cars impounded under B.C.'s new drinking-driving penalties.

She owns All-Ways Towing, which has the contract to store vehicles seized by the Victoria Police. Business is booming. Her lot is bursting — not necessarily because more drinking drivers are being caught, but because their cars are being held for three, seven, sometimes 30 days. "Basically, they're in for longer, so that means I need more room to hold on to them."

Of the approximately 200 cars in her expanded lot, 100 to 150 were there because of month-old rules that allow police to issue stiff roadside suspension to drivers who have been drinking. "Before the new rules, I probably would have had 75, max."

Other towing companies also say business is up, though not that dramatically. "We haven't seen a huge increase," said Mike Simmons of Totem Towing, which has the contract in Saanich.

Motorists who blow a "fail" on a roadside screening device — that is, over .10 — can lose their licences for 90 days and have their vehicles held for 30.

Drivers who blow a "warn," which used to draw only a 24-hour driving prohibition, now face licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments of three days for a first offence, seven for a second and 30 for a third. "I'm getting a lot of seven days," says Parker.

She's seeing nicer cars coming in, too, which increases the chance that the owners will claim them.

It seems car abandonment has been a big problem for impound lots. In fact, so many people have been walking away from their cars rather than pay the storage fee that the provincial government has reduced the time it locks away the cars of unlicensed and prohibited drivers.

In the past, people caught driving without a licence lost their cars for 30 or 60 days. Driving while prohibited meant impoundment of 60 to 90 days. Those penalties have been cut to seven, 30 and 60 days, the government responding to complaints from impound lots saddled with cars worth far less than the 90-day storage fee of $1,550.

"We just weren't having the desired behavioural impact," says Steve Martin, B.C.'s superintendent of motor vehicles. Some people deliberately buy junkers, treating them as the vehicular equivalent of disposable lighters. Parker has been stuck with four clunkers seized from one chronic Victoria offender. "She never comes back for them," Parker says.

Others tell a similar story. "It's a huge problem," says Tamara Mahy, office manager at Peninsula Towing, which hauls cars when called by the Sidney/North Saanich RCMP. Peninsula deals with a lot of "frequent fliers" in $200 junkers. "They just walk away."

"People think we want the vehicles," says Mahy. "No, we don't." It takes 90 days of red tape to get rid of a car that has been impounded for 30. Selling it for scrap doesn't cover the cost of dealing with it. So, yes, she's happy about the reduced impoundment time. "We're getting a lot more vehicles that are leaving."

Coming in the gates are cars seized from excessive speeders, another group targeted by impound rules. "We're getting quite a few of the seven-day impounds," Mahy says. One guy got nailed for doing 160 in a 50 km/h zone on West Saanich Road. His car went to jail for a week.

In fact, that actually works out to nine days. In B.C., drivers see their cars impounded for full calendar days, but also pay storage for the day they got busted and the day they spring their vehicles.

[Hondaracer]

Shit is turning into a police state


Posted via RS Mobile

[geeknerd]

I remember getting Fails for saying that a couple beer is fine and 0.05-0.08 law is bullshit.
hahaha wheres the people now that said "Finally 0.05, what a effective/good law"
Even the police disagree with you guys now.

[originalhypa]

Originally Posted by impulse777

This legislation circumvents 24 (1) handing out immediate fines and punishment without the opportunity for appeal or review

Well said Impulse.
And long time, no see buddy.



The truth is that for any of these laws to have teeth, they need to be enforced, and frankly, in today's tough economic climate in BC, they can't afford it. Anyone who thinks we can have more cops patrolling the streets has to ask themselves if they're willing to front those costs through fines and taxes. Nothing in life is free.....

That said, I agree 100% that this law targets the wrong people. Not only that, but it goes against our basic right to be innocent until proven guilty. Due process isn't perfect, but it's a fuck of a lot better than some pig on a power trip making the decisions.

[InvisibleSoul]

I don't remember exactly where it is from, but one supposed argument in favour of having the increased penalties was that last year, there was one driver involved in a fatal accident that was in the warn range. That's a terrible argument, and it should be obvious why by asking a single question: How many fatal accidents were there last year where the driver had zero alcohol in their system?

[drunkrussian]

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

I don't remember exactly where it is from, but one supposed argument in favour of having the increased penalties was that last year, there was one driver involved in a fatal accident that was in the warn range. That's a terrible argument, and it should be obvious why by asking a single question: How many fatal accidents were there last year where the driver had zero alcohol in their system?

Every country/state/province that has lowered its BAC for driving or enacted stricter punishments has seen a noticeable and desirable decrease in alcohol related accidents. Look it up, there's several European countries that have reduced their BAC level.

The police can scream all they want about wasted resources - these rules do more than they could ever accomplish - reducing alcohol related accidents.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by drunkrussian

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

This should be seriously looked at. Even in Ottawa I could catch a bus on the transitway (Ottawa's version of the Skytrain) after 2am. This would at least get me close enough to my house that a cab would be only $5-10.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Shit is turning into a police state


Posted via RS Mobile

that movie was epic lol


seen it 3 times

[punkwax]

I only play hockey now, not beer league hockey.

[jmvdesign]

Originally Posted by drunkrussian

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by jmvdesign

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

It's the same catch-22 with tolling bridges with the desire to make more people take transit.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by taylor192

This should be seriously looked at. Even in Ottawa I could catch a bus on the transitway (Ottawa's version of the Skytrain) after 2am. This would at least get me close enough to my house that a cab would be only $5-10.

We have nightbus service here too. The N9 takes me to within a 5-minute walk of my apartment and it runs until about 3:30 AM.

drunkrussian: There is a Richmond nightbus too that stops at the Canada Line stations. It's the N10 I believe.

I've never had a problem getting a fare out of downtown back to my place, but I've heard of rumblings about taxi drivers refusing to pick up fares to faraway places such as Surrey, the Tri-Cities, etc. I wonder if this is still true?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Tapioca

We have nightbus service here too. The N9 takes me to within a 5-minute walk of my apartment and it runs until about 3:30 AM.

Cool, I did not know about that!

[fliptuner]

Originally Posted by Great68

Yesterday there was an article in the Victoria paper that our impound lots are having trouble keeping up with the number of cars being impounded. A lot of people with beaters are just abandoning their cars at the impound lot... hahahaha

Impound auction time.

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Every country/state/province that has lowered its BAC for driving or enacted stricter punishments has seen a noticeable and desirable decrease in alcohol related accidents. Look it up, there's several European countries that have reduced their BAC level.

The police can scream all they want about wasted resources - these rules do more than they could ever accomplish - reducing alcohol related accidents.

But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.

[RRxtar]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.

lots of things that are reported are misleading. when an accident happens, if the passanger was drunk, the report always says "alcohol was a factor." nearly every accident where someone was speeding, regardless of whether it was 5 or 10km/h over the limit and the speed had nothing to do with the accident, the report always says "speed was a factor." just like how if theres a murder, more often than not, the report says "...... was known to police" even if his name was on file due to something completely unrelated. information can often be misleading.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.

I ignored your point cause the only point that matters is stricter rules and/or lower BAC has repeatedly shown noticeable decreases in alcohol related accidents.

I'm sure there's lots of people who blew a fail who thought they'd only blow a warn. The stricter rules make them think twice cause now the warn is strict as well.

[bloodmack]

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by bloodmack

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

0.5 and 0.8 BAC rules have been around for decades, they are not new. The stricter punishments are new.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by bloodmack

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

I'm sure ICBC could put out all of the scientific evidence they want (and they have cited evidence in their claims) - people will still be skeptical because of egos (i.e. thinking they're good enough to drive when they are really impaired.)

The bottom line is that it's very difficult politically to go back to the old rules. You can blame MADD all you want, but would any politician want to campaign against reducing the risk of drunk driving? There are always people who will get in front of a camera, write a blog, etc. and talk about how their relatives and friends have been killed by drunk drivers.

[StylinRed]

Originally Posted by impulse777

I suprised and concerned that everyone here are just takling about having a beer. I'm very worried about the precedence this has set.

This legislation circumvents 24 (1) handing out immediate fines and punishment without the opportunity for appeal or review

Law of the land.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

that would be a matter someone needs to bring to the courts (to decide if the law is wrong) in which case a Judge/Judges will decide if the cause is worthy enough (to get impaired drivers off the streets) and if the law imposes a Reasonable Limit on your Charter Rights

this is known as the Oakes Test and even if the law fails the Oakes Test and is headed to be stricken down the government can still impose Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding Clause) and make the law stick

the charter isn't set in stone in Canada when it comes to issues like this

Originally Posted by Mugen EvOlutioN

that movie was epic lol


seen it 3 times

i loved that movie too bad it bombed

they're doing a remake though with another actor and its supposed to be a lot darker and rated R

[InvisibleSoul]

Originally Posted by taylor192

I ignored your point cause the only point that matters is stricter rules and/or lower BAC has repeatedly shown noticeable decreases in alcohol related accidents.

But has it shown that overall accidents are lower?

[Obsideon]

Originally Posted by ziggyx

I read in an article awhile back that a restaurant owner claims the law was targeting the wrong people. The owner says the law has caused a lot of customers to think twice before having that glass of wine or beer with their meal now. However people who always get drunk and get behind the wheel will probably continue to do so regardless.

The new law definitely has stopped me from ordering that beer to go with my meal whenever I'm out eating that's for sure. Like optiblue said, I will have water or coke instead.

Originally Posted by drunkrussian

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

QFT;
I have customers now that usually have a drink or 2 with their meals now just ordering a glass of water... huge drop in sales

Example I have this regular group of 6 guys that usually comes in and gets a couple of those BIG BOY Asahi's (2L) to drink with their dinner but the last time they came they only got 2 bottles of small beer to share amongst 6 of them (!) ... so I went over to chat them up and it just so happens that they are from Surrey and were scared of the new driving law. Apparently a taxi ride from their place to downtown runs about $60+ and that would be for TWO cabs since there are 6 of them! ... they mentioned that they would prefer to Skytrain if they COULD but Ebisu closes at 1am and the Skytrain stops at 1:08am. So essentially they have to run like the wind down to Burrard station or decide to leave much earlier, but who goes out to party, have fun and drink it up only to then have to be home by midnight on a weekend? This ain't Cinderalla story nor are they 15 years old with curfews so ... basically wtf kind of logic is that??... don't most, if not all nightclubs close past 2am?
If they were going to enforce these laws at least provide an alternative mode of transportation that doesn't cost a full tank of gas each time they want to head out for a drink ...

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by InvisibleSoul

But has it shown that overall accidents are lower?

I see where you're going, yet it has no merit worth pursuing.

If less people are driving drunk, then more people are driving sober. So if more people are driving sober, are accidents up?

This argument is not worth pursuing cause statistically a higher probability of accidents accompanies alcohol consumption. Thus even if there are more sober drivers, they are statistically less likely to have an accident than the drunk drivers they are replacing.

I understand why you're twisting, cause red light cameras and cell phone bans actually cause the # of accidents to increase, yet the twist is not valid for this instance.