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

B.C.’s harsh new drunk-driving laws are stretching police resources, says the Vancouver Police Union president Tom Stamatakis.

Officers now face the potential for more pursuits and are wasting time waiting for tow trucks and taxis after vehicles are impounded, he says.

“Ultimately, from a front-line police officer’s perspective, we’re ending up not targeting the person that’s responsible for the very serious tragedies that we deal with in an ongoing basis,” said Stamatakis.

“Even if you support the change of regulations, I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.”

Stamatakis said the heavier penalties on drivers with a breathalyzer reading of between .05 and .08 means that police are targeting people who have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner — rather than problem drinking drivers.

The higher penalties are leading to increased tension between police and drivers and extra officers may be needed for back up at a time when police are already short-staffed, he said.

“There’s no question that speeding and drunk driving cause a lot of carnage on our roads,” said Stamatakis, who’s also president of the B.C. Police Association. “In this country, at least, it’s not illegal to consume a glass of wine with dinner and it seems we’re creating a situation where we are put in the unenviable position of having to enforce these regulations.”

Stamatakis said his members weren’t consulted before the government brought in the new laws, and that he plans to talk to Solicitor General Mike de Jong about them.

“There’s a significant fine attached for both speeding and lower blood-alcohol limits,” Stamatakis said. “Is that revenue going to be poured back into public safety, or going to end up in general revenue?

“My view would be if we’re going to create these regulations that have a considerable impact on police capacity, then the revenues should come back to policing.”

Simon Fraser University criminologist Neil Boyd said Wednesday he agrees with Stamatakis.

“When you institute these kind of changes, there may well be consequences that were not what was intended, in terms of the use of scarce police resources,” he said.

“This is new territory. Do we have a lot of evidence that people at .05 are the people that are creating more than 1,000 impaired driving deaths that we get in Canada every year?”

Cpl. Jamie Chung, spokesman for RCMP traffic services, said the Mounties haven’t experienced any extra problems since the law came in Sept. 20.

“Police work comes with risk,” he said. “If we have to impound people’s vehicles, there’s always a potential for them to get irate.”

And police have always had to wait for tow-trucks when impounding vehicles during roadside suspensions, he added.

Manon Groulx, Vancouver vice-president for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, was reluctant to comment on Stamatakis’s views.

“If the new laws stop impaired drivers and reduce the amount of victims, we’re happy,” she said.

De Jong didn’t return calls from The Province but is due in Richmond Thursday to announce figures on the tickets and fines issued since the laws were stiffened.


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Poli...484/story.html

one time at work i saw someone get pulled over for speeding/drinking
3 other cop cars showed up and they were all hanging out till the tow truck came
...2 hours later
so thats like 6 cops just doing nothing for 2 hours

finally, some common fucking sense

:2finger: to all the morons in the other thread equating someone having a beer after work with the habitual shitfaced drunks.

People blowing .05 aren't mowing down pedestrians.

yea, sucks pretty bad for some hard working average joe that has 2 beers after grinding out a week only to get his car impounded and livelihood taken away

im curious to see if any change ever comes of the new rules back to the old way if there is enough outcry from resturants/bars and public figures saying police resources are stretched

NUFF SAID! LOL

I for one can't even enjoy a glass of wine or have a cold beer when I go out for dinner anymore. I can't risk losing my means of transportation to work and that means I'll just have water or a coke. I can't imagine what it's like for bars and resturaunts right now. First the HST hit, and now customers drink in fear that they'll lose their license (if they even order one). I can't believe that people are getting impounded for having 1 or 2 beers with a meal. I agree that the new law needs to go under review with more proof that people between 0.05-0.08 are actually impaired.

On a side note, it SHOULD be a crime to put ethanol into gasoline.

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.

Can anyone approximately answer this for me, Say you are an average sized guy around 180 lbs. You have dinner and with it a pint of beer, you leave the restaurant after about an hour. When i check an online calculator it says you would be under .02. Is it really a worry then ?

The other problem is people react differently to alcohol, i would not feel differently after one pint, but i have a friend whose face goes red and he says he feels it.

same here no more alcoholic beverages when i go out now, used to always have 1 beer with meal but now I dont want to chance it and i dont wana be hitting anywhere close to the limit. I just have water now instead. Any waiters out there notice a decline in booze consumption at all??

Think for a minute if one drink affects you AT ALL then you shouldn't drink it. However do you really think cops are gonna breathalyzer every single perseon at a road block? No they are going to look for those that are affected enough to show signs.

Well some actually get red and all even if it is a mouthful of beer or something. Not saying they don't look for people with signs, but sometimes you can act fine. Now even I'm scared to drink at all and driving because it's not like they give you a warning or drunk tank or anything...straight up impound which comes to tow fees+time wasted+taxi (or someone to bail you)+lost car+ticket fee....all cuz of getting busted for blowing the limit by a little or a lot.

In other news... Tom Stamatakis is now on paid leave!

interesting read, i had my doubts if the new law would seriously affect the amount of drunk driving accidents, the people that are getting in accidents i would guess are usually well over 0.05.

Unfortunately theres no way to go back now and make it less strict without it being seen as an approval for drunk driving.

Define "drunk". To me drunk isn't feeling all fuzzy inside.

thank you for your informative post.

i dont feel anyone should have any level of impairment if they're driving (get someone else to drive or take a taxi etc)

you can tell me you're fine after a couple of drinks or even a few, that may or may not be true, for you, but laws of this nature aren't amended to suit a minority

the fact is any level of alcohol is an impairment your capability at coping with it shouldn't be brought into question

at least imo



edit: i guess those failing feel impairment and driving are two different issues? :rolleyes:

the government who passes these laws defiantly have there heads tucked far up there ass's because most dangerous and drunk offenders allready will drive a vehicle regardless they have a licence or not ...and if the car is borrowed or stolen ...

what the fuck you talkin about

Ive been saying since this was first announced, if this law is about SAFETY and not generating revenue, the money brought in from the new law should be put back into alternative modes of transportation.

You should be able to claim a portion of taxi recipts at income tax time.



I dont live too far from 'downtown' Kelowna, so a taxi ride costs me $20 each way. Its safe to say in the summer I spend $150/month on taxi's just going out on weekends.

I own my own business and I average about 200km a day driving AT WORK. If I lost my licence, Id be fucked, theres no alternative to me driving every day.



Its been said time and time again, its not the guy having a beer or 2 out for dinner watching the game, or the guy and his wife having a glass of wine or 2 at dinner and driving at 0.05 that are the problem. Its the guy sitting at home drinking an 18 pack, and then driving to the liquor store to buy more beer thats the problem. The casual drink with dinner doesnt cause horrific accidents, its the alcoholics. and fines and impounds dont help alcoholism.

RRxtar i've had the exact same idea you have. I've alwasy thought that based on an average the government is bringing from the fines, it should be put towards subsidizing a cost towards taxi fares for drinkers. The price on the meter should be deducted a certain precentage, and the government revenue from this should pay the other amount. If i was told my cab would be 10% cheaper lets say, I have FAR more inclined to take one .And the taxi cab owners are not loosing any money as they are still charging the same rate.

This law targets the wrong people. The people that they are looking for are WAY over the limit. Now these cops have to wait an hour or 2 for the tow-truck, which means one less officer on duty, which means more wait time and less officer available for actual crimes. As if the wait time and lack of law enforcement wasn't bad enough.

Majin, I'm glad you thought so! I really put a lot of effort into it so that I could help the general populace see my point of view. That dream has been realize upon your approval of my comment further strengthening my resolve to continue providing quality posts and comments to this board. I hope that others will see the value in my posts and continue to appreciate all the hard work and time that I put into formulating every response I make, I'm glad you saw it. :moon:

^^rofl

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

wiki: Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land (charter) protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings, so JUDGES - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government shall not be unfair to the people.

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.