Shhh, Simnut, you're confusing people with facts.

If he can't handle 1 beer, then he shouldn't drink it and drive. If you are ok driving after 1 or 2 beers and blow under, then good for you.

Just cause you can't even handle 1 beer and your friend can handle 2, it doesn't give you the right to have 2 beers and then drive. It's not about being fair to the one who can't handle 1 beer; if he can't handle it, then don't drink it and drive.

A dozen drivers have licenses seized at IRSU roadblocks Friday night

Source

So why would one machine show a warn and the second show a pass?

No chance at all that the second ASD could have also shown an incorrect reading?

The various readings between devices shows the inaccuracy of these damn things and just proves that they alone shouldn't be used to lay administrative penalties against drivers.

One of the reasons they should be used as designed....a SCREENING device. Let the equipment at the detachment do the "convicting". Oh, but that means more time required to "nail" someone.........well...so what!

I'm going to throw a curve ball, or look at this at a different angle.

What would happen if a driver was given a second ASD test, and because of a faulty or inaccurate reading of the BAC, it showed a LOWER BAC than what was actual. Now, the officer would let the driver go..based on this inaccurate reading. How would this situation go if that driver then hit a pedestrian 1/2 block from the place he/she was stopped for the alcohol "check"? Knowing that the driver HAD been drinking...my guess is that the driver would be either taken for a blood test, or back to the detachment for an accurate reading as part of the investigation into the accident.

This is a situation where the inaccuracy of the ASD can put the original officer in trouble...for letting a driver that should have been taken off the road, but was let go. What would be the FIRST reason the police force would give as a reason for this error? The lack of accuracy of the ASD? What other reason would there be?

See, we overlook one thing in this whole discussion of the accuracy of the ASD. The government and legal system ADMIT to the inaccuracy of the ASD by the simple fact they allow a second test! If these agencies were so sure of the equipment, why double check?

I don't drink alcohol... and I've never had a traffic ticket in the 11 years I've been driving sports cars. I tend to error on the side of responsibility and I just don't get into those situations:)

Instead of farting around with those silly little handheld ASDs, why not tow a few of these around with datamasters set up in the back? Breath test and mobile jail all in one.

http://tpdtrailers.com/Album_TPDRace...s/DSCN0285.JPG

My thoughts, as a trained operator....1st reading was taken and a warn shows...so they call for a second instrument. Time passes and 2nd test is taken. Driver's BAC was going down and just made the .05 at first reading. The elapsed time between the first & second reading now gave the true lower reading of less that .05. The readings shown are whole numbers, not fractions so it is possible to have a reading of exactly .05 and a reading of .0495 show up as correct readings of .05 and .04 mg%. It does not make either or both instruments defective as both showed correct readings as they are designed to show.

I was the lucky tester when my company was testing portable breathalyzers.
Long story short, I was pretty hammered at .06, and I was a somewhat seasoned drinker at the time. It took 3 beers in the span of an hour for me to blow that level, and there's no bloody way I would have driven like that. To this day it amazes me how many people will drive at that level.

That's why we have these laws. They're not for those of use who will have a single drink during a 1.5 hour dinner, and be completely fine to drive. It's to take those idiots off the road who will have 6 drinks in that period and still think they're okay to drive.

But in the end, this is the biggest statement of all.

Well if you go back and look at the numbers Simnut dug up, you'll see that the 44% number doesn't tell the whole truth. It's optics made to get people thinking about how great these laws are.

The new rules aren't working so well in Vancouver at the moment...

VPD Release First Weekend Roadblock Statistics | Vancouver Police Department

MAybe after half reading the half truths in the media stories about how the entire programme was canned by the courts, many drivers chose to drink and then drive after...like they used to?

The media reports I've been seeing have all been about how the program is back :confused:

How many lives need to be saved before it's worth it? If not 71, then 100? 200? If only 10 lives are saved, is the whole thing wasted?

You :failed: so hard...

Idiot... he's talking about the when the court challenge was first issued. You should know, it was discussed here at length in at least three different threads.

His reply was in response to me talking about the doubling of drunk drivers caught this year over last. The media has been full of reports saying the rules are back, yet so far VPD is reporting an increase of cases.

As both a former media type and a former Cop I can tell you that the great unwashed general public pay attention to things mostly as headlines. I'm willing to bet that if 10 people at random right now (not RS posters of course !) if they were aware of the court decision to toss all the roadside suspensions and the impound programme, the majority would say they were......when, as we know here on RS, the courts effectively restored what was being done before. Most people get their info from headlines, media works on sensationalism and towards their own goals and the truth is not important, or even desired, if it conflicts with the first two.

You mean the general public doesn't go to bed with a copy of the MVA and other related road safety literature as night time reading material?

Blasphemy!

As comforting as that may be to me personally :), very little media reporting these days goes beyond headliner depth. People are served big-mac journalism instead of a proper balance of the story they are reporting on. In a twitter society where you can "communicate" in a limited number of words on a cell phone, while driving, because you are multi tasking, it's impossible to get the whole story.

The big shock of all the impounds at the beginning of the legislation shocked most people because they thought a new low level of impairment was being imposed,...when the 24 hr 215 suspensions at .05 had been in effect for decades. All sorts of people chose to drive when there was no effective penalty imposed. The shock was due to some immediate penalty with a bite to it finally being imposed. It took that to get people to stop driving at the .05 level that was decades old. The results of the changes finally got people to notice and change their behaviour. It was all over the media for months as it was sensational and the usual suspects came out to play the various discrimination, business & civil liberties etc cards.

When the process was suspended, then that hit the really big times as all these groups touted their success in getting their way. There was a bit of noise when the process was re-instated but nothing as large as previously. I think that most people now believe, that the law was overturned and the Cops were not seizing cars anymore and that likely contributed to their decicion to drink and drive again. Old law or new law, it has always been illegal to drive in BC at .05. That fact should have always been in the mind of those who chose to drink and then drive after.

NO, it is not wasted...even if it saves one life! There is no value big enough to be put on a persons life. But, if you look at the Coroner of BC's stats, the drinking and driving deaths have been on a steady decline, even before the "new" drinking and driving laws came into effect. Why? I believe it is because of more police presence on the roads. There are JUST as many people drinking and driving with the new sanctions as there was before....a common theme of many of the government branches is the shock as to the increase of drunk drivers. First of all, they see an increase ONLY because of increased contact of drunk drivers with the police......the only way that "statistic" is generated (more police presence on the road)! It is the ACT of the officer taking the drunk OFF the road at the TIME of being drunk that is saving lives......NOT the consequences....and that is why the numbers have been declining the past few years.

I would love the government to try something for the next year. Setup up DOUBLE the number of roadblocks from the year 2010, and give all impaired/slightly impaired drivers a 24 hour suspension ( this would get them off the road WHILE they are drunk). Then, there would be far less drunk drivers on the road....right? The greater the chance of being caught is a much greater deterrent than the "change" of the consequences.

To put it a different way.....have EVERY driver in BC have an interlock device(like your own personal officer) installed into their vehicle. Then we would have NO drunks on the road....therefore...NO drunk driving deaths.

Sure, some drivers will learn their lesson and not want to get caught (as opposed to not want to drink and drive) again because of the new sanctions. But I think a majority of those willing to drink and drive the first time...will drink and drive again. The AVERAGE drunk driver has driven drunk 87 times before getting caught. What would change this? More police presence........ Take a look at this:

The only way to catch the "hardcore" drunk driver or even a first time drunk driver.......more police presence....BEFORE they get into an accident.

Soundy didn't take the statistics to bed for careful review, he's just going by the news headlines :woot2:



------------------

BC Coroner Statistics:
Table 12 - MVI Deaths with Alcohol and/or Drugs Contributing (2002- 2009)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*
108 98 106 137 86 96 83 69 (Alcohol)
12 10 21 21 19 31 21 23 (Drugs)
6 21 18 26 27 39 43 20 (Alcohol AND Drugs)
126 129 145 174 132 166 147 112 (Total)

* At the time of writing, 67 of the 2009 MVI cases were still under investigation, thus the number deaths with
drugs and/or alcohol contributing may increase.

------------------

ICBC Statistics:
Fatal victims where impairment by alcohol, drugs or medication was a contributing factor:

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
131 144 112 106 126 (BC Total)
(ICBC's stats don't break it down into substance type like the above coroner's report)

------------------

It's interesting that the ICBC stats and BC Coroner's stats don't match...

FYI:

There you go, more proof that the BC Government is becoming more misguided by the day.

So tell me, how is it that penalties deemed "unconstitutional" can also be considered valid?

Government =/= Supreme Court.

I don't recall that the penalties themselves were the "unconstitutional" part.

But you go on mis-reading things to suit your own world view...

You know exactly what I mean.

I don't, actually, because it makes no sense.

The law, penalties, process.. whatever it was that was overturned because it was deemed unconstitutional. If it's unconstitutional, how can it be considered valid?

Which is it? Unconstitutional or valid?