"Whatever it was"??

There you have it, folks: proof that sebberry just rants madly against The Man without actually having a clue what he's ranting about. It's been explained many times in this thread and others, but he can't be bothered to actually learn what it's about, he just babbles.

THE LAW was not overturned.

THE PENALTIES were not declared unconstitutional.

PART of the process was declared unconstitutional. Not all of it, not the law behind the it, not the penalties resulting from it, only PART of the PROCESS. Procedural changes, nothing more.

Furthermore, this was the Supreme Court's decision... NOTHING TO DO with the Government or whether or not they're misguided.

Where is your common sense?

You know that there might be alcohol left in the food, yet you eat it anyway, knowing that you're going to drive later?

Any alcohol, any at all, is too much when you're driving. I don't give a fuck how little it changes your ability to drive, if you know you have alcohol in your system and you drive, you deserve EVERYTHING coming at you.


The government is lenient when it comes to drunk drivers, if you knowingly drive with alcohol in your system, you don't deserve the privilege of driving.

You do remember that the courts warned the government that they were entering murky waters with the way they were administering the tests and issuing penalties, right?

Have you ever driven while a little bit tired after a long day at work on a dark day? Have you ever driven while mad or angry at something?

No, I'm not that stupid.


If you can't govern yourself to ensure the safety of yourself and others around you, take the bus, call a cab, I don't care.

Driving is not a right, act like it.

And how many times have you taken a cab home from work after an 8 hr shift, leaving your car at work?

I haven't had to, I've made sure that I got into a workplace that wouldn't put me in that situation.

Being tired is natural, eight hours of work will do that to you.

The way you're making it seem is, so tired that I can't concentrate on driving.


Which is it?

If it's so tired that you can't concentrate, then you should take a cab. Semi-truck drivers are mandated to rest after a certain amount of driving, I fail to see why the regulations don't apply to regular motorists.

But you're suggesting that someone shouldn't be allowed to drive if their BAC registers in the .01-.03 range, which is about as impaired as someone might be after 8 hrs of work.

There is a difference between knowing that there's alcohol in you and driving, and working for a day and driving.

Whether you want to argue that it's a personal thing or not, I do not want people with any alcohol at all driving, period.

It's also a matter of respect, I have it for people that work hard, I don't for people that want to drive with alcohol in them.

Drink-driving amongst new drivers is up, at least in Vancouver:

More and more

I wonder if the passenger restriction for N drivers needs to be looked at. You can no longer carpool if you've been drinking if your DD is a new driver and I don't think that's helping.

Way back when I had my N I was always the DD, now that isn't as easy to do.

This law isn't new. If drinking and driving is up among new drivers, they should figure out why it's happening this year as opposed to when the law was first enacted. (or when the 1 passenger rule was first put into place).

Nope, the law isn't, but despite harsher penalties it would seem that more people are breaking it.

Before the 1 passenger rule, carpooling was one option young drunks had to get home.

I think that if young drivers have passed a driving test and are trusted to drive by themselves with no supervision at any time of day or night then it's as if the province is treating them as regular class 5 licence holders. I understand the reasoning behind the passenger restrictions, but I can't help but think the passenger restriction is having some effect on the drink-driving rate among younger drivers.

It's baaaaaaaack and working not too well...


After one night and two crashes, police warning of impaired driving
Officers note resurgence of daytime and evening drinking and driving


Read more: After one night and two crashes, police warning of impaired driving

Times are changing I heard from some old folks back in the old times drinking and driving was perfectly acceptable. Cops would just let the most sober one drive the drunks back home.

Anyone know the laws regarding riding a bicycle while drunk?

:fullofwin:

Well considering the MVA requires cyclists to follow the same rules as car drivers, I'll let you figure it out for yourself ;)

the only thing officers can do is ticket you correct? unless they could also ask u to blow for operating a bicycle and suspend your license.

ignition interlock installed on your bicycle anyone? :lawl:

How about a stick thru your spokes? :):devil:

Why not go all the way and use our draconian civil forfeiture laws to seize cars being driven by someone who had been drinking?

Why not apply that to texting and driving too as that has been proven to be as dangerous as driving while drunk?

Any violation of an act where there's a risk of injury qualifies for civil forfeiture. Hell, apply it to speed 10kph over the limit too.

WHY THE F*** CAN'T WE HAVE A FAIL BUTTON IN HERE??

if not a fail button, certainly a butthurt button would be most useful.

What are you saying, Soundy? You've always been anti-speed, pro enforcement - I thought you'd like that idea.

Because seberry = a big fail and you need a fail button.

I thought civil forfeiture was only for criminal offences, not speeding. I believe chronic impaired driver's have had their vehicles seized under civil forfeiture, there was a recent case on the island...

There's no criminal burden of proof required for civil forfeiture.

Any item used in the commission of, or derived as proceeds of crime can be seized under the civil forfeiture act.

So all the civil forfeiture office really needs is some proof that a violation of an "act" (such as motor vehicle act, etc...) has taken place and it was likely to cause serious harm.

Bottom line: You have to prove that you didn't do what you're being accused of, unlike in criminal court where the crown has to prove that you did do what they're accusing you of.