Impact of B.C. drunk driving laws explored in ICBC report raises questions
 

Impact of B.C. drunk driving laws explored in ICBC report raises questions
Report and lawyer Michael Mulligan say data to determine impact of new laws is problematic
CBC News
Posted: Jan 22, 2016 6:29 AM PT Last Updated: Jan 22, 2016 12:16 PM PT

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...port-1.3414817
Impact of B.C. drunk driving laws explored in ICBC report raises questions - British Columbia - CBC News

http://i.cbc.ca/1.3058050.1430512781...ivers-2012.jpg
British Columbia's impaired driving laws are the toughest in Canada but have also been controversial and battled in court. (Darryl Dyck/ Canadian Press)

A Victoria lawyer says an internal ICBC report he obtained through a freedom of information request shows significant issues with the province's assertion that its controversial impaired driving laws save lives.

In 2010, B.C. imposed the toughest impaired driving laws in Canada, with roadside penalties including immediate driving prohibitions, vehicle impounding for up to 30 days, and steep fines.

The report examines the number of fatal collisions before and after the laws were put in place. It suggests there was a reduction of 36 fatalities and $8.4 million in claims savings per year because of the laws.

The province has long argued the laws save lives. Multiple legal challeges resulted in the province amending the legislation in 2012.

"The laws are extremely effective. People understand that they must not drink and drive, that it's dangerous to people around them, that it's dangerous on our roads," said B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton.

"Our very significant penalties are a great deterrent to people drinking and driving."

Anton said the laws have been so effective, other provinces have expressed interest in adopting them.

'Misleading' information

But lawyer Michael Mulligan, who obtained the internal report, says the report itself outlines the problem with the data and the conclusions drawn from it.

"There's no baseline, so you can't figure out where you're coming from," he said.

"Another [problem] is a statistical one. The police don't include any contributing factors in the information they collect. If you don't know what any of the contributing factors are, you can't draw conclusions about was alcohol impairment one of them or not."

The report also outlines since the laws were implemented province-wide, there's no adequate control data.

Mulligan says it took ICBC a year to provide the report after he filed his FOI request, even though he was legally entitled to receive it within 30 days.

During that time, he says, decisions were made at Supreme Court based on the province's assertion that any limits on fairness imposed by the laws were justifiable given they saved lives.

"There's still a legitimate debate about whether this thing is effective or ineffective," he said. "But to not release the information and to portray it as clearly working, which can't reasonably be said, is misleading."

Internal ICBC report on impaired driving law impact:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...CBC-Report.pdf

It's a cash grab, plan and simple. Among many in this Province.

If you think these laws are a cash grab, you obviously havn't been personally impacted by the damage one drunk driver can do to an entire community of people when they get behind the wheel of a car and take someone elses life.

It really doesn't matter to me if you want to debate about how much or little of a difference the tougher laws make. The fact is if you get caught drunk driving, you deserve whatever punishment you got coming to you.

Maybe they should just skip all the ticketing and impounds and just go straight to walking drunk drivers in front of those who have lost a love one due to their careless actions and let the people stone them.

Not advocating DUI by any means, but it's no secret that so many studies have shown that texting and driving is far more dangerous than DUI.
(Yes, I know it depends on how much you drink vs how long you text, but generally speaking, texting is more dangerous)

DUI = Very serious consequence as it is under Criminal Code of Canada. If convicted, good luck getting a job or travel around the world. You will be officially labelled as "criminal".

Texting and Driving = It's not a crime, it is simply a regulatory matter. If you text and drive, you are violating the regulations, but you're not committing a crime. No criminal record, no jail time, etc. Just $167 fine + 3 points on your license.

Make no sense :yuno:

I believe in the near future, drivers with a history of distracted driving will be charged with "demerit points". ie. 3 pts on their license as some argue a $$$ fine is not enough.

Maybe Harvey Spectre needs to brush up on his knowledge of the law.

Distracted driving already caries a 3 point penalty. It has for a long time now, and it isn't just for drivers with a history, it is part of the penalty, whether it be your first infractions or 3rd.

To look at the statistics correctly, you need to take a count of the number of people conducting each activity, there is obviously 100x more people driving using a cell phone than there is people driving while intoxicated.

Also most drunk driving happens during a specific window in time, whereas distracted driving happens at all hours and days of the week.

DUI's were changed to IRP's under the new law and they do not constitute a criminal conviction. Also having a criminal record in Canada will mostly only hinder your chances of traveling to the US because US and Canada share their record database with each other. Don't give false information and trip people out for no reason.

I didn't know about IRP thing but here, it is under Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code

Conviction under the criminal code is generally reserved for high-danger situations that resulted in an accident or injury. I would say a large portion of the people caught were at roadblocks. Previously in the old law you were able to fight a charge in court, but now you are only able to apply for an appeal which is not a formal trial. You can't be charged without a formal trial or an opportunity to fully defend your case.