DriveSmartBC - The Approved Screening Device

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by wing_woo

Actually, I would occasionally have the casual drink when I go out to eat and still drive after. I think I would have been fine even if I went through a road check but now, with the tougher penalties, I dont' want to risk it.

I actually have never drove after drinking any alcohol anymore since they had the tougher laws. I actually just don't drink when I go out to eat unless my wife doesn't mind driving home that night whereas in the past, I might have one drink and still drive.

And this is (for the most part) where most of the fatalities came from and where most of the change in habits has come from.


Not meaning to target you specifically, W_W, but marginal by marginal I mean the people who previously took an action but are not necessarily in the habit of needing to do it or defending said action people like you (and admittedly me in times past) are the people who this program is targetting. There are some people who will just absolutely never stop drinking and driving, quite possibly even after they kill someone. There are, however, a lot of people who previously thought "one beer and I'll be fine to drive home", who would then get in accidents, often ending in fatalities. Those people are now worried about the inconvenience of being ticketed, losing their car for a week and being slapped with the impound fines. All of which, as I said before, happen immediately. This helps to associate the punishment with the bad behaviour--a well known necessity for people to actually cognitively realize they have done something wrong.

[sebberry]

I'm curious to know what the stats are regarding BAC and collisions.

Of the collisions attributable to drunk driving, how many of those drivers were in the .01-.04 range?


On another note, I'm glad the SCBC has decided that the immediate penalties are unconstitutional and that drivers are entitled to a more accurate reading.

For the record, I was never against the penalties - just the immediacy of them and the inability to contest the charge or have the reading verified.

[wing_woo]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

And this is (for the most part) where most of the fatalities came from and where most of the change in habits has come from.


Not meaning to target you specifically, W_W, but marginal by marginal I mean the people who previously took an action but are not necessarily in the habit of needing to do it or defending said action people like you (and admittedly me in times past) are the people who this program is targetting. There are some people who will just absolutely never stop drinking and driving, quite possibly even after they kill someone. There are, however, a lot of people who previously thought "one beer and I'll be fine to drive home", who would then get in accidents, often ending in fatalities. Those people are now worried about the inconvenience of being ticketed, losing their car for a week and being slapped with the impound fines. All of which, as I said before, happen immediately. This helps to associate the punishment with the bad behaviour--a well known necessity for people to actually cognitively realize they have done something wrong.

No offense taken. Just saying that the new rules were enough for me to just decide one drink was already too much of a risk and was enough to stop me from doing it even though I felt fine after one drink. Don't miss it at all so even if they go back to having to do things the old way, I'd still continue to not drive even if it's only one drink.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by sebberry

On another note, I'm glad the SCBC has decided that the immediate penalties are unconstitutional and that drivers are entitled to a more accurate reading.

Maybe you should read the decision. That is not what was decided at all. What the court decided was that the penalty was too harsh for the amount of recourse available to the driver.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Maybe you should read the decision. That is not what was decided at all.

Ssshhhhh, don't confuse him with the facts.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Maybe you should read the decision. That is not what was decided at all. What the court decided was that the penalty was too harsh for the amount of recourse available to the driver.

who blew over .08 (actually .09)

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by skidmark

Maybe you should read the decision. That is not what was decided at all. What the court decided was that the penalty was too harsh for the amount of recourse available to the driver.

And you think for a minute that the BC Government will reduce the punishments? No, they'll add some form of appeal process, either a court date or a proper breathalyzer, not just a roadside blow-job into some hand held toy.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by sebberry

And you think for a minute that the BC Government will reduce the punishments? No, they'll add some form of appeal process.

That's exactly what I would like to see happen.

[sebberry]

I have no problem with the punishments, and that's essentially what the judge is saying - add an appeal process or some form.

So yes, I do understand the ruling.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by sebberry

And you think for a minute that the BC Government will reduce the punishments? No, they'll add some form of appeal process, either a court date or a proper breathalyzer, not just a roadside blow-job into some hand held toy.

Do you think that's a bad thing? Because to be honest, that's what it sounds like you're implying in your post.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

Do you think that's a bad thing? Because to be honest, that's what it sounds like you're implying in your post.

I've said all along that my biggest issue here is the inability to challenge the reading before being subject to the punishments.

[sebberry]

In BC, are you allowed to request that a blood sample be drawn instead of blowing into the datamaster to determine BAC?

[sho_bc]

No. An even under the criminal code, it is used only when a person is not resonably able to provide a sample (ex. Broken jaw/neck/etc, unconscious etc after an mvi).

Can't link it easily right now with my phone, but its Section 254(3)(a)(ii).
Posted via RS Mobile

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

In BC, are you allowed to request that a blood sample be drawn instead of blowing into the datamaster to determine BAC?

I don't think any impaired person would want to volunteer for a blood sample over a Datamaster or ASD test. The blood sample is far more accurate and would very likely show higher alcohol levels than the breath test. In New Zealand you get arrested and taken to the Cop shop. They take 1 breath sample and a blood sample on the spot. None of this playing lawyer roulette delaying tactics stuff. If you don't agree to testing you don't get a driver's licence. Canada is one of the few places where agreement to random, groundless breath testing is not required to get a DL

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I've said all along that my biggest issue here is the inability to challenge the reading before being subject to the punishments.

What inability? You're allowed to request a second reading from a second ASD... what are you going to challenge if both of them give the same results?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

What inability? You're allowed to request a second reading from a second ASD... what are you going to challenge if both of them give the same results?

And how can I verify that they've both been calibrated correctly? And let's not forget that if you do blow a second time and for some reason it reads higher, it is the measurement from the second device that is taken. Bit of a lottery if you ask me.

What about diabetics? If their blood sugar isn't well controlled and they blow high on one, they'll blow high on the other as well.

[Soundy]

What about Vulcans? Their blood sugar would mean they could be completely smashed and still blow under...

[sebberry]

Whatever floats your dingy.

[Soundy]

Wow, finally came up with something Sebberry doesn't have a response for...