[do_da_drew]

the other day I received a 24 hr suspension on my license and also received a couple traffic violation tickets, when I went to pick up my license I asked if i could have a copy of the police report, and the lady at the desk said there wasnt one. I was put in handcuffs, and roughed up pretty bad. I had to do a breathalyzer, and Im curious to what I blew, when I did the test it just said failed isnt it supposed to give a number reading? Would there even be a police report over this or is the only thing on my file is the 24 hr prohibition copy of my suspension that I received as well, with the traffic violation ticket?

[Five-Oh]

You should be thankful you only got a 24 hour suspension. Having blown a fail means you were over 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Which means you could have also been given an Administrative Driving Prohibition (3 month driving suspension on top of your 24 hour suspension) and you could have been charged criminally for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and impaired operation of a motor vehicle over 0.08. You are also lucky you didn't kill yourself or somebody else by doing what you did.

So to answer your questions, there is no numerical reading on the road side screening device. There is a numerical reading if you are under, then a "WARN" for a 24 hour suspension and a "FAIL" for criminal charges. There would be a police report. On your 24hour suspension there will be a police file number on the right hand side about half way down. The police department you got that from should have the paper work needed for you to obtain a copy of that report.

[do_da_drew]

having blown a "fail" would they have this on the file? and if so could I still be charged for it

[CRS]

Yes you COULD get charged for it.

[mr.slave]

i once got a 24hr for sleeping in my truck.
no breathalyzer no test whatsoever didnt even ask if i was drinking

ended up losing my license for 2 months over it.

just makes me think i would have been better of driving home...

[skidmark]

Just makes me think i would have been better off driving home...

Not! If you are going to be drinking, stay away from motor vehicles unless you have a designated driver. Far better that you should crash on a couch or make similar arrangements. Too many fatal collisions involve alcohol and drugs and you have no right whatsoever to take a risk with other people's lives.

[skidmark]

Would there even be a police report over this?

The officer is obligated to make notes of the circumstances on the Officer's Notes portion of the 24 hour prohibition. This is a page that is submitted to the Superintendent along with the prohibition itself.

[Soundy]

i once got a 24hr for sleeping in my truck.
no breathalyzer no test whatsoever didnt even ask if i was drinking

ended up losing my license for 2 months over it.

just makes me think i would have been better of driving home...

Not! If you are going to be drinking, stay away from motor vehicles unless you have a designated driver. Far better that you should crash on a couch or make similar arrangements. Too many fatal collisions involve alcohol and drugs and you have no right whatsoever to take a risk with other people's lives.

He didn't even say that he HAD been drinking, only that he was sleeping in his truck. You're the last person I would expect to jump to conclusions, skidmark :cool:

[do_da_drew]

Yes you COULD get charged for it.

really? I was told since they already gave me the 24 hr suspension, and didnt throw me in jail or tow my car that they couldnt go back and criminally charge me unless it happened at the time.

[Zyzz]

He didn't even say that he HAD been drinking, only that he was sleeping in his truck. You're the last person I would expect to jump to conclusions, skidmark :cool:

I haven't been on these forums for a long time but I can already see many of the cops here jump to conclusions very quickly... probably habit from work?..

[mr.slave]

Not! If you are going to be drinking, stay away from motor vehicles unless you have a designated driver. Far better that you should crash on a couch or make similar arrangements. Too many fatal collisions involve alcohol and drugs and you have no right whatsoever to take a risk with other people's lives.

i crashed on the bench seat in my truck and got a 24 hr.

had i driven home i could have at least got a chance of not getting the ticket
thats all i was left thinking after begin handed the ticket (not to mention the 500 dollar tow bill and impound fee and 2 months of no license)

if you ask me the cop was out of line and that law is ridiculous. i realize ignorance isnt and excuse but suspicion isnt just cause for getting tickets.

edit. just to be clear. i have NEVER driven impaired by anything.
i wont ever drive impaired. i thought i was doing the right thing by not driving but now theres a sour taste in my mouth

[Soundy]

I haven't been on these forums for a long time but I can already see many of the cops here jump to conclusions very quickly... probably habit from work?..

Experience, as much as anything, I think. They've seen enough to have a pretty good idea of what really happened most of the time.

It's just a little odd to see skidmark make that assumption, as he's proven less likely to make that leap... granted, in this case, we see it WAS correct, but still...

[Five-Oh]

i once got a 24hr for sleeping in my truck.
no breathalyzer no test whatsoever didnt even ask if i was drinking

ended up losing my license for 2 months over it.

just makes me think i would have been better of driving home...

No breath test is needed to issue a 24 hour suspension. If the officer is satisfied he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is impaired by alcohol a 24 hour roadside suspension can be issued on the officer's discretion. Having said that, if at that time the accused requests a breath test, the officer is obligated to administer a breath test.

As for the impaired care and control argument, in my opinion it is necessary to have those laws in place. You know you weren't going to drive, but the officer meeting you for the first time doesn't know that. Picture for example the officer checks on you, sees that you are hammered and sleeping in your truck, but lets you stay there because he thinks you are going to sleep it off. So now that you have been woken up, you can't get back to sleep and toss and turn for about 30 minutes. Finally you decide you will try driving home to get to your bed and on the way there you crash and kill yourself and/or somebody else. Personally, I would have a very hard time dealing with that, if I believe I could have prevented a death but didn't. Add to that, the officer will have an internal investigation into what he did and possibly lose his job and the added media/public scrutiny on top of that. I know there are a lot of "what ifs" there, but unfortunately what we do is under the public microscope 24/7 and we have to account for everything we do/don't do and why we did what we did or didn't do.

[azzurro32]

No breath test is needed to issue a 24 hour suspension. If the officer is satisfied he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is impaired by alcohol a 24 hour roadside suspension can be issued on the officer's discretion. Having said that, if at that time the accused requests a breath test, the officer is obligated to administer a breath test.

As for the impaired care and control argument, in my opinion it is necessary to have those laws in place. You know you weren't going to drive, but the officer meeting you for the first time doesn't know that. Picture for example the officer checks on you, sees that you are hammered and sleeping in your truck, but lets you stay there because he thinks you are going to sleep it off. So now that you have been woken up, you can't get back to sleep and toss and turn for about 30 minutes. Finally you decide you will try driving home to get to your bed and on the way there you crash and kill yourself and/or somebody else. Personally, I would have a very hard time dealing with that, if I believe I could have prevented a death but didn't. Add to that, the officer will have an internal investigation into what he did and possibly lose his job and the added media/public scrutiny on top of that. I know there are a lot of "what ifs" there, but unfortunately what we do is under the public microscope 24/7 and we have to account for everything we do/don't do and why we did what we did or didn't do.


I tottaly respect that. But since he wasnt caught driving, and the officer had no proof that he drove his truck there drunk, and the officer certaintly cant predict the future and say he's going to get into his truck and drive off, wouldnt it be logical/fair to just have him tow his car and have him walk/cab home?

To me that is kind of like getting charged for attempted murder simply because you have a gun on you.


Also, are you at all allowed to sleep in your truck (when impaired)? Judging by this thread I guess not. What if you put your keys in your trunk?

This rule doesn't give drunk people much of an option other than to drive home drunk.

[Adsdeman]

My buddy got a 24 hour suspension for pushing his car beacause he was to drunk to drive. I would'nt advise this though as pushing ur car on the highway drunk isnt always ur best bet. He did manage to make it 3kms though which i thought was a decent effort!

[PR0WL]

do_da_drew:

You are extremely lucky if you blew a fail and all you got was a few tickets and a 24 hour suspension.

As for the police report, you have to apply for it, fill out an application that you can get at most detachments.

[Inaii]

This rule doesn't give drunk people much of an option other than to drive home drunk.

You ALWAYS have the option of taking a cab home and going back for your car later, or setting up a ride home previous to going out. And before anyone says maybe they didn't have enough money, well if you don't have enough money for a cab, don't go out. Or take the bus home. there's multiple options.

[mr.slave]

No breath test is needed to issue a 24 hour suspension. If the officer is satisfied he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is impaired by alcohol a 24 hour roadside suspension can be issued on the officer's discretion. Having said that, if at that time the accused requests a breath test, the officer is obligated to administer a breath test.

As for the impaired care and control argument, in my opinion it is necessary to have those laws in place. You know you weren't going to drive, but the officer meeting you for the first time doesn't know that. Picture for example the officer checks on you, sees that you are hammered and sleeping in your truck, but lets you stay there because he thinks you are going to sleep it off. So now that you have been woken up, you can't get back to sleep and toss and turn for about 30 minutes. Finally you decide you will try driving home to get to your bed and on the way there you crash and kill yourself and/or somebody else. Personally, I would have a very hard time dealing with that, if I believe I could have prevented a death but didn't. Add to that, the officer will have an internal investigation into what he did and possibly lose his job and the added media/public scrutiny on top of that. I know there are a lot of "what ifs" there, but unfortunately what we do is under the public microscope 24/7 and we have to account for everything we do/don't do and why we did what we did or didn't do.

i appreciate your response and i completely agree with all that.
Drinking and driving is retarded, but me sleeping it off in my truck caused me to lose my license for 2 months and in turn my job. i feel that what the officer should have done was just tell me to get out of the truck and that i cant be doing that. or at the most tow my truck.. no need for the 24 hr suspension in my eyes.

[rslater]

i appreciate your response and i completely agree with all that.
Drinking and driving is retarded, but me sleeping it off in my truck caused me to lose my license for 2 months and in turn my job. i feel that what the officer should have done was just tell me to get out of the truck and that i cant be doing that. or at the most tow my truck.. no need for the 24 hr suspension in my eyes.

To be honest i don`t understand what happened to you. Were you drinking or not. You made it seem like you were not drinking, so therefore you should have disputed your ticket. I just dont see why you didnt force the cops to give you a breathalizer, if you had not been drinking.

[mr.slave]

To be honest i don`t understand what happened to you. Were you drinking or not. You made it seem like you were not drinking, so therefore you should have disputed your ticket. I just dont see why you didnt force the cops to give you a breathalizer, if you had not been drinking.

i was at a party and had a 6 pack o bud and passed out in my truck cause it was too cold out.
then got woken up by the police got told to step out he took my license walks to his car then 15 minutes later hands me the ticket and informs me my truck will be towed.
theres nothing else that i havent said before.
this happened over a year ago and im still bitter.

[rslater]

i was at a party and had a 6 pack o bud and passed out in my truck cause it was too cold out.
then got woken up by the police got told to step out he took my license walks to his car then 15 minutes later hands me the ticket and informs me my truck will be towed.
theres nothing else that i havent said before.
this happened over a year ago and im still bitter.

Oh, i thought the law stated you had to be in control of the vehicle or something to be charged. So that if you were in the back seat, and the keys were in the trunk that was fine.

[socialenemy69]

Yeah I thought you had to be in the drivers seat under the influence in order to get charged? Passed out in the back seat?? wont be doing that again.

[Soundy]

The law states that you cannot be "in care and control" of a vehicle when intoxicated. Unfortunately exactly what constitutes being "in care an control" seems to be open to pretty broad interpretation by the cop involved. There's been one thread here where a person claims he was charged just leaning up against a buddy's car. In theory, you could be charged while retrieving your phone and/or wallet from your car in attempting to do the REALLY responsible thing by calling a cab.

[underscore]

^ thats why any time that my friends go to get gum/CD's/etc from their cars, I tell them to go in the passenger door. Not many people enter the drivers seat using the passenger door = less likely to be mistaken for a potential drunk driver.

on the topic of sleeping it off in the back of your vehicle or being in/near it but not actually in the drivers seat, couldn't the officer simply take your keys and bring them back to you in however many hours they think it will take for you to sober up or call you a cab if you'd prefer to do that? then breathalyze you again when they bring your keys back to make sure you're good to go?

[simsimi1004]

If i leave the car key with a friend/pub/anywhere but myself and just take the remote/fob and sleep in the car, if cop comes up to me, I won't be able to get charged?

[Soundy]

That's the problem - you still might. Every cop on this board could tell you you'd be fine that way, but if a cop who comes across your situation decides he thinks you "in care and control" of your car, you're busted. I don't know if the law actually has a solid definition of what constitutes "in care and control", but from the stories here, it seems to be pretty open-ended.

[skidmark]

Unfortunately exactly what constitutes being "in care an control" seems to be open to pretty broad interpretation by the cop involved.

Whose interpretation is ultimately decided by the courts. You learn pretty quickly what is acceptable and what isn't and don't waste your time with what isn't.

[skidmark]

He didn't even say that he HAD been drinking, only that he was sleeping in his truck. You're the last person I would expect to jump to conclusions, skidmark :cool:

Apparently my conclusion was correct judging by posts 18 and 20 in this thread. Given the context of the thread I expected that he would add the tidbit that he had not been drinking if he had not been.

[BNR32_Coupe]

Sleeping in your car is definitely not illegal, as long as its in a safe spot. When an officer confronts you while you sleep in your vehicle and start jumping to conclusions about impairment, request that he has a breathalyzer brought in, and have your cell phone record the conversation the entire time in case he decides to tow your car anyways.

[Soundy]

Apparently my conclusion was correct judging by posts 18 and 20 in this thread. Given the context of the thread I expected that he would add the tidbit that he had not been drinking if he had not been.

I did grant that in a later post:

Experience, as much as anything, I think. They've seen enough to have a pretty good idea of what really happened most of the time.

It's just a little odd to see skidmark make that assumption, as he's proven less likely to make that leap... granted, in this case, we see it WAS correct, but still...

[mr.slave]

I did grant that in a later post:

so what cause i was in my truck sleeping it off instead of driving home pissed i should get my license taken away for 2 months.

[CRS]

so what cause i was in my truck sleeping it off instead of driving home pissed i should get my license taken away for 2 months.

Not if you were on the passenger side with the keys in the glove compartment

[zoo]

Not if you were on the passenger side with the keys in the glove compartment

Thats still care and control of a motor vehical
You can still get a 24 hour or get charged if you are intoxicated as the keys are still accessable.
Best thing to do is put them in the trunk or on top of your tire

[yvrnycracer]

Having said that, if at that time the accused requests a breath test, the officer is obligated to administer a breath test.


Is the officer only obligated to administer a roadside breath test?! And in the case of a "WARN" (which if I am not mistaken is anywhere between .05 and .1) would the individual have the right to request a proper "in station" test to clarify whether or not they have in fact gone over the legal limit?! Just to note that a warn is kind of like saying someone is possibly going the speed limit... but they may be speeding so we'll punish them anyway... :confused: In reality an officer could issue a 24 hour suspension just because they are having a bad day as there really is no required proof to issue one and fighting a 24 hour suspension is next to impossible. One will never be given the chance to face a judge, only being able to speak with a civil servant over the phone or to submit a dispute in writing. Even if the civil servant finds that there are no grounds or lacking evidence to dismiss the claim, they can reserve the right to adjourn the hearing and advise the officer to resubmit the report with errors and omissions corrected.

The system is backwards but those who bring the issue up will never be looked at in a positive light because drinking and driving is a very sensitive subject. Those who are actually stupid enough to drink and drive ruin it for those who really are innocent and run into an officer in a bad mood (innocense is in massive minority of cases i am sure).

I believe our drinking and driving laws should be tougher even considering lowering the allowable legal limit... but the law should be black and white and have no grey area like we have with our 24 hour suspensions and ADP's... Either you are wrong or you aren't no maybes... but you should always be allowed to prove that you weren't wrong in a proper arena (ie in front of a judge...)

But in a land where an insurance company controls every aspect related to the roads there will never be any black and white... grey is too profitable... :thumbsup:

** On a side note... why do some jurisdictions have roadside screening devices that will give a numbered result on the spot really leaving no grey area and some have the pass/fail/warn system!?

[skidmark]

Is the officer only obligated to administer a roadside breath test?! And in the case of a "WARN" (which if I am not mistaken is anywhere between .05 and .1) would the individual have the right to request a proper "in station" test to clarify whether or not they have in fact gone over the legal limit?!

If the officer uses a screening device initially there is no opportunity to demand a breath test. You've been tested. It's only when a prohibition is issued based on observation rather that ASD testing. The ASD is as accurate as the instrument in the detachment.

In reality an officer could issue a 24 hour suspension just because they are having a bad day as there really is no required proof to issue one and fighting a 24 hour suspension is next to impossible.

Then they would have to lie in the report to the Superintendent as well. Not likely to happen. Why would I risk a $70,000 a year job just to yank your chain?


One will never be given the chance to face a judge, only being able to speak with a civil servant over the phone or to submit a dispute in writing.

Not so, all are possible.

Even if the civil servant finds that there are no grounds or lacking evidence to dismiss the claim, they can reserve the right to adjourn the hearing and advise the officer to resubmit the report with errors and omissions corrected.

Maybe, but in my experience they adjudicate in favour of the accused.

I believe our drinking and driving laws should be tougher even considering lowering the allowable legal limit... but the law should be black and white and have no grey area like we have with our 24 hour suspensions and ADP's... Either you are wrong or you aren't no maybes... but you should always be allowed to prove that you weren't wrong in a proper arena (ie in front of a judge...)

Many European jurisdictions have done this.

** On a side note... why do some jurisdictions have roadside screening devices that will give a numbered result on the spot really leaving no grey area and some have the pass/fail/warn system!?

That's a question that you will have to ask the RCMP "brass." They dictated what response the ASD would display. I know that it can display numbers for all tests if it is set that way.

[yvrnycracer]

If the officer uses a screening device initially there is no opportunity to demand a breath test. You've been tested. It's only when a prohibition is issued based on observation rather that ASD testing. The ASD is as accurate as the instrument in the detachment.



Then why have the pass/warn/fail system?! Because then they don't actually know if you are below or above .08/.1



Then they would have to lie in the report to the Superintendent as well. Not likely to happen. Why would I risk a $70,000 a year job just to yank your chain?



But if its the officer and partner and the accused with no other witnesses who are the powers that be going to believe?! It's like going in to court and saying I wasn't speeding and the officer says you were. In the case of that they are using an approved screening device to back up their claim, where here it can be simply on the word of the officer with no evidence to back it up aside from the officers observations which are totally subjective.



Not so, all are possible.



The first step in the process is through a civil servant am I not correct in this?!



Maybe, but in my experience they adjudicate in favour of the accused.



I am glad to hear most follow the rule of law and due process!



Many European jurisdictions have done this.



And we should as well! Then there is no grey area!



That's a question that you will have to ask the RCMP "brass." They dictated what response the ASD would display. I know that it can display numbers for all tests if it is set that way.

VPD have the P/W/F system, New West uses numbers... shouldn't there be a standard across the board!?

No response to the notion that Grey is profitable... :D ;)

[skidmark]

When you blow a fail, the impaired driving investigation starts and you are taken back to the detachment for testing on another instrument (currently the BAC Datamaster C with the RCMP) that does give numbers so that we know how far over 80 mg% you are.

[yvrnycracer]

When you blow a fail, the impaired driving investigation starts and you are taken back to the detachment for testing on another instrument (currently the BAC Datamaster C with the RCMP) that does give numbers so that we know how far over 80 mg% you are.

Yes and then the words FAIL on the "Approved Roadside Screening Device" would make sense... anything up to that... it should be a PASS... plain and simple... if the government wants the numbers to be lower or even go to a ZERO tollerance why not do this instead of giving the officer the power of judge jury and executioner with a 24 hour prohibition system... :confused: (i know the .08/.1 is a criminal code of canada regulation) and why amend or add to a law that the government of canada deems acceptable :confused:

I am all for stricter laws when it comes to this BUT allowing a grey area is just wrong...

[Five-Oh]

Yes and then the words FAIL on the "Approved Roadside Screening Device" would make sense... anything up to that... it should be a PASS... plain and simple... if the government wants the numbers to be lower or even go to a ZERO tollerance why not do this instead of giving the officer the power of judge jury and executioner with a 24 hour prohibition system... :confused: (i know the .08/.1 is a criminal code of canada regulation) and why amend or add to a law that the government of canada deems acceptable :confused:

I am all for stricter laws when it comes to this BUT allowing a grey area is just wrong...

I'm still not following you on what grey area you are talking about. A "WARN" tells me you are between 50 and 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 50 is the motor vehicle act limit, not the criminal limit. We have no discretion on this, a "WARN" is always a 24 hour suspension and a "FAIL" means the person is detained and brought back for samples on the Datamaster.

[yvrnycracer]

I'm still not following you on what grey area you are talking about. A "WARN" tells me you are between 50 and 100 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. 50 is the motor vehicle act limit, not the criminal limit. We have no discretion on this, a "WARN" is always a 24 hour suspension and a "FAIL" means the person is detained and brought back for samples on the Datamaster.

IC that clears that up :thumbup: but why is there a difference between the MVA limit and the CC limit?!

That being said the officer can issue a 24 hour suspension at his own discretion if I am not mistaken without even performing a roadside test!?

[PR0WL]

Yes a 24 hour suspension can be issued without a roadside test.

[blockknocker]

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

[skidmark]

IC that clears that up but why is there a difference between the MVA limit and the CC limit?!

There's a huge difference in the outcome. The 50 mg% limit in the MVA only results in a 24 hour prohibition if you fall into the 50 to 100 mg% range. If you are over the 100 then all sorts of heavy penalties might be applied.

That being said the officer can issue a 24 hour suspension at his own discretion if I am not mistaken without even performing a roadside test!?

That's right, but if it is done this way you have the right to demand breath testing and if your sample is less than 50 mg% your licence is returned to you.

[skidmark]

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

With no alcohol in your body??

[Soundy]

Musta been corked to be asking out an on-duty cop :D

[asdfpic]

I received a 24/hr suspension because I asked a female cop out on a date.

haha wow. were you totally tanked or just walking by a female cop on duty and asked her out?
your my hero :p

[Soundy]

"24 hour suspension" = blockknocker hanging from the ceiling in her bondage dungeon. :haha:

[yvrnycracer]

There's a huge difference in the outcome. The 50 mg% limit in the MVA only results in a 24 hour prohibition if you fall into the 50 to 100 mg% range. If you are over the 100 then all sorts of heavy penalties might be applied.


It still doesn't explain why there is a difference between the CC and the MVA...

And a 24 hour suspension has no effect on your standing with our fair insurance company/law making authority/licensing agency?!

Why there is a difference between anything in the canadian road safety regs, the provincial mva and the criminal code is beyond me.

[yvrnycracer]

That's right, but if it is done this way you have the right to demand breath testing and if your sample is less than 50 mg% your licence is returned to you.

Would this have to be done with the Datamaster (not sure of the exact name) at the station?! And would a lawyer be contacted prior to this test!?

[skidmark]

It still doesn't explain why there is a difference between the CC and the MVA...

For that you would have to ask the politicians that made the rules....

And a 24 hour suspension has no effect on your standing with our fair insurance company/law making authority/licensing agency?!

Not so. Too many 24 hour prohibitions and wave goodbye to your driver's licence for a lot longer. I must admit though, I am surprised that there are no penalty points associated with them.

Why there is a difference between anything in the canadian road safety regs, the provincial mva and the criminal code is beyond me.

We won't hold that against you. ;)

[skidmark]

Would this have to be done with the Datamaster (not sure of the exact name) at the station?! And would a lawyer be contacted prior to this test!?

Yes and no. You are demanding the test, so there is no need for Charter Rights to kick in. Should you blow over, then it's time for the Charter and more (mandatory) samples because you have just handed the officer reasonable and probable grounds.

[Five-Oh]

Yes and no. You are demanding the test, so there is no need for Charter Rights to kick in. Should you blow over, then it's time for the Charter and more (mandatory) samples because you have just handed the officer reasonable and probable grounds.

In my time as a police officer, of all the times I have seen a person request a breath test after being given a 24 hour suspension, I have never seen one given. It is not because the officer refuses to give it, it is because people start to rethink what they are demanding once everything is explained to them.

The person is always just getting a 24 hour suspension if they are not giving a breath sample. If they request the breath test it is then explained to them that if they do blow under, the 24 hour suspension will be lifted and they will be free to go. It is then explained to them that if they blow over, they will still be getting the 24 hour suspension and in addition to that they will likely receive an administrative driving prohibition (3 months on top of the 24 hour) as well as 2 criminal charges. Almost every single person I have seen have that explained to them has opted to just take the 24 hour suspension and not make the gamble. The people that have opted to blow only pretend to blow and never give a valid sample, so it is basically like they never blew and they still receive the 24 hour suspension (if this happens I always blow into the ASD myself after just to test that it is working properly).

[yvrnycracer]

For that you would have to ask the politicians that made the rules....



It's too bad most politicians don't think of things in the real world...



Not so. Too many 24 hour prohibitions and wave goodbye to your driver's licence for a lot longer. I must admit though, I am surprised that there are no penalty points associated with them.



Very true, that being said if you are permitted to drive by the criminal code of canada (the laws we ALL are expected to live by - just clearing that up ;)) with up to .08mg% of blood in our system why even have the 24 hour suspension system in place?! IF you are over point .08 you fail... simple, if you are under you are sent on your way. Not only does this create additional bureaucracy by having more rules to follow, the need for more paperwork and the need for additional civil servants to process said paperwork as well as hear appeals. And by not having some sort of penalty (aside from having to pay towing fees storage) the system seems rather pointless. Does the government of bc have some secret knowledge that the GoC does not?! Is someone with .05mg% of alcohol in their system not have the ability to operate properly a Motor Vehicle?! If this is indeed the case why is the federal law not .05 instead of .08?! Is there some other motivation (such as drug use?!) that inspires the 24 hour suspension?!


We won't hold that against you. ;)

I am sure you don't agree with me in any way ;) :D

[Five-Oh]

Speaking from personal experience, I would never operate a vehicle while at a BAC of 50mg%. Personally, I believe the legal limit should be lowered if anything.

yvrnycracer, you seem to be overly concerned on all the laws on impaired driving. My advice to you is instead of stressing out on if you are going to be over 50 or over 80, just don't drive if you have had anything to drink. Plan ahead so that you have a ride home if you are going to be drinking. There is no sense risking your life or the lives of others.

[yvrnycracer]

Speaking from personal experience, I would never operate a vehicle while at a BAC of 50mg%. Personally, I believe the legal limit should be lowered if anything.



I totally agree with you!



yvrnycracer, you seem to be overly concerned on all the laws on impaired driving. My advice to you is instead of stressing out on if you are going to be over 50 or over 80, just don't drive if you have had anything to drink. Plan ahead so that you have a ride home if you are going to be drinking. There is no sense risking your life or the lives of others.

On any night out the car stays home... it is not worth risking my life, the lives of others and my car, even the thought of having it on a tow truck and sitting in an impound makes me sick...

I am more interested in the inconsistencies between canadian law and those that govern our province. I am curious why in BC you will get a driving prohibition when the government of canada says it is okay... the same can be said for tint, front license plates and any other law that is NOT consistent across the country. This is why I question these things and I am grateful to have a forum where those who enforce the laws can have an open discussion about them and maybe offer knoledge that cannot be found any other way than questioning those who may know more or be educated through personal experience or other as to why things are the way they are... simple :thumbsup:

[Five-Oh]

I totally agree with you!



On any night out the car stays home... it is not worth risking my life, the lives of others and my car, even the thought of having it on a tow truck and sitting in an impound makes me sick...

I am more interested in the inconsistencies between canadian law and those that govern our province. I am curious why in BC you will get a driving prohibition when the government of canada says it is okay... the same can be said for tint, front license plates and any other law that is NOT consistent across the country. This is why I question these things and I am grateful to have a forum where those who enforce the laws can have an open discussion about them and maybe offer knoledge that cannot be found any other way than questioning those who may know more or be educated through personal experience or other as to why things are the way they are... simple :thumbsup:

Good to know the car stays at home on the nights out, I respect that.

As far as the inconsistencies, I don't believe the impaired driving is an inconsistency, instead more of a varying degree of punishment. Research has shown (I will find a source later if somebody really wants it, I don't have it on my computer it was just taught to me by somebody with a masters in science on my Datamaster course) that ALL persons are impaired by alcohol at a blood alcohol content of 100mg%, which as luck would have it is where the "FAIL" sets in on the ASD. So basically that means that every single person no matter what their gender, race, size, body composition, alcohol tolerance, what they have eaten, etc will be impaired at a blood alcohol content of 100mg%. So basically at time of driving when you blow a "FAIL", you are impaired. That means that every person that gets criminal charges and a 3 month driving suspension is without a doubt impaired by alcohol.

On the other hand, you have section 215 under the BC Motor Vehicle Act. A persons ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected by alcohol at 50mg%. Notice the difference in wording, where at 100mg% (criminal charges and 3 month driving suspension) you are "impaired" by alcohol and at 50mg% (24 hour suspension) your "ability to operate a motor vehicle is affected" by alcohol. It is serious life affecting consequences when a person is impaired. It is a 24 hour suspension (no fine, usually just a tow bill) and a black mark on your driving record if you are driving while your ability is affected by alcohol. The impaired person is receiving a strict punishment for their actions whereas the person who has just had a few too many is having their license taken away for public safety concerns. I say good on the BC government for taking a tough stance on impaired driving.

As for the other stuff you mentioned, I don't feel as strongly about personally but I will throw in my 2 cents. Tinted windows, yes it looks much better without a doubt. I have my rear windows tinted legally for the look and to hide what is inside of my car. The one problem I do have with my tinted windows is on a dark and rainy night I can hardly see out the back of my car. Now if I had this on the front side windows, it would be hard to see out of them too. This would make it difficult to see my mirrors, traffic beside me, and traffic coming from side streets. I know a really light tint may not do this, but I think for the politicians it is difficult to draw a line as to what is okay and what is not, so they just make it illegal just to cover themselves. From my stand point as a police officer, when I approach a vehicle I have stopped, I like to see what is inside. There isn't many feelings worse than approaching a car with all the windows rolled up and tinted, I have no idea what is behind that window and they can see me clearly. Why this is not consistent across Canada, I can honestly say I have no idea.

Front license plates, I will admit I find them ugly too. In my opinion, the main purpose of the front plate is simply to make the car more identifiable. A situational example is say you are sitting there in your car and another vehicle runs into you head on. The vehicle that just hit you has no front plate on, slams it into reverse, peels out backwards and takes off. You never saw the back of the vehicle so you have no idea who hit you. That is $300 out of your pocket for the deductible. Change the situation a little, car that hits you still takes off, but has a front plate on it. You write down the plate number, call ICBC, and that person will be paying your deductible. Again, why it is not consistent across Canada I don't have a clue. I don't know if the reasons I just listed are why those things are laws, just my opinion on why they may be laws.

[azzurro32]

Kinda OT, but still on the same subject,

I know its all relevant to different individuals, but I want to know how many beers is enough to push a person into a '24 hour suspension' situation.

Personally, I am not a big drinker, so if I have a beer or two, I may not exactly be drunk, but I could still drive a car (I choose not to at times since I am not comfortable). If I were to get stopped with having 1-2 beers a few hours earlier, is that in the proximity of a 24 hour suspension?

[yvrnycracer]

Kinda OT, but still on the same subject,

I know its all relevant to different individuals, but I want to know how many beers is enough to push a person into a '24 hour suspension' situation.

Personally, I am not a big drinker, so if I have a beer or two, I may not exactly be drunk, but I could still drive a car (I choose not to at times since I am not comfortable). If I were to get stopped with having 1-2 beers a few hours earlier, is that in the proximity of a 24 hour suspension?

If I am not mistaken... ONE drink could get you a 24 hour suspension...

[Deezel85]

bringing this thread back...

I received a first time 24hour last night and am a little uncertain what's happening next.


First time offence. Clean driving record up until now. Not even any recent MVA tickets. Blew "FAIL" at Roadside test. Agreeded to take 2 breath samples at the station. Both were over 100mg% Was sent home with no tickets or fines.


What should I be doing now? I can reapply for my new "short term 2 year" licence? I should file a review to the superintendant?

Am I looking at a 3 month suspension for a first time offence?

[CRS]

What license do you have?

[Deezel85]

Class 5.

[zulutango]

FYI concerning 24 hr suspensions..recent BC Court decision says that issuing a VT for driving without due care is an appropriate charge for blowing a "warn" on a roadside screening device, in addition to the 215 suspension.

Google this link

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2008/02/p08_0241.htm

[skidmark]

You are not out of the woods yet. There is still the possibility of receiving a summons to court and impaired driving charges being laid. The ADP can also be issued at a later date.