You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
The law, penalties, process.. whatever it was that was overturned because it was deemed unconstitutional.
"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.
Advertisement
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Yup, there is still alcohol content... but I am answering to someone that says 0 alcohol.
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.
Furthermore, this was the Supreme Court's decision... NOTHING TO DO with the Government or whether or not they're misguided.
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?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
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.
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?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
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.
Being tired is natural, eight hours of work will do that to you.
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
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.
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
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).
__________________ Proud member of GRAPEGreat Revscene Action Photographers Enthusiasts
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
After one night and two crashes, police warning of impaired driving
Officers note resurgence of daytime and evening drinking and driving
Quote:
After two overnight crashes involving impaired driving, Saanich and Victoria police on Thursday stressed the dangers of drinking and driving.
"Despite the fact that the province is leading the way with the toughest anti-drink and driving rules in the country, people still seem to think it's socially responsible - it's not," said Victoria Const. Andy Dunstan.
The first crash occurred at 10 p.m. Wednesday when a car failed to make a turn from Selkirk Avenue onto Coventry Avenue and crashed into two parked cars.
[...]
Police are seeing impaired drivers from two groups: men between 18 and 28, and men and women between 40 and 60.
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?
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?
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.
Quote:
"instrument of unlawful activity" means any of the following:
(a) property that has been used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn,
(i) resulted in or was likely to result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or
(ii) caused or was likely to cause serious bodily harm to a person;
(b) property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that may
(i) result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or
(ii) cause serious bodily harm to a person;
(c) property that is realized from the disposition of property described in paragraph (a) or (b) under an order of the court under section 8 (3) (d) [interim preservation order];
Quote:
"unlawful activity" means an act or omission described in one of the following paragraphs:
(a) if an act or omission occurs in British Columbia, the act or omission, at the time of occurrence, is an offence under an Act of Canada or British Columbia
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
