[misteranswer]

B.C.’s harsh new drunk-driving laws are stretching police resources, says the Vancouver Police Union president Tom Stamatakis.

Officers now face the potential for more pursuits and are wasting time waiting for tow trucks and taxis after vehicles are impounded, he says.

“Ultimately, from a front-line police officer’s perspective, we’re ending up not targeting the person that’s responsible for the very serious tragedies that we deal with in an ongoing basis,” said Stamatakis.

“Even if you support the change of regulations, I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.”

Stamatakis said the heavier penalties on drivers with a breathalyzer reading of between .05 and .08 means that police are targeting people who have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner — rather than problem drinking drivers.

The higher penalties are leading to increased tension between police and drivers and extra officers may be needed for back up at a time when police are already short-staffed, he said.

“There’s no question that speeding and drunk driving cause a lot of carnage on our roads,” said Stamatakis, who’s also president of the B.C. Police Association. “In this country, at least, it’s not illegal to consume a glass of wine with dinner and it seems we’re creating a situation where we are put in the unenviable position of having to enforce these regulations.”

Stamatakis said his members weren’t consulted before the government brought in the new laws, and that he plans to talk to Solicitor General Mike de Jong about them.

“There’s a significant fine attached for both speeding and lower blood-alcohol limits,” Stamatakis said. “Is that revenue going to be poured back into public safety, or going to end up in general revenue?

“My view would be if we’re going to create these regulations that have a considerable impact on police capacity, then the revenues should come back to policing.”

Simon Fraser University criminologist Neil Boyd said Wednesday he agrees with Stamatakis.

“When you institute these kind of changes, there may well be consequences that were not what was intended, in terms of the use of scarce police resources,” he said.

“This is new territory. Do we have a lot of evidence that people at .05 are the people that are creating more than 1,000 impaired driving deaths that we get in Canada every year?”

Cpl. Jamie Chung, spokesman for RCMP traffic services, said the Mounties haven’t experienced any extra problems since the law came in Sept. 20.

“Police work comes with risk,” he said. “If we have to impound people’s vehicles, there’s always a potential for them to get irate.”

And police have always had to wait for tow-trucks when impounding vehicles during roadside suspensions, he added.

Manon Groulx, Vancouver vice-president for Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, was reluctant to comment on Stamatakis’s views.

“If the new laws stop impaired drivers and reduce the amount of victims, we’re happy,” she said.

De Jong didn’t return calls from The Province but is due in Richmond Thursday to announce figures on the tickets and fines issued since the laws were stiffened.


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Police+union+says+tough+drunk+driving+laws+targett ing+wrong+drinkers/3702484/story.html

[cho]

one time at work i saw someone get pulled over for speeding/drinking
3 other cop cars showed up and they were all hanging out till the tow truck came
...2 hours later
so thats like 6 cops just doing nothing for 2 hours

[jigga250]

finally, some common fucking sense

:2finger: to all the morons in the other thread equating someone having a beer after work with the habitual shitfaced drunks.

People blowing .05 aren't mowing down pedestrians.

[Hondaracer]

yea, sucks pretty bad for some hard working average joe that has 2 beers after grinding out a week only to get his car impounded and livelihood taken away

im curious to see if any change ever comes of the new rules back to the old way if there is enough outcry from resturants/bars and public figures saying police resources are stretched

[Vansterdam]

http://istargazer.ca/extras/gcampbell.jpg

[Mpowered]

http://istargazer.ca/extras/gcampbell.jpg

NUFF SAID! LOL

[optiblue]

I for one can't even enjoy a glass of wine or have a cold beer when I go out for dinner anymore. I can't risk losing my means of transportation to work and that means I'll just have water or a coke. I can't imagine what it's like for bars and resturaunts right now. First the HST hit, and now customers drink in fear that they'll lose their license (if they even order one). I can't believe that people are getting impounded for having 1 or 2 beers with a meal. I agree that the new law needs to go under review with more proof that people between 0.05-0.08 are actually impaired.

On a side note, it SHOULD be a crime to put ethanol into gasoline.

[ziggyx]

I read in an article awhile back that a restaurant owner claims the law was targeting the wrong people. The owner says the law has caused a lot of customers to think twice before having that glass of wine or beer with their meal now. However people who always get drunk and get behind the wheel will probably continue to do so regardless.

The new law definitely has stopped me from ordering that beer to go with my meal whenever I'm out eating that's for sure. Like optiblue said, I will have water or coke instead.

[silva95teg]

Can anyone approximately answer this for me, Say you are an average sized guy around 180 lbs. You have dinner and with it a pint of beer, you leave the restaurant after about an hour. When i check an online calculator it says you would be under .02. Is it really a worry then ?

The other problem is people react differently to alcohol, i would not feel differently after one pint, but i have a friend whose face goes red and he says he feels it.

[luibei]

same here no more alcoholic beverages when i go out now, used to always have 1 beer with meal but now I dont want to chance it and i dont wana be hitting anywhere close to the limit. I just have water now instead. Any waiters out there notice a decline in booze consumption at all??

[Death2Theft]

Think for a minute if one drink affects you AT ALL then you shouldn't drink it. However do you really think cops are gonna breathalyzer every single perseon at a road block? No they are going to look for those that are affected enough to show signs.

[BaoTurbo]

Think for a minute if one drink affects you AT ALL then you shouldn't drink it. However do you really think cops are gonna breathalyzer every single perseon at a road block? No they are going to look for those that are affected enough to show signs.

Well some actually get red and all even if it is a mouthful of beer or something. Not saying they don't look for people with signs, but sometimes you can act fine. Now even I'm scared to drink at all and driving because it's not like they give you a warning or drunk tank or anything...straight up impound which comes to tow fees+time wasted+taxi (or someone to bail you)+lost car+ticket fee....all cuz of getting busted for blowing the limit by a little or a lot.

[GabAlmighty]

In other news... Tom Stamatakis is now on paid leave!

[vitaminG]

interesting read, i had my doubts if the new law would seriously affect the amount of drunk driving accidents, the people that are getting in accidents i would guess are usually well over 0.05.

Unfortunately theres no way to go back now and make it less strict without it being seen as an approval for drunk driving.

[GabAlmighty]

Define "drunk". To me drunk isn't feeling all fuzzy inside.

[Meowjin]

In other news... Tom Stamatakis is now on paid leave!

thank you for your informative post.

[StylinRed]

i dont feel anyone should have any level of impairment if they're driving (get someone else to drive or take a taxi etc)

you can tell me you're fine after a couple of drinks or even a few, that may or may not be true, for you, but laws of this nature aren't amended to suit a minority

the fact is any level of alcohol is an impairment your capability at coping with it shouldn't be brought into question

at least imo



edit: i guess those failing feel impairment and driving are two different issues? :rolleyes:

[SlowRider]

the government who passes these laws defiantly have there heads tucked far up there ass's because most dangerous and drunk offenders allready will drive a vehicle regardless they have a licence or not ...and if the car is borrowed or stolen ...

[Culture_Vulture]

the government who passes these laws defiantly have there heads tucked far up there ass's because most dangerous and drunk offenders allready will drive a vehicle regardless they have a licence or not ...and if the car is borrowed or stolen ...
what the fuck you talkin about

[RRxtar]

Ive been saying since this was first announced, if this law is about SAFETY and not generating revenue, the money brought in from the new law should be put back into alternative modes of transportation.

You should be able to claim a portion of taxi recipts at income tax time.



I dont live too far from 'downtown' Kelowna, so a taxi ride costs me $20 each way. Its safe to say in the summer I spend $150/month on taxi's just going out on weekends.

I own my own business and I average about 200km a day driving AT WORK. If I lost my licence, Id be fucked, theres no alternative to me driving every day.



Its been said time and time again, its not the guy having a beer or 2 out for dinner watching the game, or the guy and his wife having a glass of wine or 2 at dinner and driving at 0.05 that are the problem. Its the guy sitting at home drinking an 18 pack, and then driving to the liquor store to buy more beer thats the problem. The casual drink with dinner doesnt cause horrific accidents, its the alcoholics. and fines and impounds dont help alcoholism.

[rslater]

RRxtar i've had the exact same idea you have. I've alwasy thought that based on an average the government is bringing from the fines, it should be put towards subsidizing a cost towards taxi fares for drinkers. The price on the meter should be deducted a certain precentage, and the government revenue from this should pay the other amount. If i was told my cab would be 10% cheaper lets say, I have FAR more inclined to take one .And the taxi cab owners are not loosing any money as they are still charging the same rate.

[jbsali]

This law targets the wrong people. The people that they are looking for are WAY over the limit. Now these cops have to wait an hour or 2 for the tow-truck, which means one less officer on duty, which means more wait time and less officer available for actual crimes. As if the wait time and lack of law enforcement wasn't bad enough.

[GabAlmighty]

thank you for your informative post.

Majin, I'm glad you thought so! I really put a lot of effort into it so that I could help the general populace see my point of view. That dream has been realize upon your approval of my comment further strengthening my resolve to continue providing quality posts and comments to this board. I hope that others will see the value in my posts and continue to appreciate all the hard work and time that I put into formulating every response I make, I'm glad you saw it. :moon:

[StylinRed]

^^rofl

[impulse777]

I suprised and concerned that everyone here are just takling about having a beer. I'm very worried about the precedence this has set.

wiki: Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land (charter) protecting individual persons from the state. When a government harms a person, without following the exact course of the law, then that is a due process violation which offends the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings, so JUDGES - instead of legislators - may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty. This interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government shall not be unfair to the people.

This legislation circumvents 24 (1) handing out immediate fines and punishment without the opportunity for appeal or review

Law of the land.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

[Great68]

Yesterday there was an article in the Victoria paper that our impound lots are having trouble keeping up with the number of cars being impounded. A lot of people with beaters are just abandoning their cars at the impound lot... hahahaha



BC's drunk driving penalties have cars flooding impound lots


Even after buying more land, Cheryl Parker is having a tough time squeezing in all the cars impounded under B.C.'s new drinking-driving penalties.

She owns All-Ways Towing, which has the contract to store vehicles seized by the Victoria Police. Business is booming. Her lot is bursting — not necessarily because more drinking drivers are being caught, but because their cars are being held for three, seven, sometimes 30 days. "Basically, they're in for longer, so that means I need more room to hold on to them."

Of the approximately 200 cars in her expanded lot, 100 to 150 were there because of month-old rules that allow police to issue stiff roadside suspension to drivers who have been drinking. "Before the new rules, I probably would have had 75, max."

Other towing companies also say business is up, though not that dramatically. "We haven't seen a huge increase," said Mike Simmons of Totem Towing, which has the contract in Saanich.

Motorists who blow a "fail" on a roadside screening device — that is, over .10 — can lose their licences for 90 days and have their vehicles held for 30.

Drivers who blow a "warn," which used to draw only a 24-hour driving prohibition, now face licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments of three days for a first offence, seven for a second and 30 for a third. "I'm getting a lot of seven days," says Parker.

She's seeing nicer cars coming in, too, which increases the chance that the owners will claim them.

It seems car abandonment has been a big problem for impound lots. In fact, so many people have been walking away from their cars rather than pay the storage fee that the provincial government has reduced the time it locks away the cars of unlicensed and prohibited drivers.

In the past, people caught driving without a licence lost their cars for 30 or 60 days. Driving while prohibited meant impoundment of 60 to 90 days. Those penalties have been cut to seven, 30 and 60 days, the government responding to complaints from impound lots saddled with cars worth far less than the 90-day storage fee of $1,550.

"We just weren't having the desired behavioural impact," says Steve Martin, B.C.'s superintendent of motor vehicles. Some people deliberately buy junkers, treating them as the vehicular equivalent of disposable lighters. Parker has been stuck with four clunkers seized from one chronic Victoria offender. "She never comes back for them," Parker says.

Others tell a similar story. "It's a huge problem," says Tamara Mahy, office manager at Peninsula Towing, which hauls cars when called by the Sidney/North Saanich RCMP. Peninsula deals with a lot of "frequent fliers" in $200 junkers. "They just walk away."

"People think we want the vehicles," says Mahy. "No, we don't." It takes 90 days of red tape to get rid of a car that has been impounded for 30. Selling it for scrap doesn't cover the cost of dealing with it. So, yes, she's happy about the reduced impoundment time. "We're getting a lot more vehicles that are leaving."

Coming in the gates are cars seized from excessive speeders, another group targeted by impound rules. "We're getting quite a few of the seven-day impounds," Mahy says. One guy got nailed for doing 160 in a 50 km/h zone on West Saanich Road. His car went to jail for a week.

In fact, that actually works out to nine days. In B.C., drivers see their cars impounded for full calendar days, but also pay storage for the day they got busted and the day they spring their vehicles.

[Hondaracer]

Shit is turning into a police state

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8073/Sylvester-Stallone_Judge_l.jpg
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[geeknerd]

I remember getting Fails for saying that a couple beer is fine and 0.05-0.08 law is bullshit.
hahaha wheres the people now that said "Finally 0.05, what a effective/good law"
Even the police disagree with you guys now.

[originalhypa]

This legislation circumvents 24 (1) handing out immediate fines and punishment without the opportunity for appeal or review

Well said Impulse.
And long time, no see buddy.
:cool:


The truth is that for any of these laws to have teeth, they need to be enforced, and frankly, in today's tough economic climate in BC, they can't afford it. Anyone who thinks we can have more cops patrolling the streets has to ask themselves if they're willing to front those costs through fines and taxes. Nothing in life is free.....

That said, I agree 100% that this law targets the wrong people. Not only that, but it goes against our basic right to be innocent until proven guilty. Due process isn't perfect, but it's a fuck of a lot better than some pig on a power trip making the decisions.

[InvisibleSoul]

I don't remember exactly where it is from, but one supposed argument in favour of having the increased penalties was that last year, there was one driver involved in a fatal accident that was in the warn range. That's a terrible argument, and it should be obvious why by asking a single question: How many fatal accidents were there last year where the driver had zero alcohol in their system?

[drunkrussian]

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

[taylor192]

I don't remember exactly where it is from, but one supposed argument in favour of having the increased penalties was that last year, there was one driver involved in a fatal accident that was in the warn range. That's a terrible argument, and it should be obvious why by asking a single question: How many fatal accidents were there last year where the driver had zero alcohol in their system?
Every country/state/province that has lowered its BAC for driving or enacted stricter punishments has seen a noticeable and desirable decrease in alcohol related accidents. Look it up, there's several European countries that have reduced their BAC level.

The police can scream all they want about wasted resources - these rules do more than they could ever accomplish - reducing alcohol related accidents.

[taylor192]

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?
This should be seriously looked at. Even in Ottawa I could catch a bus on the transitway (Ottawa's version of the Skytrain) after 2am. This would at least get me close enough to my house that a cab would be only $5-10.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Shit is turning into a police state

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/8073/Sylvester-Stallone_Judge_l.jpg
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

that movie was epic lol


seen it 3 times

[punkwax]

I only play hockey now, not beer league hockey. :cry:

[jmvdesign]

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

[Lomac]

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

It's the same catch-22 with tolling bridges with the desire to make more people take transit.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Tapioca]

This should be seriously looked at. Even in Ottawa I could catch a bus on the transitway (Ottawa's version of the Skytrain) after 2am. This would at least get me close enough to my house that a cab would be only $5-10.

We have nightbus service here too. The N9 takes me to within a 5-minute walk of my apartment and it runs until about 3:30 AM.

drunkrussian: There is a Richmond nightbus too that stops at the Canada Line stations. It's the N10 I believe.

I've never had a problem getting a fare out of downtown back to my place, but I've heard of rumblings about taxi drivers refusing to pick up fares to faraway places such as Surrey, the Tri-Cities, etc. I wonder if this is still true?

[taylor192]

We have nightbus service here too. The N9 takes me to within a 5-minute walk of my apartment and it runs until about 3:30 AM.

Cool, I did not know about that! :thumbsup:

[fliptuner]

Yesterday there was an article in the Victoria paper that our impound lots are having trouble keeping up with the number of cars being impounded. A lot of people with beaters are just abandoning their cars at the impound lot... hahahaha

Impound auction time.

[InvisibleSoul]

Every country/state/province that has lowered its BAC for driving or enacted stricter punishments has seen a noticeable and desirable decrease in alcohol related accidents. Look it up, there's several European countries that have reduced their BAC level.

The police can scream all they want about wasted resources - these rules do more than they could ever accomplish - reducing alcohol related accidents.
But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.

[RRxtar]

But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.
lots of things that are reported are misleading. when an accident happens, if the passanger was drunk, the report always says "alcohol was a factor." nearly every accident where someone was speeding, regardless of whether it was 5 or 10km/h over the limit and the speed had nothing to do with the accident, the report always says "speed was a factor." just like how if theres a murder, more often than not, the report says "...... was known to police" even if his name was on file due to something completely unrelated. information can often be misleading.

[taylor192]

But you missed the point of what I wrote.

They use the fact that there was one fatal accident last year where the driver was in the warn range.

The problem is there were probably many fatal accidents last year where the drivers had zero alcohol in their system.

This means that one incident they're citing may very well have occurred regardless of whether the driver was in the warn range or had zero alcohol in his system. Maybe his warn BAC had absolutely no bearing on his accident at all.
I ignored your point cause the only point that matters is stricter rules and/or lower BAC has repeatedly shown noticeable decreases in alcohol related accidents.

I'm sure there's lots of people who blew a fail who thought they'd only blow a warn. The stricter rules make them think twice cause now the warn is strict as well.

[bloodmack]

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

[taylor192]

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

0.5 and 0.8 BAC rules have been around for decades, they are not new. The stricter punishments are new.

[Tapioca]

I think these updated laws need to be more scientifically explained. I want to know why they chose these numbers to represent if the average driver is too "impaired" to drive "safe".

I'm sure ICBC could put out all of the scientific evidence they want (and they have cited evidence in their claims) - people will still be skeptical because of egos (i.e. thinking they're good enough to drive when they are really impaired.)

The bottom line is that it's very difficult politically to go back to the old rules. You can blame MADD all you want, but would any politician want to campaign against reducing the risk of drunk driving? There are always people who will get in front of a camera, write a blog, etc. and talk about how their relatives and friends have been killed by drunk drivers.

[StylinRed]

I suprised and concerned that everyone here are just takling about having a beer. I'm very worried about the precedence this has set.

This legislation circumvents 24 (1) handing out immediate fines and punishment without the opportunity for appeal or review

Law of the land.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.



that would be a matter someone needs to bring to the courts (to decide if the law is wrong) in which case a Judge/Judges will decide if the cause is worthy enough (to get impaired drivers off the streets) and if the law imposes a Reasonable Limit on your Charter Rights

this is known as the Oakes Test and even if the law fails the Oakes Test and is headed to be stricken down the government can still impose Section 33 of the Charter (the Notwithstanding Clause) and make the law stick

the charter isn't set in stone in Canada when it comes to issues like this



that movie was epic lol


seen it 3 times

i loved that movie ;) too bad it bombed

they're doing a remake though with another actor and its supposed to be a lot darker and rated R

[InvisibleSoul]

I ignored your point cause the only point that matters is stricter rules and/or lower BAC has repeatedly shown noticeable decreases in alcohol related accidents.
But has it shown that overall accidents are lower?

[Obsideon]

I read in an article awhile back that a restaurant owner claims the law was targeting the wrong people. The owner says the law has caused a lot of customers to think twice before having that glass of wine or beer with their meal now. However people who always get drunk and get behind the wheel will probably continue to do so regardless.

The new law definitely has stopped me from ordering that beer to go with my meal whenever I'm out eating that's for sure. Like optiblue said, I will have water or coke instead.

how about at least taking the money generated from this and pouring it into making the skytrains run past 1am?

QFT;
I have customers now that usually have a drink or 2 with their meals now just ordering a glass of water... huge drop in sales :(

Example I have this regular group of 6 guys that usually comes in and gets a couple of those BIG BOY Asahi's (2L) to drink with their dinner but the last time they came they only got 2 bottles of small beer to share amongst 6 of them (!) ... so I went over to chat them up and it just so happens that they are from Surrey and were scared of the new driving law. Apparently a taxi ride from their place to downtown runs about $60+ and that would be for TWO cabs since there are 6 of them! ... they mentioned that they would prefer to Skytrain if they COULD but Ebisu closes at 1am and the Skytrain stops at 1:08am. So essentially they have to run like the wind down to Burrard station or decide to leave much earlier, but who goes out to party, have fun and drink it up only to then have to be home by midnight on a weekend? This ain't Cinderalla story nor are they 15 years old with curfews so ... basically wtf kind of logic is that??... don't most, if not all nightclubs close past 2am?
If they were going to enforce these laws at least provide an alternative mode of transportation that doesn't cost a full tank of gas each time they want to head out for a drink ...

[taylor192]

But has it shown that overall accidents are lower?
I see where you're going, yet it has no merit worth pursuing.

If less people are driving drunk, then more people are driving sober. So if more people are driving sober, are accidents up?

This argument is not worth pursuing cause statistically a higher probability of accidents accompanies alcohol consumption. Thus even if there are more sober drivers, they are statistically less likely to have an accident than the drunk drivers they are replacing.

I understand why you're twisting, cause red light cameras and cell phone bans actually cause the # of accidents to increase, yet the twist is not valid for this instance.

[q0192837465]

we have to understand that laws are for society as a whole. 1 or 2 particular instances of bad should not be given as much weight as the overall benefit. It is all about the net effect. People will always complain regardless of how the law changes but as long as the law provide a net positive result, I think it's a good law. Bottomline is, this change makes people more aware of their alcohol consumption, which is definitely good for society as a whole.

[raygunpk]

sucks for restaurant workers. first the hst hits them, now this.
what's next, thanksgiving in a box?

[InvisibleSoul]

I see where you're going, yet it has no merit worth pursuing.

If less people are driving drunk, then more people are driving sober. So if more people are driving sober, are accidents up?

This argument is not worth pursuing cause statistically a higher probability of accidents accompanies alcohol consumption. Thus even if there are more sober drivers, they are statistically less likely to have an accident than the drunk drivers they are replacing.

I understand why you're twisting, cause red light cameras and cell phone bans actually cause the # of accidents to increase, yet the twist is not valid for this instance.
Statistically, how much more likely is someone with a BAC of 0.05 to get into an accident than someone with no alcohol in his system? That is the question I would like an answer to.

[taylor192]

Statistically, how much more likely is someone with a BAC of 0.05 to get into an accident than someone with no alcohol in his system? That is the question I would like an answer to.
The better question is why have some European countries switched to 0.02 from much higher before? Find the answer to that and you'll find the answer to your question.

Hard numbers aside, the simple answer to your question is: someone with a 0.05 BAC is more impaired than someone sober, and thus more likely to have an accident. How much more does not matter, all that matters is that it is more.

Before you try to compare it to sleepy drivers or any other legal impairment - remember what your mother told you - two wrongs don't make a right.

[taylor192]

sucks for restaurant workers. first the hst hits them, now this.
what's next, thanksgiving in a box?
The restaurant industry grew exponentially over the past decade. I do not feel bad, that industry was due for some contraction. Hopefully expensive bottle service and $10 drinks will be replaced with what I remember from first going to bars: $1 drink specials. :D

[RiceIntegraRS]

I went from being an alcoholic to a 2 beer a night drinker.... dayum my weekends are filled with excitement with stories to tell

[Great68]

That said, I agree 100% that this law targets the wrong people. Not only that, but it goes against our basic right to be innocent until proven guilty. Due process isn't perfect, but it's a fuck of a lot better than some pig on a power trip making the decisions.

I was working in the attorney general's office today, and I was literally ready to call Mike De Jong a clown to his face if I happened to see him.

[Tapioca]

QFT;
I have customers now that usually have a drink or 2 with their meals now just ordering a glass of water... huge drop in sales :(

Example I have this regular group of 6 guys that usually comes in and gets a couple of those BIG BOY Asahi's (2L) to drink with their dinner but the last time they came they only got 2 bottles of small beer to share among 6 of them (!) ... so I went over to chat them up and it happens that they are from Surrey and were scared of the new driving law.

Their bodies didn't change their ability to process alcohol as a result of the new law. If they are lightweights, they would have still blown over 0.08 if they had that alcohol between them. They would still have needed to take cabs home under the old laws. If they're 300 pounds, chances are, they would still blow under 0.05 now.

I went from being an alcoholic to a 2 beer a night drinker.... dayum my weekends are filled with excitement with stories to tell

If you were an 'alcoholic' before and were driving home, then you would have likely blown over 0.08 easily. See my point above.

[penner2k]

i dont feel anyone should have any level of impairment if they're driving (get someone else to drive or take a taxi etc)

you can tell me you're fine after a couple of drinks or even a few, that may or may not be true, for you, but laws of this nature aren't amended to suit a minority

the fact is any level of alcohol is an impairment your capability at coping with it shouldn't be brought into question

at least imo



edit: i guess those failing feel impairment and driving are two different issues? :rolleyes:

If you have a hard day at work and are tired do you take a nap before going home?

If you wake up late and have to be somewhere do you call and tell the person you need to wait half an hour to an hour before you can drive? (not sure if this is true but I've heard its just as dangerous to drive when you first wake up as if you are really tired since you arent fully awake)

If something/someone upsets you do refuse to drive since you might be distracted?



I know technically these things arent being impaired but any of these things are most likely just as if not more dangerous then driving after having a beer or a glass of wine.

[StylinRed]

distractions and impairments are different, as you've mentioned, we can only prevent so much but we do try to prevent both (no cell phone use)

what you mentioned there the only people that can stop that are the individual just like when it comes to drinking think before you get behind the wheel


if we can lower the risks people face why not?

[RiceIntegraRS]

StylinRed i got a question for u.

Do u drink? if yes than how much would u say u consume?

cause i have friends of all ages, some who drink lots and some who drink very little. But all them have said thats its retarded that someone cannot enjoy a nice cold one or two after a hard day of work, or a glass of wine at dinner ect without being afraid of potentially losing there car and licence cause of it

The only people i can see who would defend this new law is people who dont enjoy drinking or who dont drink at all

[StylinRed]

no i've never had a sip actually; so i don't know the affects on a person after a couple drinks first hand, but i do know that regardless its a level of impairment and it affects each person differently

[RiceIntegraRS]

I honestly dont know if ur being sarcastic or not but if u arent, dont u think ur being alil biased here? This is kinda like how smokers cant smoke in BC parks. Lets say u werent a smoker ud be saying "oh fuck those smokers, they shouldnt be poluting my air with cigarette smell anyways"

Obviously u have a valid point that if it saves lives then why not, but they've gone to the extreme on this one

[PMCR]

Lol.... Society at it's best has become THIS.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Ludepower]

Ok over .08...I can see why the new laws make sense. Scare the fuking retard drunks off the road

Someone explain WHY do you deserve to get penalize for blowing a warn? .05 - .08?

This is just overkill and targets the average joe who enjoys the light buzz...what proof do they have that .05 causes accidents/deaths?

[InvisibleSoul]

Hard numbers aside, the simple answer to your question is: someone with a 0.05 BAC is more impaired than someone sober, and thus more likely to have an accident. How much more does not matter, all that matters is that it is more.
But how much more does matter in the perspective of whether the punishment fits the crime.

Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable punishment?

How about automatic roadside death penalties for anyone with BAC 0.01 or more?

[taylor192]

But how much more does matter in the perspective of whether the punishment fits the crime.

Where do you draw the line of what's acceptable punishment?

How about automatic roadside death penalties for anyone with BAC 0.01 or more?

Quit being a drama queen. I told you to lookup the European countries that have lowered the BAC to 0.02 and investigate why. Be lucky we're still at 0.05, cause there is justification to go lower.

[taylor192]

I was working in the attorney general's office today, and I was literally ready to call Mike De Jong a clown to his face if I happened to see him.
and what would that serve? To help him justify why these laws are good?

He'll just assume since you're not very smart and resorting to rage that you'll be equally as dumb and aggressive behind the wheel, and these laws are good to punish people like you.

[taylor192]

I know technically these things arent being impaired but any of these things are most likely just as if not more dangerous then driving after having a beer or a glass of wine.

My mother taught me that two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes these are all impairments that should be looked at too, yet it doesn't justify not looking further at alcohol impairment.

[taylor192]

This is kinda like how smokers cant smoke in BC parks. Lets say u werent a smoker ud be saying "oh fuck those smokers, they shouldnt be poluting my air with cigarette smell anyways"
Smokers lost their right to smoke in parks due to littering. If they were more respectful and threw their butts away, they wouldn't have lost the privilege.

California has the same no smoking law on beaches, and it was implemented solely due to litter.

Obviously u have a valid point that if it saves lives then why not, but they've gone to the extreme on this one
Other countries have 0.02 and 0.00 BAC levels with jail time for exceeding the limit. We are nowhere near the extreme.

[taylor192]

Ok over .08...I can see why the new laws make sense. Scare the fuking retard drunks off the road

Someone explain WHY do you deserve to get penalize for blowing a warn? .05 - .08?

This is just overkill and targets the average joe who enjoys the light buzz...what proof do they have that .05 causes accidents/deaths?
There has always been a penalty for blowing a warn, it was a 24hr license suspension and possibly tow and impound. Why people think this is new is beyond me, the only thing that is new is the punishment is increased from 24hrs to 3 days.

[Great68]

and what would that serve? To help him justify why these laws are good?

He'll just assume since you're not very smart and resorting to rage that you'll be equally as dumb and aggressive behind the wheel, and these laws are good to punish people like you.

No, just to express my personal opinion of him. I didn't like him BEFORE any of these new laws, nor did I vote for him or his party.

I never said I was looking for him to like me back.

[originalhypa]

Taylor seems to want a police state in Canada.
What's next, making it illegal to make fun of poorly modified cars?

:lol


sigh. a low blow indeed. I'll probably get the dreaded "taylor fail" now.

Regardless, wven the police union agrees with us. Thus the point of this thread. I'll quote it for you, with the important parts in bold.


“Even if you support the change of regulations, I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.”

Stamatakis said the heavier penalties on drivers with a breathalyzer reading of between .05 and .08 means that police are targeting people who have a couple of glasses of wine with dinner — rather than problem drinking drivers.

The higher penalties are leading to increased tension between police and drivers and extra officers may be needed for back up at a time when police are already short-staffed, he said.


what more needs to be said, other than stop being an argumentative asshole.

[InvisibleSoul]

Quit being a drama queen. I told you to lookup the European countries that have lowered the BAC to 0.02 and investigate why. Be lucky we're still at 0.05, cause there is justification to go lower.
I'm using an example of hyperbole, not being a drama queen.

That's a pretty non-trivial task that you're proposing I do, and frankly with the couple minutes I spent looking it up on Google, I was not able to find any reports on why some European countries have lowered it to 0.02.

Heck, if we're using other countries as examples, why not go further? Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and the Slovak Republic all have 0.00 BAC as the permissible level.

Now, I don't know what the punishment is if one were to be in violation of that.

Whatever the case, just to be clear, my main point of debate isn't the level of BAC set to 0.05, it's whether the punishment is too stiff at that level.

[Manic!]

The restaurant industry grew exponentially over the past decade. I do not feel bad, that industry was due for some contraction. Hopefully expensive bottle service and $10 drinks will be replaced with what I remember from first going to bars: $1 drink specials. :D

Never going back to a buck a drink. City's now have bylaws saying they can't charge below cost. In Nanaimo the min price is $3.25.

I remember going to a bar dropping a $20 and getting a table full of drinks. Made you feel like you were balling.

[taylor192]

Taylor seems to want a police state in Canada.
What's next, making it illegal to make fun of poorly modified cars?
We can discuss having moderator privileges to ban someone who points out where you are wrong and banning is the only response you have.

Regardless, wven the police union agrees with us. Thus the point of this thread. I'll quote it for you, with the important parts in bold.
Statistically accidents decrease with stricter rules and lower BAC. The police can complain, yet this does more to help pubic safety than they can provide. The police are welcome to their opinion - yet it is wrong.

what more needs to be said, other than stop being an argumentative asshole.
That you are wrong.

[ajax]

Statistically accidents decrease with stricter rules and lower BAC. The police can complain, yet this does more to help pubic safety than they can provide. The police are welcome to their opinion - yet it is wrong.


So it's safe to assume that you've never had a drink or two with dinner and than drove after right? Since it's wrong.

[MarkyMark]

Well I'm sure statistically not having a passenger to talk to or a radio to play with would make accidents go down as well, as they are both distractions...let's ban that too in the name of safety.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[RiceIntegraRS]

Basically one side is saying which is stylinred and taylor, if it says lives and decreases accidents then I'm all for this law

And the other side is saying which is the majority of us is saying the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

Taylor why don't we go one step further and say speed kills and change the punishment to vehicle impoundment for a year. Does that make sense? It should since the new punishment for blowing a warning does to u
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[gars]

but the majority are saying that the punishment is for people drinking a glass or wine or a bottle of beer.

for the average person, let's say, male, 170lbs, drinking 2 beers over an hour with dinner will only have 0.03%BAC level. Drinking a glass of wine with dinner won't put you in the 0.05% range. I don't understand what the fuss is about?

Maybe it's just me, I don't see myself really that affected by this law, because I wouldn't drink more than 1 or 2 drinks with dinner. And if I'm going to the bar to watch the game, and I want to drink more than that, I'll make sure I have a DD to drive me home.

[RiceIntegraRS]

Officer; "have u had anything to drink tonight?"

Driver; "I had 2 beers at dinner"

Officer; "ok I have grounds to give u a breathalzyer"

Driver; "ok no problem"

Officer; "well u blew a fail, I'm gonna have to impound ur car and u lose ur licence for a couple days"

Driver; "wtf I only had 2 beers though...."

Officer; "sorry but its the new law"

Driver; "so I'm guilty till proven innocent?"

Officer; "its the law"


Now don't u think this may happen to some of us down the road?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[minoru_tanaka]

There has always been a penalty for blowing a warn, it was a 24hr license suspension and possibly tow and impound. Why people think this is new is beyond me, the only thing that is new is the punishment is increased from 24hrs to 3 days.

All I have to say is if it's a warning then nothing should happen to you. If they punish you then it's not a warning. It's a punishment. If you get a warning for speeding, you don't get a smaller fine. You get to leave. THis is all bull.

[Sid Vicious]

its funny how they're trying to get "tough" on drunk driving while two police officers essentially got off scott free for dui...one while killing a man

i.e.
http://media.canada.com/1ceaa7d7-3889-4f4c-9003-991895e62419/SUN1029N-Monty%20Robinson.jpg

"RCMP docked 10 days pay for driving impaired"
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090226/bc_baker_rcmp_090226/20090226/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

the police should should start by setting an example and holding their employees to a higher standard

[taylor192]

That's a pretty non-trivial task that you're proposing I do, and frankly with the couple minutes I spent looking it up on Google, I was not able to find any reports on why some European countries have lowered it to 0.02.

Heck, if we're using other countries as examples, why not go further? Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, and the Slovak Republic all have 0.00 BAC as the permissible level.

Now, I don't know what the punishment is if one were to be in violation of that.

Whatever the case, just to be clear, my main point of debate isn't the level of BAC set to 0.05, it's whether the punishment is too stiff at that level.
Your point is that the punishment is too strict: Are there any countries/regions that have raised the BAC and shown a decrease in accidents? or have a 0.05 or 0.08 BAC and lessened the punishments and shown a decrease? Come back with some non-trivial examples to back up your opinion - then we'll have a debate. :thumbsup:

[taylor192]

All I have to say is if it's a warning then nothing should happen to you. If they punish you then it's not a warning. It's a punishment. If you get a warning for speeding, you don't get a smaller fine. You get to leave. THis is all bull.
It has been like this for years - why are the complaints only being raised now?

The "warning" is to that at the next level (0.08) it becomes a criminal charge. The warning has to be relative to the potential infraction. Speeding does not have criminal charge as the next step, so the warning is less harsh.

[taylor192]

So it's safe to assume that you've never had a drink or two with dinner and than drove after right? Since it's wrong.
I can recognize my bad behaviour AND recognize the merit of the laws.

I am not advocating I am an angel and never break the law - yet I am advocating the laws exist for a good reason.

It seems most here cannot make that separation.

[taylor192]

Basically one side is saying which is stylinred and taylor, if it says lives and decreases accidents then I'm all for this law
This is the only reason I support it as well. I am appalled that the police did not mention this in their media statement.

Taylor why don't we go one step further and say speed kills and change the punishment to vehicle impoundment for a year. Does that make sense? It should since the new punishment for blowing a warning does to u

In Ontario the punishment was 12 hrs for 0.05-0.08 BAC, then I moved to BC where it was 24 hrs. Thus the punishment doubled, yet I wasn't racing to the BC legislature complaining that it was so out of line with Ontario. Now the punishment has tripled, and I'm still not rushing. Why? Cause 12hrs, 24hr, and even 3 days seems reasonable.

365 days does not. You want to multiply the punishment by 100+. That's not one step further, that's off the charts and is not reasonable.

Well I'm sure statistically not having a passenger to talk to or a radio to play with would make accidents go down as well, as they are both distractions...let's ban that too in the name of safety.
This is not reasonable either.

You both want to debate an unreasonable law by providing unreasonable comments. Do you see the irony in that? It is funny, and keeps the discussion going, yet does nothing in your favour to reverse the law.

If you have a problem with the law, find examples in other countries/regions where higher BAC or lesser punishments result in decreased or at least the same level of accidents/deaths. If you cannot, then at least we agree the new law will save lives whether we like the law or not.

For the record, I do not like either the DUI or speeding law - yet do see the statistical safety benefit.

[InvisibleSoul]

Your point is that the punishment is too strict: Are there any countries/regions that have raised the BAC and shown a decrease in accidents? or have a 0.05 or 0.08 BAC and lessened the punishments and shown a decrease? Come back with some non-trivial examples to back up your opinion - then we'll have a debate. :thumbsup:
I'm not arguing that increasing the punishment will reduce the number of incidents. Obviously it will. But the question is at what point does the punishment become unreasonable?

Why not raise the penalty for blowing 0.05 to driving prohibition for a year and $10,000 fine? I'm sure you'll see even fewer incidents then.

Edit: I see RiceIntegraRS made the same point as I did, which you have responded to.

Who determines what is "reasonable"? You seem to think the new penalties are reasonable. However, many people do not.

[gars]

I don't know about "many" people though, I know there is some backlash, particularly those working in the restaurant industry, but I don't think it's a majority of people who oppose the new laws. Maybe we need a poll (of course, this will be skewed, being that this board is mostly populated by young males, some of whom can't even legally drink yet).

[taylor192]

Who determines what is "reasonable"? You seem to think the new penalties are reasonable. However, many people do not.
I think it is reasonable to increase the rules until an appreciable decrease nolonger occurs. Ontario enacted the 50km+ impound laws, BC went further and made it 40km+, Germany goes even further with 30km+. Studies can tell you if these rules were reasonable in making an appreciable decrease. There are studies for Ontario showing it worked, there might be for Germany, and no doubt BC will release some after the law has been around for some time.

Next we can argue whether 1%, 5%, 10% is appreciable - yet lookup the Ontario studies - it is > 10% and there's no arguing against that.

[StylinRed]

I honestly dont know if ur being sarcastic or not but if u arent, dont u think ur being alil biased here? This is kinda like how smokers cant smoke in BC parks. Lets say u werent a smoker ud be saying "oh fuck those smokers, they shouldnt be poluting my air with cigarette smell anyways"

Obviously u have a valid point that if it saves lives then why not, but they've gone to the extreme on this one

no sarcasm intended in my post (although i can see how it can be seen like that, my bad)

and you're right i don't smoke and i don't think smokers should be polluting my lungs cuz they wanna smoke but i just avoid people who are smoking rather than telling them to stay away from me

but the thing is although i can avoid smokers or drunk drivers that shouldn't be such a prominent issue when out and about


Those using the "innocent until proven guilty" card on this sound like they've never heard of a 24hr suspension this can be viewed along the same lines

or like in Ontario with the stree racing law and the impounding of cars (a law which many who are anti .05 agree with)


this just sounds like a case of "it's all good unless it affects me" that's when you hear people scream "i have my rights!" but they don't understand under the law those rights can be rescinded/infringed upon

if you want to head to the courts to argue your charter rights i'd be all for it but don't be surprised if you get turned away

[Elements604]

This along with other recent laws resulted in a 30 - 50% drop in business at our restaurant. I hope smaller businesses closing down and people losing their jobs is worth it in the end. They have really been hitting us hard with no free parking after 8, hst and now this and nothing to compensate at all.

It would be nice if the government would atleast educate people on what .05 means. Like an above poster said 2 drinks over dinner is usually safe for most people, yet most people dont know this and are still scared. Hopefully people start to smarten up.

[vafanculo]

This along with other recent laws resulted in a 30 - 50% drop in business at our restaurant. I hope smaller businesses closing down and people losing their jobs is worth it in the end. They have really been hitting us hard with no free parking after 8, hst and now this and nothing to compensate at all.

It would be nice if the government would atleast educate people on what .05 means. Like an above poster said 2 drinks over dinner is usually safe for most people, yet most people dont know this and are still scared. Hopefully people start to smarten up.

Usually safe? Doesn't sound very reliable to me. I think people who DON'T take a chance and have water or coke at dinner, ARE being smart.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[misteranswer]

Botox defence beats drink charge

Judge agrees WV woman's frozen face meant she couldn't blow


A woman in West Vancouver has had her charge of refusing to give a breath sample tossed out in court after telling a judge she couldn't blow into the roadside screening device because her face was frozen from Botox injections.

Paddi Anne Moore, 51, used the unusual Botox defence while representing herself during a trial on a charge of refusing to give a breath sample in North Vancouver provincial court.

Moore was pulled over in West Vancouver shortly after midnight on April 24 and asked to blow into the roadside-screening device.

Moore was given four chances to blow into the breathalyzer, but the equipment failed to register a sample every time.

Moore argued in court she couldn't purse her lips properly around the roadside device because of Botox injections she had received 10 days earlier in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico, where she lives for part of the year.

Cpl. Fred Harding of the West Vancouver police said Moore first came to his attention because she was driving 50 kilometres per hour on a stretch of highway where the speed limit is 90 km/h. He said he pulled her over after Moore drove through a commercial brake check area on the side of the highway and almost collided with two other vehicles when she pulled out.

After Moore acknowledged drinking alcohol that night, Harding asked her to blow into the roadside breathalyzer device. But "she made no attempt to blow," he said.

In a letter handed up to the judge in court, Moore's Mexican doctor wrote that "the physical effects of Botox injections to the upper lip and mouth area is that the patient is unable to purse (her) lips or whistle." The doctor wrote it is not uncommon for someone who has had the injections to be unable "to wrap their lips around a straw or wide circumference such as a breathalyzer blow apparatus" for up to six months.

Botox injections -- which prevent wrinkles by partially paralyzing facial muscles -- are a common plastic surgery procedure.

Judge Carol Baird Ellan agreed Oct. 4 to dismiss the charge against Moore.

Outside the court, Harding said he's been involved in thousands of drunk driving investigations during his police career but added, "I've never seen anyone who had the gall to go into court and say Botox was their defence."

"The absurdity is hard to fathom," he said, adding Moore's face didn't appear to be frozen into a particular expression when he arrested her.

"If you can speak, you can exhale some kind of air from your mouth," he said.

Harding said despite the judge's warning that the case shouldn't be seen as setting a precedent, he's concerned the case could open up a whole new set of defences for drunk drivers who try to get off on technicalities.

jseyd@nsnews.com
© Copyright (c) North Shore News


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Botox+defence+beats+drink+charge/3711122/story.html#ixzz1396r0zVZ

[penner2k]

Officer; "have u had anything to drink tonight?"

Driver; "I had 2 beers at dinner"

Officer; "ok I have grounds to give u a breathalzyer"

Driver; "ok no problem"

Officer; "well u blew a fail, I'm gonna have to impound ur car and u lose ur licence for a couple days"

Driver; "wtf I only had 2 beers though...."

Officer; "sorry but its the new law"

Driver; "so I'm guilty till proven innocent?"

Officer; "its the law"


Now don't u think this may happen to some of us down the road?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

NEVER tell them you drank anything.. You do that you are admitting some sort of guilt..
Its up to them to prove you are doing something wrong

[taylor192]

T They have really been hitting us hard with no free parking after 8.

This has cut down on how much we go out. Instead of hitting a pub after sports we now tend to suggest pubs with free parking nearby. Just easier, sorry it is affecting your business.

[drunkrussian]

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

in vancouver, they never check if you have your pass or not except on random occasions. They have turnstiles which force people to pay before entering in new york and...EVERYWHERE ELSE...which force u to pay when u skytrain. How does the rest of the world fund its late-running trains? I'm not suggesting some innovative new idea here - just basic common sense.

drunkrussian: There is a Richmond nightbus too that stops at the Canada Line stations. It's the N10 I believe

cool, thanks for the tip! :) wouldn't it be just as expensive (and much more convenient) to operate the skytrain instead of having bus drivers drive around til 3am? i guess this just adds to my point above...

[zulutango]

A letter from a Mexican Doctor ????, who does not even appear in court for cross examination, saying that Botox given 10 days earlier makes your face swell so much that you can't blow into a screening device? That will be news to my wife who administers Botox and has seen hundreds of treatments given without this ever happening. What a load of BS. Crown should have objected to the admission of the "evidence" from someone in Mexico. The Doctors I know would never make a false statement like that. I hope Crown appeals this decision.

[vafanculo]

Lesson learned. Don't marry a chick who uses botox

Botox defence beats drink charge

Judge agrees WV woman's frozen face meant she couldn't blow


A woman in West Vancouver has had her charge of refusing to give a breath sample tossed out in court after telling a judge she couldn't blow into the roadside screening device because her face was frozen from Botox injections.

Paddi Anne Moore, 51, used the unusual Botox defence while representing herself during a trial on a charge of refusing to give a breath sample in North Vancouver provincial court.

Moore was pulled over in West Vancouver shortly after midnight on April 24 and asked to blow into the roadside-screening device.

Moore was given four chances to blow into the breathalyzer, but the equipment failed to register a sample every time.

Moore argued in court she couldn't purse her lips properly around the roadside device because of Botox injections she had received 10 days earlier in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico, where she lives for part of the year.

Cpl. Fred Harding of the West Vancouver police said Moore first came to his attention because she was driving 50 kilometres per hour on a stretch of highway where the speed limit is 90 km/h. He said he pulled her over after Moore drove through a commercial brake check area on the side of the highway and almost collided with two other vehicles when she pulled out.

After Moore acknowledged drinking alcohol that night, Harding asked her to blow into the roadside breathalyzer device. But "she made no attempt to blow," he said.

In a letter handed up to the judge in court, Moore's Mexican doctor wrote that "the physical effects of Botox injections to the upper lip and mouth area is that the patient is unable to purse (her) lips or whistle." The doctor wrote it is not uncommon for someone who has had the injections to be unable "to wrap their lips around a straw or wide circumference such as a breathalyzer blow apparatus" for up to six months.

Botox injections -- which prevent wrinkles by partially paralyzing facial muscles -- are a common plastic surgery procedure.

Judge Carol Baird Ellan agreed Oct. 4 to dismiss the charge against Moore.

Outside the court, Harding said he's been involved in thousands of drunk driving investigations during his police career but added, "I've never seen anyone who had the gall to go into court and say Botox was their defence."

"The absurdity is hard to fathom," he said, adding Moore's face didn't appear to be frozen into a particular expression when he arrested her.

"If you can speak, you can exhale some kind of air from your mouth," he said.

Harding said despite the judge's warning that the case shouldn't be seen as setting a precedent, he's concerned the case could open up a whole new set of defences for drunk drivers who try to get off on technicalities.

jseyd@nsnews.com
© Copyright (c) North Shore News


Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Botox+defence+beats+drink+charge/3711122/story.html#ixzz1396r0zVZ
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JD¹³]

I love how taylor192 is arguing he knows what's better for the population of BC than the PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE UNION.

What a sheep, it's too bad they unbanned this clown. RS was a better place for that short period of time when his e-lips weren't flapping.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0sdjmkZUh1qzgeemo1_400.gif

[taylor192]

I love how taylor192 is arguing he knows what's better for the population of BC than the PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE UNION.

What a sheep, it's too bad they unbanned this clown. RS was a better place for that short period of time when his e-lips weren't flapping.
The only sheep are those who read the police article without understanding what it is saying. Instead of attacks, respond to this:

“Ultimately, from a front-line police officer’s perspective, we’re ending up not targeting the person that’s responsible for the very serious tragedies that we deal with in an ongoing basis,” said Stamatakis.Statistically these stricter rules reduce alcohol related accidents. Thus the police union president is technically correct that they are targeting the wrong people - yet he completely ignores that these measures do more to prevent alcohol related accidents than targeting the right people.

I don’t think any of us support the fact that we’ve now become the judge and the jury. Our job is to enforce the law and another part of our criminal justice system should be dealing with the guilt or innocence thing and imposing what the penalties should be.
They have been handing out 24hr suspensions for decades yet are only criticizing now that it has been increased to 3 days. If they meant this they would have challenged the original law - instead this is just political pandering.

Moreso, anyone on this forum who has gotten a VI and been towed knows they have no problem being judge and jury. Thus this media statement is just a bunch of hypocritical BS.

“There’s a significant fine attached for both speeding and lower blood-alcohol limits,” Stamatakis said. “Is that revenue going to be poured back into public safety, or going to end up in general revenue?

“My view would be if we’re going to create these regulations that have a considerable impact on police capacity, then the revenues should come back to policing.”
Why does he care? Oh ya, which union has their hands out for the biggest increase every budget? Remember, this comes from the police union president NOT THE POLICE CHIEF. Conflict of interest? Absolutely.

“When you institute these kind of changes, there may well be consequences that were not what was intended, in terms of the use of scarce police resources,” he said.

Considering the 10K excessive speeding tickets handed out are 1.5% of the 650K tickets handed out yearly, I'd say the claim of stretching resources thin is a flat out lie. Plus both VPD and the RCMP just had a hiring spree for the Olympics and are very well staffed. Oh and the RCMP agree:
Cpl. Jamie Chung, spokesman for RCMP traffic services, said the Mounties haven’t experienced any extra problems since the law came in Sept. 20
I wonder why VPD are so against it, considering VPD only patrols 0.5M of the 4.5M people in BC... oh ya it is the union complaining about wanting more money.

“Police work comes with risk,” he said. “If we have to impound people’s vehicles, there’s always a potential for them to get irate.”

And police have always had to wait for tow-trucks when impounding vehicles during roadside suspensions, he added.
So waiting for a to truck is not new... wow. More pandering.

“If the new laws stop impaired drivers and reduce the amount of victims, we’re happy,” she said.
The only part of the article that matters. Statistically it does, so the police will be happy and the rest of the article is moot.
What is interesting is the police union did not address this at all. They just want more staff and money - not safer roads.

Now you're informed and hopefully nolonger a sheep. RS is better with the correct information, not a bunch of whining that will do absolutely NOTHING to change the law. If you just want to whine and cry, go ahead.

[MWR34]

its funny how they're trying to get "tough" on drunk driving while two police officers essentially got off scott free for dui...one while killing a man

i.e.
http://media.canada.com/1ceaa7d7-3889-4f4c-9003-991895e62419/SUN1029N-Monty%20Robinson.jpg

"RCMP docked 10 days pay for driving impaired"
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090226/bc_baker_rcmp_090226/20090226/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

the police should should start by setting an example and holding their employees to a higher standard

This = FUCKING GOOF

[JD¹³]

Oh Taylor, here we go again. Thanks for the fail, as is your usual defence. I'm sure your candy-ass reported me to moderators as well. You're like a rich kid that runs to daddy everytime something doesn't go his way.

The only sheep are those who read the police article without understanding what it is saying. Instead of attacks, respond to this...

Sheep are people that do what they're told without thinking freely for themselves. That would be you!

...the police union president is technically correct that they are targeting the wrong people - yet he completely ignores...

Thanks for proving my point, you think you know what's better for the populous of greater Vancouver than the man who represents the police as a whole.

They have been handing out 24hr suspensions for decades yet are only criticizing now that it has been increased to 3 days. If they meant this they would have challenged the original law - instead this is just political pandering.

A 24hr license suspension and overnight tow IF the officer felt necessary is much different from having your car IMPOUNDED for 3 days for not breaking a single law either criminal or according the the MVA. Now officers are required to go against their own common sense when dealing with drivers and impound them regardless if they feel it's unnecessary. See the difference? I doubt you do.

Moreso, anyone on this forum who has gotten a VI and been towed knows they have no problem being judge and jury. Thus this media statement is just a bunch of hypocritical BS.

VI's are a totally different issue as that deals with the road-worthiness of a vehicle and has nothing to do with the current legislation but nice attempt at legitimizing your argument regarding the towing. Personally I think they could impound a lot more rusted out shit-buckets with busted taillights and mufflers that have rusted off.

Why does he care? Oh ya, which union has their hands out for the biggest increase every budget? Remember, this comes from the police union president NOT THE POLICE CHIEF. Conflict of interest? Absolutely.

Considering the 10K excessive speeding tickets handed out are 1.5% of the 650K tickets handed out yearly, I'd say the claim of stretching resources thin is a flat out lie. Plus both VPD and the RCMP just had a hiring spree for the Olympics and are very well staffed. Oh and the RCMP agree...

I wonder why VPD are so against it, considering VPD only patrols 0.5M of the 4.5M people in BC... oh ya it is the union complaining about wanting more money.

The VPD patrol the densest population center in the province, a massive tourism hub full of bars and restaurants, and are already struggling to deal with the ridiculous drain of resources that is the downtown Eastside. Now they have to sit and wait for a tow-truck for a minimum of 45mins cause someone had some drinks with dinner and is heading home without breaking any criminal or MVA law. It's a waste of the officers time to hassle people like this and that's the point of their complaint. Remove the tinfoil hat. Oh and anything that comes out of an RCMP spokesman's mouth is worth less than the dumps I take after eating Mexican. I bet you really think Monty Robinson is innocent and apologetic for killing 2 people during his career as a "peace officer" and is deserving of his paid leave :rolleyes: See my response to being a sheep.

So waiting for a to truck is not new... wow. More pandering.

See my response to 24hr suspensions.

The only part of the article that matters. Statistically it does, so the police will be happy and the rest of the article is moot. What is interesting is the police union did not address this at all. They just want more staff and money - not safer roads.

Before they only had to do that with people that truly deserved it, people who've blown at or above the limit, were pulled over for erratic driving, etc. Now they HAVE to do it, as I said, even if it goes against their judgement of a persons impairment who has legally done nothing wrong. Their focus is in the wrong area, how do you not understand what they mean by this!?

Now you're informed and hopefully nolonger a sheep.

I'd like to direct this statement back at you but it would fall on deaf ears. I can already feel the next post you make dancing around the facts I've stated in mine to support your argument that the public and the police don't agree with. BAHHHHHH :facepalm:

[taylor192]

Oh Taylor, here we go again. Thanks for the fail, as is your usual defence. I'm sure your candy-ass reported me to moderators as well. You're like a rich kid that runs to daddy everytime something doesn't go his way.
LOL first you fail me then cry when it happens to you. Hypocrite much? Did you're mother teach you about do onto others as you'd want done onto you? Perhaps not.

[JD¹³]

LOL first you fail me then cry when it happens to you. Hypocrite much? Did you're mother teach you about do onto others as you'd want done onto you? Perhaps not.
You wanna talk about hypocrisy? How about the fact that you think the VPD press release is some conspiracy about getting more money for the union and yet you take the RCMP statements regarding the new legislation as gospel! The RCMP is never wrong!

As originalhypa said, you're just an argumentative asshole.

[taylor192]

Sheep are people that do what they're told without thinking freely for themselves. That would be you!
Yes cause questioning what the police UNION tells me makes me a sheep. :rolleyes:

Thanks for proving my point, you think you know what's better for the populous of greater Vancouver than the man who represents the police as a whole.

....

Oh and anything that comes out of an RCMP spokesman's mouth is worth less than the dumps I take after eating Mexican.
Thanks for cutting my point off to try and make yours. I'll take the word of the police CHIEF not the police UNION PRESIDENT.

Then you ignore the RCMP in favour of the VPD. Both have atrocious misuses of police power, yet for someone reason you're biases towards the UNION not the actual police force representing most of BC.

A 24hr license suspension and overnight tow IF the officer felt necessary is much different from having your car IMPOUNDED for 3 days for not breaking a single law either criminal or according the the MVA. Now officers are required to go against their own common sense when dealing with drivers and impound them regardless if they feel it's unnecessary. See the difference? I doubt you do.
Incorrect. You're in violation of the MVA for BAC of 0.05 to 0.08 and the MVA defines the punishments.

Statistics > common sense. Statistically these stricter punishments decrease alcohol related accidents. You and the VPD union have ignored this. Try to debate that - oh wait you cannot thus why you try to squirm around it.

The VPD patrol the densest population center in the province, a massive tourism hub full of bars and restaurants, and are already struggling to deal with the ridiculous drain of resources that is the downtown Eastside. Now they have to sit and wait for a tow-truck for a minimum of 45mins cause someone had some drinks with dinner and is heading home without breaking any criminal or MVA law. It's a waste of the officers time to hassle people like this and that's the point of their complaint. Remove the tinfoil hat.
Wanna whine and cry some more?

Get your head out of your ass. The measures statistically reduce alcohol related accidents. /end argument.

Before they only had to do that with people that truly deserved it, people who've blown at or above the limit, were pulled over for erratic driving, etc. Now they HAVE to do it, as I said, even if it goes against their judgement of a persons impairment who has legally done nothing wrong. Their focus is in the wrong area, how do you not understand what they mean by this!?
That's insignificant. These laws do MORE than any other policing initiative to reduce alcohol related deaths. Thus they may feel like they are wasting time and resources, yet it is statistically doing more than any other policing initiative they could legally be doing.

There are lots of FACTS online if you wish to find them that support this, instead of your common sense which is actually INCORRECT.


I'd like to direct this statement back at you but it would fall on deaf ears. I can already feel the next post you make dancing around the facts I've stated in mine to support your argument that the public and the police don't agree with.
I have repeatedly stated that these stricter punishments decrease alcohol related accidents. Until you disprove this, you're the one dancing while ignoring the point of these new laws - increased public safety.

You have not presented one single fact, only common sense which is statistically incorrect. Keep whining and crying. :thumbsup:

PS, even your friends at BCSillyBikes don't care about these new laws, so you're in the minority even amongst those who should support you: http://bcsportbikes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126755

[JD¹³]

PS, even your friends at BCSillyBikes don't care about these new laws, so you're in the minority even amongst those who should support you: http://bcsportbikes.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126755
Did you just link me to a poll about the laws regarding going 40+ and being impounded when we're arguing about the drinking and driving legislation? Did you just try to belittle my arguments by deflecting my stance to something COMPLETELY unrelated? You're SMRT, and you wonder why noone takes you seriously :rofl:

[taylor192]

You wanna talk about hypocrisy? How about the fact that you think the VPD press release is some conspiracy about getting more money for the union and yet you take the RCMP statements regarding the new legislation as gospel! The RCMP is never wrong!

As originalhypa said, you're just an argumentative asshole.
originalhypa lost all credibility when he cold not provide a single property in Vancouver he could buy and rent out for a profit, and he is correct to call me an argumentative asshole cause I called him out and he couldn't back up his words.

Lets get this correct: THIS IS NOT A VPD PRESS RELEASE. This is a press release from the VPD UNION who are more concerned about their officers times, money and benefits than the safety of the citizens of BC.

Now instead of just calling me an argumentative asshole you have a challenge just like I gave originalhypa: prove that these measures will not statistically decrease alcohol related accidents. If you do so, you'll shut me up. If you cannot, then you concede I am an argumentative asshole for a very valid reason - to stop people from spreading incorrect material.

Games on dude, good luck. :thumbsup:

[taylor192]

Did you just link me to a poll about the laws regarding going 40+ and being impounded when we're arguing about the drinking and driving legislation? Did you just try to belittle my arguments by deflecting my stance to something COMPLETELY unrelated? You're SMRT, and you wonder why noone takes you seriously :rofl:
Unlucky for you I am smart.

It is all part of the same law: Bill 14. I assume that a waste of resources to wait for towing is equal, whether it is for .05 BAC or 40km+.

Unless of course it is not a waste of resources to wait as the RCMP stated.

[MarkyMark]

There are many things they can do to increase driver safety by some margin, would you be cool with all new cars being governed at 120km/h so we don't have assholes going 160 down the highway? Point being if you are so concerned with safety then anything "reasonable" that can be done to statistically save lives should be implemented right
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JD¹³]

Now instead of just calling me an argumentative asshole you have a challenge just like I gave originalhypa: prove that these measures will not statistically decrease alcohol related accidents. If you do so, you'll shut me up. If you cannot, then you concede I am an argumentative asshole for a very valid reason - to stop people from spreading incorrect material.

Games on dude, good luck. :thumbsup:
I've got better things to do than continue to argue with your dumbass on the the internet. The point is you're MISSING THE POINT of the article the OP posted. The new legislation will reduce the number of alcohol related accidents YES in the same way that implementing martial law in a city will kill the crime rate if noone's allowed out of their house after 7pm. The point is it's overkill and a blanket punishment on those who have done nothing wrong in order to catch the small number of truly bad drivers that deserve to have their vehicles impounded. It's a waste of police resources to enforce this kind of law just like it's a waste of the military's time to post troops in a city that isn't completely out of control.

That you fail to realize this on your own, and not because anyone else has said so, and think the Union Presidents remarks are some conspiracy to get more funding is unbelievable.

[Hurricane]

One thing that is annoying me about this thread;

All you people crying about not being able to a have 'a drink or two with dinner' are fucking jokes. First of all, this law doesn't affect you one bit. One or two drinks with dinner is called responsible drinking, and will keep you well below the limit under normal circumstances. Sure two shots of 151 on an empty stomach 5 seconds before you get behind the wheel might not, but that's not what we're talking about is it.

To be honest, the goal of this law change was to get people to drink less, and be more aware of their consumption. Actually all of the bitching in the thread is evidence in itself that the new laws are having the desired effect.

The real reason people are upset is because those 1 or 2 occasionally lead to a few more. With the seemingly more strict regulations, we are in dangerous >.05 territory after a few more.

Personally, I am not really worried about a .06 driver on the road around me. I am more concerned about an 80 year old pre-cataract op fogey in a Buick.

If MADD took their heads out of their asses they would realize what actually has happened is that drinking and driving has basically become decriminalized. No record, no day in court, just some money and missed driving time. Apparently its no longer criminal to be drunk behind the wheel.

The fact is, there is a huge range of drivers on the road. There are great drivers, and horrible ones. Some people likely drive better and safer at almost twice the limit than others who haven't drank a thing. Problem is, how do you enforce it all fairly? Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with the changes, find me one person you know who is more comfortable with drinking and driving under the new changes.

Also, just because the most heinous and shocking drinking/driving accidents are reportedly committed by people who are many times over the limit, doesn't mean the middle aged couple who go out and have a bottle of wine, and some nightcaps aren't involved in accidents that could have possibly been avoided. Hell, unless the people reek of alcohol, or it's open in the car, cops often overlook this unknowingly. I know many people who have been in accidents, but were poised enough not to get nailed for being drunk.

It's only a matter of time until we get to 0.0 BAC. Something like a drunk politician mowing down a group of little girls on the side of the road. I believe it was something similar which led to the 0.0 BAC law in Japan.

As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to have a few drinks still. Say you have had nothing, and make sure your not exhibiting any slap in the face obvious signs of intoxication. Don't believe me, drive through a roadblock sober, see how many times they make you blow.

If you're truly worried about getting busted, you ARE drinking too much. I've been there more times than I'd care to remember.

[ajax]

I can recognize my bad behaviour AND recognize the merit of the laws.

I am not advocating I am an angel and never break the law - yet I am advocating the laws exist for a good reason.

It seems most here cannot make that separation.

Is there a point in even advocating a law you do not follow then? A couple drinks with dinner and you may even be one of those statistics that you speak so highly of.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[PMCR]

I love how taylor192 is arguing he knows what's better for the population of BC than the PRESIDENT OF THE POLICE UNION.

What a sheep, it's too bad they unbanned this clown. RS was a better place for that short period of time when his e-lips weren't flapping.

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0sdjmkZUh1qzgeemo1_400.gif

Ya no kidding. It's not all about justice in this world.
This guy sits behind a computer, writes large paragraphs of how fucking the LAW LAW blah blah.
Taylor msg me if you want to get got ass beat and I'll show you THE LAW.


Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Tapioca]

The real reason people are upset is because those 1 or 2 occasionally lead to a few more. With the seemingly more strict regulations, we are in dangerous >.05 territory after a few more.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

No one drinks 1-2 beers after a day at the office. Many people I know hammer down 4-5 pints in an hour. That's why people are complaining - because they can't do this anymore without it costing an arm and a leg.

[drunkrussian]

One thing that is annoying me about this thread;

All you people crying about not being able to a have 'a drink or two with dinner' are fucking jokes.

I am of a normal weight for my height/age, have a pretty good tolerance, but according to online blood alcohol calculators, 1 pint of beer per hour is over the limit just barely. In other provinces however, according to the same calculator, 1 pint of beer per hour would be under the limit.

Couple of drinks + 1-2 hour dinner = over limit in bc, under limit in other provinces. THAT is what i am complaining about.

Regarding your point of people have more than a few drinks though, i do agree. But those people shouldn't be complaining or driving. However, to disallow a pint in an hour is RIDICULOUS.

[Hurricane]

I am of a normal weight for my height/age, have a pretty good tolerance, but according to online blood alcohol calculators, 1 pint of beer per hour is over the limit just barely. In other provinces however, according to the same calculator, 1 pint of beer per hour would be under the limit.

Couple of drinks + 1-2 hour dinner = over limit in bc, under limit in other provinces. THAT is what i am complaining about.

Regarding your point of people have more than a few drinks though, i do agree. But those people shouldn't be complaining or driving. However, to disallow a pint in an hour is RIDICULOUS.

Which calculator are you using?

Using the CAA one here http://caaneo.ca/about/blog/blood-alcohol-calculator

If you weighed 88lbs you would still be under the limit at a pint per hour

So unless your an 11/12 year old elementary school student you're not average height/weight, or your doing something wrong.

On the other hand, if you weigh about 180lbs, you will be right at the .05 if you're drinking at a rate of three bottles of beer/hr.

So two bottles per hour is well in the safety zone. Also confirmed on this site http://www.bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

PS. Keep in mind two pints is almost equivalent to three bottles

[drunkrussian]

woops ur right...when i calculate it, i can have 1 pint, but if i have 2 pints per hour, my level is just over 0.05, making it technically illegal. So i think taht's what i remembered.

So i guess i still can't have 2 pints, but if i have 2 in an hour and...10 minutes, i can...so not as ridiculous as i thought lol

[bengy]

Talking about BAC calculators and stuff is alright in theory. However, in reality, you have to blow into the road side breathalyser when you get pulled over by the popo. Since it is not 100% accurate, the fucken thing could blow a warning regardless if you had only 1 beer per hour etc... So with this new law, you are now out of a license for 3 months and your car gets impounded because automatic roadside suspension.

[gars]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

No one drinks 1-2 beers after a day at the office. Many people I know hammer down 4-5 pints in an hour. That's why people are complaining - because they can't do this anymore without it costing an arm and a leg.

because people should really be driving after hammering down 4-5 pints an hour......... :rolleyes:

[Mancini]

If this skytrain service became available, there would be less drunk drivers to make money from. You eventually go back to square one. How will you fund the skytrain service?

You're stating this as a problem? What about the value of human life?

What is the revenue made from drunk drivers and what is the cost paid out in alcohol-related accident claims? I'm not an actuary, but I can guess which figure is higher.

[q0192837465]

Lol, look on the bright side, ur retirement savings will go up because u'r spending less on alcohol. And ur liver will thank u for it too.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

I've got better things to do than continue to argue with your dumbass on the the internet. The point is you're MISSING THE POINT of the article the OP posted. The new legislation will reduce the number of alcohol related accidents YES in the same way that implementing martial law in a city will kill the crime rate if noone's allowed out of their house after 7pm. The point is it's overkill and a blanket punishment on those who have done nothing wrong in order to catch the small number of truly bad drivers that deserve to have their vehicles impounded. It's a waste of police resources to enforce this kind of law just like it's a waste of the military's time to post troops in a city that isn't completely out of control.

That you fail to realize this on your own, and not because anyone else has said so, and think the Union Presidents remarks are some conspiracy to get more funding is unbelievable.


why the fuck i still cant thank you
:bullshit:

[JD¹³]

why the fuck i still cant thank you
:bullshit:
Dunno, have to ask SkinnyPupp or another admin.

Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument.

[Tapioca]

because people should really be driving after hammering down 4-5 pints an hour......... :rolleyes:

Well of course not, but I'm sure that it happens (or happened) a lot more than people liked to admit because the consequences weren't as drastic had they gotten caught. I have friends who did this regularly and of course, some were DUI'ed, but they didn't get their cars towed.

Until someone on this board actually gets caught at over 0.05 and can honestly say that he had 1-2 drinks (beers and not single malt scotch) in an hour, then all of this talk about the laws being draconian is overblown.

[bengy]

Dunno, have to ask SkinnyPupp or another admin.

Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument.

nah, hes probably busy posting the same shit he posts here on the 20 other forums hes subscribed to

[Great68]

I've got better things to do than continue to argue with your dumbass on the the internet. The point is you're MISSING THE POINT of the article the OP posted. The new legislation will reduce the number of alcohol related accidents YES in the same way that implementing martial law in a city will kill the crime rate if noone's allowed out of their house after 7pm. The point is it's overkill and a blanket punishment on those who have done nothing wrong in order to catch the small number of truly bad drivers that deserve to have their vehicles impounded. It's a waste of police resources to enforce this kind of law just like it's a waste of the military's time to post troops in a city that isn't completely out of control.

That you fail to realize this on your own, and not because anyone else has said so, and think the Union Presidents remarks are some conspiracy to get more funding is unbelievable.

Thanks.

[Graeme S]

One thing I'd like to point out: A Police Union is there to voice not just the "union agenda", but also what the union members feel. The Department puts out press releases that its own media department first creates and then vets; if the chief releases anything you can bet that it's probably gone through a few hands first.

[jerche]

I think this is a good read. It states that quite a bit of breathalyzers have about .005 margin of error. Sorry if it's repost

Loads of error for drinking-driving penalties

Machine readings can make difference

BY ETHAN BARON, THE PROVINCE OCTOBER 29, 2010 COMMENTS (53)


STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



Province columnist Ethan Baron
Photograph by: File photo, The Province
The provincial government is imposing drinking-driving fines, licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments without regard for margins of error in breath-test devices, making it possible for drivers under legal limits to be punished for impaired driving.

The portable breathalyzers police carry in their vehicles have a margin of error of five milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or .005 of blood-alcohol concentration (BAC), according to the B.C. Ministry of Public Safety and solicitor-general.

When these devices detect a BAC between .05 and .08, they read "warn," which subjects the driver, on a first offence, to an immediate three-day licence suspension, a three-day vehicle impoundment plus towing and impoundment fees, a $200 fine and a $250-licence-reinstatement fee.

B.C. RCMP Traffic Services spokesman Cpl. Jamie Chung admitted that because of the margin of error, a person below the legal .05 limit -- at .046 for example -- could produce a "warn" reading and have their licence immediately suspended, their vehicle seized, and the fines and fees imposed.

A driver at the high end of the "warn" range -- at .076 for example -- could produce a "fail" reading and receive the much higher penalties of a 90-day licence suspension and 30-day vehicle impoundment. Total costs of a "fail" reading are about $4,000, according to the B.C. Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (OSMV).

Chung pointed out that a driver who is above the .05 limit could produce a reading in the "pass" range or a driver actually over .08 could produce a "warn" reading.

Ministry of Public Safety and solicitor-general spokesman Ian Indridson said the error margin of the roadside devices is not factored in when penalties are imposed because the devices are tested every 28 days and recalibrated if necessary.

Chung, who recalibrates the devices, said they are "usually" not off by more than 1 mg, or .001 BAC.

Breathalyzers at B.C. RCMP detachments have a wider margin of error of 10 mg or .01, Chung said. But when it comes to criminal impaired driving, B.C. RCMP don't recommend charges unless the detachment breathalyzer reads .1 or higher, he said.

Vancouver police did not provide requested information on their charge threshold, but Vancouver lawyer Reza Mansoori-Dara said, in his experience, they follow a similar policy to RCMP.

However, the non-criminal "administrative" penalties of fines, suspensions and vehicle seizures are based solely on the roadside device reading, whether the driver is sanctioned for being over .05 or receives more severe penalties for being over .08, Indridson said.

Drivers given administrative penalties who appeal to the OSMV may get an unfair hearing from the adjudicator, Mansoori-Dara said.

"[Some adjudicators] don't understand the evidence, and yet they go ahead and uphold these prohibitions," Mansoori-Dara said.

On Monday, a B.C. Supreme Court judge overturned the licence suspension of a man who failed a roadside breathalyzer test in Fort Nelson, on the basis that the OSMV adjudicator improperly interpreted breathalyzer-related evidence.



Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Loads+error+drinking+driving+penalties/3744478/story.html#ixzz13u5Zs0RJ

[taylor192]

It has already been posted in the Police section that the police use 0.050 to 0.099 for the "warn" range":

http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7147522&postcount=6

Thus there is very little likelihood you'll blow a 0.076 and be out by 0.005 to blow a 0.081 as the article states. Notice how the article even has a statement from Chung that 0.010 is used, yet still provides the ridiculous example.

[taylor192]

Ya no kidding. It's not all about justice in this world.
This guy sits behind a computer, writes large paragraphs of how fucking the LAW LAW blah blah.
Taylor msg me if you want to get got ass beat and I'll show you THE LAW.
JD13, these are the type of people who agree with your opinion. Thankfully I don't have these types of supporters.

[taylor192]

Funny how the argumentative asshole stops posting when logic defeats him in yet another argument.
I issued a challenge:

Now instead of just calling me an argumentative asshole you have a challenge just like I gave originalhypa: prove that these measures will not statistically decrease alcohol related accidents. If you do so, you'll shut me up. If you cannot, then you concede I am an argumentative asshole for a very valid reason - to stop people from spreading incorrect material.

You failed to accept this challenge, thus I have nothing left to prove. Your inability to prove me wrong speaks for itself. Keep posting your "opinion" to continue proving yourself wrong - I'll stick to the facts and continue to be correct.

[taylor192]

One thing I'd like to point out: A Police Union is there to voice not just the "union agenda", but also what the union members feel.
I subscribe to facts and figures when making law, not feelings.

I have many friends as officers in various levels of policing - despite my support for the police, I would not want some some of their feelings becoming law.

[taylor192]

I've got better things to do than continue to argue with your dumbass on the the internet. The point is you're MISSING THE POINT of the article the OP posted. The new legislation will reduce the number of alcohol related accidents YES in the same way that implementing martial law in a city will kill the crime rate if noone's allowed out of their house after 7pm. The point is it's overkill and a blanket punishment on those who have done nothing wrong in order to catch the small number of truly bad drivers that deserve to have their vehicles impounded. It's a waste of police resources to enforce this kind of law just like it's a waste of the military's time to post troops in a city that isn't completely out of control.

Some facts, not opinion:

Drinking and driving continues to take a deadly toll on our roads. In an average year:
- Police attend approximately 4 ,800 motor vehicle
crashes where alcohol is involved
- 2,900 people are injured *
- 115 people die — more than one-quarter of all
motor vehicle fatalities.

Compared to:

Police reported 88 homicides in 2007

Thus more people are killed by alcohol related crashes that by homicides in BC, and those alcohol related crashes represent 25% of all crashes leading to death.

Thus assigning resources to wait for tow trucks rather than expensive and lengthy homicide investigations might be a better use of police resources since more people are killed in BC by drinking and driving.

Yet for some reason the VPD union didn't hit on this, or any other fact related to decreasing the number of alcohol related injuries or fatalities... yet did mention money and staffing a couple times... I wonder if they have a hidden agenda... or if you'll be smart enough to see it.

[adambomb]

Damn Taylor192, Judging by the times of your posts. you just spent another 28 mins of your life arguing on the internet. Not to mention the hours of research you do so it looks like you have a credible position.


:bla :wgaf: :Petting

:5shots: :dizzy:

[Graeme S]

I wonder how people would feel about the installation of mandatory alcohol interlock devices equipped on cars. This would eliminate the need for as heavy police enforcement, and would accomplish an even greater disruption of drinking and driving.

And in the end, wouldn't it be nearly as cost effective?

[JD¹³]

Some facts, not opinion:

Compared to:

Thus more people are killed by alcohol related crashes that by homicides in BC, and those alcohol related crashes represent 25% of all crashes leading to death.
LOLOLOLOL :rofl: Good comparison bud. If everyone that had a drivers license had a gun to shoot off everyday I wonder what the stats would look like then? Keep trying to justify your position with completely unrelated arguments, it really is a good laugh :haha:

[m!chael]

LOLOLOLOL :rofl: Good comparison bud. If everyone that had a drivers license had a gun to shoot off everyday I wonder what the stats would look like then? Keep trying to justify your position with completely unrelated arguments, it really is a good laugh :haha:

Lol logic really evades you eh

[StylinRed]

Lol logic really evades you eh

he's a roid monkey that loves to speed and drink&drive on his motorcycle logic isn't part of his repertoire

[JD¹³]

he's a roid monkey that loves to speed and drink&drive on his motorcycle logic isn't part of his repertoire
:rofl:

[originalhypa]

originalhypa lost all credibility when he cold not provide a single property in Vancouver he could buy and rent out for a profit, and he is correct to call me an argumentative asshole cause I called him out and he couldn't back up his words.

I supplement my income very nicely by renting out my properties. That's where my credibility comes in.
What about you? When are you going to put your money where your mouth is?

If you as smart as you think you are, you would pull your head out of your ass and act on all that knowledge you think you have, instead of wasting your life fighting with random people on the internet. Face it, you're a nobody, driving an old wannabe baller ride with fake wheels, wasting literally hours online trying to push your ideas on others. You're the true definition of a troll. Like a Marco911, but without a single ounce of success to back your claims.

You make me want to log out.

[JD¹³]

Lol logic really evades you eh
It was a joke, I was just pulling a Chris Taylor :troll:

[StylinRed]

ROFL AT THE GOOGLE AD

http://members.shaw.ca/rsb1/hah/lol.jpg



:rofl:
;)

[taylor192]

I supplement my income very nicely by renting out my properties. That's where my credibility comes in.
What about you? When are you going to put your money where your mouth is?
I did, I sold my property and invested the profits.

You instead continued to give the members here advice to buy properties and rent them out, despite not being able to produce a single cash flow positive property in Vancouver when asked. That's where credibility is earned. The LottoMax winner isn't any more credible than you are, just as lucky.

If you were as smart as you claim, you'd sell your rental properties. A $500K condo fully paid off rented for $2500/mn only generates a cash flow of $24K/yr, or 4.8% return that is income and taxed accordingly. If you have a mortgage, the return is even less- and you're holding leveraged assets with reasonably risky potential to decrease in value over the next 5-10 years.

Instead the equity could be invested in guaranteed Canadian dividend producing investments, making you 6% with would be very tax advantaged with no potential loss of asset value. You could then buy back into real estate when prices boom again, since you accurately predicted the latest boom.

If you as smart as you think you are, you would pull your head out of your ass and act on all that knowledge you think you have, instead of wasting your life fighting with random people on the internet. Face it, you're a nobody, driving an old wannabe baller ride with fake wheels, wasting literally hours online trying to push your ideas on others. You're the true definition of a troll. Like a Marco911, but without a single ounce of success to back your claims.

You make me want to log out.
Who's to say I cannot do both?

I have a 6 figure investment, RRSP account, and salary at 31yo. Enough to afford me the same luxury you enjoy: wasting time posting online, you didn't get to ~17K posts without wasting some time online :p Sure, I don't have the riches you have, yet I'm not a glorified lottery winner giving bad advice to others that will only serve to lose them money in the current market - we cannot go back in time to reproduce your lucky decision - and it is obviously luck as no-one who knows rental properties would advise anyone to buy one in the current Vancouver market - yet you did, and stubbornly stood behind it even when challenged.

The definition of a troll is someone who posts nothing of use. I'd call you a troll, yet you're worse than that. Your advise could actually cause harm if some member buys a rental property in today's market thinking they could repeat your luck.

Please log out, people do not need to be fooled to follow your bad advice based on lucky decisions.

You should thank me for having my car, otherwise you'd have nothing to make fun of.

[taylor192]

Lol logic really evades you eh
Pretty much everything goes over his head.

lIt was a joke, I was just pulling a Chris Taylor
You'd have to have done your research and backed up your opinion with facts to do that.

[taylor192]

Damn Taylor192, Judging by the times of your posts. you just spent another 28 mins of your life arguing on the internet. Not to mention the hours of research you do so it looks like you have a credible position.
Judging by your posts you wasted 10 mins surfing RS making useless posts with no credible position :p At least I spent some time learning :D

In all seriousness, I'm an information junkie. This why I read/post on so many different forums and blogs.

[adambomb]

And the cat came back, the very next day, and the cat came back, thought he was a goner... :Pbjt:



Man, its one thing to be opinionated and passionate about your topic. But when you start linking posts by RS members from other forums, which are about comepletely unrelated topics, Then you look like a creepy douche bag who spends their time googlin' someones username in a effort to discredit them.

That's childish man. You say you're 31 and successful. Then why are you posting like an immature 14 dolla baller? :hi:

[taylor192]

Man, its one thing to be opinionated and passionate about your topic. But when you start linking posts by RS members from other forums, which are about comepletely unrelated topics, Then you look like a creepy douche bag who spends their time googlin' someones username in a effort to discredit them.

That's childish man. You say you're 31 and successful. Then why are you posting like an immature 14 dolla baller? :hi:
You might want to review some history before you point the finger in the wrong direction.

Read this thread from beginning to end, you'll find the first insulting post here:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7155628&postcount=73
and the next here:
http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7157061&postcount=100

There are your immature members who cannot have an educated discussion without bringing in unrelated insults. If you find a post of mine that is insulting or unrelated prior to those posts, please link it.

Since you may be unaware, JD13 previously called me out for being banned on the forum BCSB. I don't know his username on BCSB, he knew mine. Otherwise I wouldn't have known to provide a link to BCSB. I don't think he is stalking me anymore than I am stalking him, I just use a common name and we surf the same forums.

[Roach]

There are your immature members who cannot have an educated discussion without bringing in unrelated insults. If you find a post of mine that is insulting or unrelated prior to those posts, please link it.


I found this comment both immature and unnecessarily insulting:

It is not hate, it is stupidity. Look at the people responding against this new law, they cannot even put together a sentence properly, nevermind construct a valid argument.

http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7091771&postcount=113

You come across as a well-educated person, however, the hostility is totally unnecessary. When challenged, you become condescending and combative. It really brings the forum down having to read an insult match between two people in an otherwise informative thread. And lately, the commonality I see in those threads is that it's taylor192 vs _________ .

Your opinions are often unpopular. That's fine. However, you come across with your "too bad so sad" tone and then try to justify it by riding what you believe to be the facts. And with those facts, you turn into a total dick towards anyone that tries to offer a differing viewpoint, as evidenced above. If someone doesn't buy your facts, they are either incapable of basic comprehension, can't formulate sentences or otherwise.

Truthfully, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I welcomed your initial return to this forum. However, at this point, I'm not sure why you have been kept around. Either your tone has to change or the staff on this site should remove you for betterment of this forum.

Kev

[taylor192]

I found this comment both immature and unnecessarily insulting:
I will agree that comment was condescending - if you'll agree it is far from the first immature and unnecessarily insulting post in that thread (not to be mistaken for this thread), and that my post is not the first of the unnecessary posts.

You come across as a well-educated person, however, the hostility is totally unnecessary. When challenged, you become condescending and combative.
Read this thread from the beginning. With the exception of one "drama queen" post I have responded to every challenge with facts and opinion, leaving the condescending and combative attitude for the most part out.

What I am guilty of is not ignoring the few members who consistently engage me in negative behaviour. The moderators have asked me to, and I try to, yet if someone openly insults you, and also taunts you about not being able to do anything about it - what would you do? Yes I should be better than that, and so should they. So why does the finger get pointed at my rather than them? as you point out:
Your opinions are often unpopular.

Truthfully, I'm getting sick and tired of it. I welcomed your initial return to this forum. However, at this point, I'm not sure why you have been kept around. Either your tone has to change or the staff on this site should remove you for betterment of this forum.
The staff have asked me to keep my tone down, and if you review this thread I have except when engaged first by a few members. If you review my posts in every other section except AC/OT you'll find none of the same issues.

Thus the commonality is not "taylor vs all of RS". It is "taylor vs a few select members", yet those select members are given more leeway to post unnecessary material cause they share the popular opinion.

[m!chael]

taylor192 you remind me of Peter Schiff, the man was mocked like there was no tomorrow because his opinion was unpopular, but in the end we all know how that played out. I wouldn't get too worked up if I were you.

[taylor192]

taylor192 you remind me of Peter Schiff, the man was mocked like there was no tomorrow because his opinion was unpopular, but in the end we all know how that played out. I wouldn't get too worked up if I were you.
LOL thanks, that is entirely too funny. Do you read Mish's Global Economic blog? Schiff was right... yet he might be very wrong about other predictions. :p

I rarely get worked up. Most would think I'm angrily pounding away on my keyboard for many of my posts. Those closest to me know I'm probably smiling cause it feeds my information junkie addiction to research something. :D

[Roach]

Province will review new drinking/driving crackdown

VANCOUVER/CKNW AM 980
Charmaine de Silva | Email news tips to charmaine.desilva@corusent.com
11/8/2010


BC's Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General says his government will be taking a look at how new impaired driving laws have been rolled out.


This after MLA John Les spoke out this morning, saying his government should reconsider the tougher drinking/driving laws.

Even with plans to review the controversial impaired driving penalties,Rich Coleman says that doesn't necesssarily mean the legislation will be scrapped.

He says government wants to look at how this is working; there won't automatically be changes made.

He says it may be a public education issue as much as anything.

Coleman says public education isn't just for the public,its for police officers as well.

Coleman says he's concerned with the high percentage of impounded vehicles.

He says the decision to impound vehicles is discretionary...and it doesn't need to happen every time.

http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1308370

Kev

[Great68]

He says the decision to impound vehicles is discretionary...and it doesn't need to happen every time.

That's not how the legislation reads Mr. Coleman:


From the office of the superintendent of motor vehicles website

New Penalties (as of September 20, 2010)
If you are caught excessively speeding, you will automatically have your car impounded for seven days for a first offence, 30-days for a second offence, and 60 days for any subsequent offences within two years. You’ll also pay to get your car out. Towing and seven days of storage will cost you at least $210, a 30 day impoundment will cost around $700, while a 60-day impoundment will cost over $1200.



You don't even know your own fucking legislation

[originalhypa]

I just checked the ICBC website, and it says they "can" impound you.
When the law was implemented, it was stated that impounding was automatic, just like your quote Great68.

Now they're changing their own words for some reason, and that makes me upset.

from the ICBC site.

Impaired drivers in the .05–.08 warn range are prohibited from driving for three, seven or 30 days. The prohibition escalates depending on whether it is the first, second or third time a driver is caught within a five-year period.

on a different page they say this.
Police in B.C. can now issue an immediate roadside prohibition to an impaired driver with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) of .05 or higher. (The BAC is based on a breath sample into a roadside screening device.)

It's so poorly written that I'm not surprised at the confusion.

[Great68]

An RCMP member on our own forum posted that impoundment is mandatory, not discretionary:

"the peace officer or another peace officer must
(g) cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer,

No discretion there if an excessive charge is laid...except for safety considerations given under the Act.
(09-06-2010 New excessive speeding law thread)

I guess what IS discretionary is the excessive speeding charge in the first place...

[originalhypa]

So he's not fooling when he says this.....

He says it may be a public education issue as much as anything.

Coleman says public education isn't just for the public,its for police officers as well.

Now we have over a thousand vehicles impounded, who knows how many lives ruined, social status harmed, etc, etc, etc.

And what does this prick say?
Coleman says he's concerned with the high percentage of impounded vehicles.

die in a fire, Mr. Coleman.
And take Van Dongen with you.

[Great68]

I think they just implemented these penalties for the sensationalist factor without really thinking through their full impact.

Mike De Jong:

"Hey I know how to shake my boob image!

I'll pass the TOUGHEST penalties for speeding and impaired driving Canada has seen! That'll make headlines!
Hey Rich, imagine how big people will think my cock is!"

One month later

"Fuck! I gotta pick up Gordo's car from the impound lot"

[Roach]

Instead of investing in public education, perhaps they could channel those funds to keeping the skytrain open later or other more useful transit options.

But that would make too much fucking sense.

Kev

[J-Chow]

... or use that money to install some turnstiles at the skytrain stations.

[Hurricane]

It is kind of humorous that our PM stepped down shortly before this stuff was brought forward by the Liberals.

Another article...


Coleman considers watering down new drunk-driving rules

The Canadian Press

Updated: Mon. Nov. 8 2010 6:38 PM ET

Solicitor General Rich Coleman says he's pondering whether to water down British Columbia's tough new drinking and driving rules.

The new rules have only been in place since September, but B.C. bars and restaurants say business has dried up since the law was changed, he said Monday.

Police have powers to hand out hefty fines or impound cars if drivers are pulled over with a blood alcohol limit above .05, but officers have discretion at that alcohol level which means not every case means guaranteed punishment, Coleman said

He said he hasn't made up his mind about changing the law, but is planning a provincewide blitz this holiday season to let British Columbians know it's still OK to have a drink out on the town.

"Sometimes you get the urban myth that gets momentum and people start talking about that you can't even have one drink because you'll fail on the instrument," said Coleman. "That just goes through the public like wild fire."

He said he's already met with the Insurance Corp. of B.C., municipal police and the RCMP to discuss ways of letting people know more about the new law.

"We will go back and do better education and we'll look at this thing, and see going into the spring (legislative session) if there's certain things we may have to do to mitigate some of the public's concerns, but at the same time try and get the same results so we're protecting lives on the streets."

The new drinking and driving rules were hailed as the toughest in Canada when they were introduced last April.

Police are able to issue immediate 90-day driving bans, impound vehicles and levy fines that could cost drivers $3,750 before their matters ever come to criminal court.

The government said the new rules were aimed at cutting impaired driving deaths in British Columbia by 35 per cent by the end of 2013. An average of 130 British Columbians die every year in impaired-driving incidents.

Liberal John Les said the new rules have spread fear among British Columbians and the government needs to calm people.

"There have been a few unfortunate statements made out there that if you go out for an evening and have a glass of wine you shouldn't be driving," he said. "That's kind of a bit of an over-the-top statement."

Coleman made the comments as a Surrey court heard victim impact statements in the drunk driving death of Alexa Middelaer, the four-year-old girl the new law is named after.


I agree with some of his points. I mean just read this thread; almost half of the posters were saying the same things. I can't have 1 or 2 drinks anymore.

Also if you read the original news release from the government here http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PSSG0026-000472.htm in April; you will see the vehicle impoundment is only a possibility for the .05-.08 range. Not mandatory which perhaps people were led to believe by some careless members of our press.

On the other hand, the government going on an ''all out blitz'' encouraging British Columbians' it's still ok to drink and drive this holiday season...yeah...sounds like a well formulated and responsible plan.

Why they didn't introduce the whole plan more responsibly in the first place is way beyond me.

[Marco911]

I just checked the ICBC website, and it says they "can" impound you.
When the law was implemented, it was stated that impounding was automatic, just like your quote Great68.

There should be no discretion for drinking drivers since the risk to the driving public has not changed if the driver was allowed to continue on his way. No cop would want to be put in a position where he had to make a call between letting a driver continue driving and possibly injure someone in an accident or impounding a vehicle as guidelines recommend. The law has to be written with no confusion and clear limits.

Speeding is different since the "act" of speeding would have occurred in the past. The officer should have the judgement to let the driver go, if he feels that the driver is not a significant risk to himself or the driving public.

I'm not sure why these dummies coming up with this legislation fail to understand simple logic.

[Great68]

There should be no discretion for drinking drivers since the risk to the driving public has not changed if the driver was allowed to continue on his way. No cop would want to be put in a position where he had to make a call between letting a driver continue driving and possibly injure someone in an accident or impounding a vehicle as guidelines recommend. The law has to be written with no confusion and clear limits.

Speeding is different since the "act" of speeding would have occurred in the past. The officer should have the judgement to let the driver go, if he feels that the driver is not a significant risk to himself or the driving public.

I'm not sure why these dummies coming up with this legislation fail to understand simple logic.

You're right. I wouldn't care if they left the 0.05 penalties where they are now, and just changed the excessive speed impound.

[whynot22]

so are they ever gonna consider having the skytrain run later?

[Meowjin]

TOKYO doesn't even have their trains running past 1 why would this city need it past 1. Just put some DAMN capsule hotels downtown.

[originalhypa]

There should be no discretion for drinking drivers since the risk to the driving public has not changed if the driver was allowed to continue on his way. No cop would want to be put in a position where he had to make a call between letting a driver continue driving and possibly injure someone in an accident or impounding a vehicle as guidelines recommend. The law has to be written with no confusion and clear limits.

Well said.
This came up a few years ago with the street racing laws. They were written as such that virtually anyone driving to a destination could be considered a "street racer".

I need to snap a picture of the cop who sits at the intersection of 192 and Golden Ears way, picking people off as they exit the bridge. It goes down to a 60 zone after a long downhill off the bridge. Why it's only 60, I don't know. All I do know is that this guy tows up to a dozen cars a day. It makes me sick...

[Meowjin]

when are we going to see some young smart intelligent young blood enter politics?

[Tapioca]

when are we going to see some young smart intelligent young blood enter politics?

Why should bright young people enter politics when they would easily be rewarded 2-3 times the amount in the private sector? And when they could make tough decisions without being in the spotlight?

[Graeme S]

I'd say it's more like people these days know what kind of a spotlight they'll be under if they go into politics.

It doesn't even take breaking the law to create a scandal. All it takes is a hint of impropriety or a single bad facebook picture to completely and totally fuck you out of politics.

I don't know about you, but I know very very few people who have such tightly controlled lives. And I know many of them simply stay very carefully out of the lenses of cameras when they go crazy and have fun.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Meowjin]

Why should bright young people enter politics when they would easily be rewarded 2-3 times the amount in the private sector? And when they could make tough decisions without being in the spotlight?

maybe if your life didn't revolve around money and more around the betterment of citizens of BC.

[asahai69]

i wish they reviewed this shit sooner. just lost my licence for 3 days after having 3 beers with dinner tonight.

FUCKING BULLSHIT

[misteranswer]

maybe if your life didn't revolve around money and more around the betterment of citizens of BC.

And then you end up with today's politicians.

[sunny_j]

i wish they reviewed this shit sooner. just lost my licence for 3 days after having 3 beers with dinner tonight.

FUCKING BULLSHIT

did they pull you over or was it a roadblock?

[asahai69]

^ pulled me over

[Tapioca]

^ pulled me over

No disrespect, but unless you give a cop a reason to pull you over, a cop won't pull you over.

Were you speeding? Were you not staying in your lane?

[falcon]

That is %100 not true. I've been pulled over numerous times just because of the car I was driving.

[asahai69]

No disrespect, but unless you give a cop a reason to pull you over, a cop won't pull you over.

Were you speeding? Were you not staying in your lane?

no dude. ive gotten pulled over many times with no reason at all. one time i got pulled over so the cop could check if i had any tint on the front windows. made my put my windows up to check. (it was in summer so windows were down)

brown is the new black.............lol

[sunny_j]

No disrespect, but unless you give a cop a reason to pull you over, a cop won't pull you over.

Were you speeding? Were you not staying in your lane?

thats not true. my buddy was pulled over randomly for no reason.

[Tapioca]

That is %100 not true. I've been pulled over numerous times just because of the car I was driving.

And do you realize the irony of your statement?

What do you drive? Is your car modified? Profiling is one thing (I'm not defending cops on this), but if you've given no reason for a cop to pull you over (i.e. driving a stock car and not breaking laws), why would they waste their time?

[asahai69]

And do you realize the irony of your statement?

What do you drive? Is your car modified? Profiling is one thing (I'm not defending cops on this), but if you've given no reason for a cop to pull you over (i.e. driving a stock car and not breaking laws), why would they waste their time?

That's a question you should ask the people doing the pulling over. It seems like it hasn't happened to you so I can understand if you don't know.

Why does the gang squad go around and harass people that aren't in a gang? Every time those mofo's enter a place. I always get asked for my I'd and get treated like a criminal.

Why is it hard for me to get into a club unless I know sumone working there?

Why does security follow me around when I go to Aberdeen mall? I've seen more security guards in that mall than I have ever seen in any other mall. Trust me. I spend a lot of time in malls.

Why am I banned from Shark Club in richmond for no reason? Just because one of the bouncers knows that I know a guy who started shit there. Guilty by association I guess....

I wish I could answer those questions with certainty. I could guess and speculate as to why that happens. And I may be right. But like I said before. If u havnt gone through it. You wouldn't know.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[q0192837465]

^life must suck for u

[asahai69]

^life must suck for u

Nah dude. Its like driving in richmond. U get used to the fucked up shit. Lol
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[gars]

i wish they reviewed this shit sooner. just lost my licence for 3 days after having 3 beers with dinner tonight.

FUCKING BULLSHIT

do you mind me asking how much you weigh? and how long from the first drink to when you drove?

I know for myself, I can't drink 3 drinks over 2 hours and drive.

[asahai69]

im 6'3 and im a big boy. i wanted to get out of there so i slammed the last 1/4 of the beer and left. some friends had a smoke and chit chatted more. so it was about 30 mins between me finishing the last bit of beer and getting pulled over. the beer was more of a refreshment for me than something to get me drunk.

[asahai69]

btw. they were pints. not bottles

[Graeme S]

Two full pints is 40oz or about 1.2L of beer. Assuming you were drinking decent beer and not light swill, that's 60mL of pure alcohol. That (especially in slamming the last) might do it for you.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[sunny_j]

btw. they were pints. not bottles

did this happen in downtown?

[Meowjin]

id see cops pulling him over for no reason.

[asahai69]

Two full pints is 40oz or about 1.2L of beer. Assuming you were drinking decent beer and not light swill, that's 60mL of pure alcohol. That (especially in slamming the last) might do it for you.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

the fact that i wasnt really gona drink. i didnt choose the beer. my buddy ordered budweiser. so yeah, i was light swill.

did this happen in downtown?

elephant walk. LOL

id see cops pulling him over for no reason.

hahahaha. thanks

[RiceIntegraRS]

3 beers and u blew a warn? a couple ufc's ago i went to the pub for dinner and drinks, and i had about 6 beers and felt nothing in that 3 hours time. i wonder if i would of blew a warn

[asahai69]

Yeah. I think I would be the same way almost. This shit was unexpected. I'm also thinking that the pace at which I was drinking wasn't good. 1st one I went slowly. Then the other 2 were drunk repeatedly faster. But not by too much.....

I guess if anything. This is a warning to everyone out there. Don't fuck around with these laws. Lol
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JD¹³]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/police+recall+breathalyzers+over+inaccurate+readin gs/3856900/story.html
VANCOUVER - B.C. police forces announced Friday they are recalling a total of 2,200 roadside breathalyzer devices to have them recalibrated after learning they may lead to improper roadside suspensions.

Victoria Police Chief Jamie Graham, chair of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic Safety Committee, told a Vancouver news conference that recent RCMP lab tests found a small "margin of error" in the current devices.

As a result, the devices will be recalibrated from .05 - the current blood-alcohol standard for roadside suspensions - to .06 "out of an abundance of caution," he said.

The recalibration will be done on a staggered basis at the Langley RCMP detachment and should be completed by Dec. 1, prior to the seasonal police roadblocks.

Until that time, police will not issue roadside suspensions of three days or longer under new provincial drunk driving laws, but can still issue 24-hour suspensions if they have reasonable grounds to believe a motorist is impaired.

Graham said he had no idea how many drivers may have already received longer suspensions for failing with the breathalyzers' margin of error.

He noted police are fully supportive of the new tougher laws, saying there is no question they are "making a positive difference." The hastily called news conference ended before reporters could fully question Graham and other police association representatives on the issue.

[danz]

fml

[asahai69]

I thought I got fucked over before. Lol. This is a real fuck over now..... FML
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Acuracura]

The margin of error can work in favour of the driver as well. People who should have warned could have got a pass. Things work both ways even though the article doesn't explain that.

People who should have failed could have got a warned. That could have been you, maybe it saved you from a 90 day prohibition...

[taylor192]

The margin of error can work in favour of the driver as well. People who should have warned could have got a pass. Things work both ways even though the article doesn't explain that.

People who should have failed could have got a warned. That could have been you, maybe it saved you from a 90 day prohibition...
The police already use a 0.099 BAC for a DUI rather than 0.080 BAC cause of the margins of error and wanting to make sure they have a strong case for a criminal conviction. If the margin of error is ~0.01, people with 0.109 BAC are getting off with just a warning.

I know many on RS are young without a family and only concerned about being able to have some drinks while out - yet please consider the more people fight these laws the looser they become for those who drive drunk.

So while we're bitching about the warning range, we're actually let more drunks off

[taylor192]

i wish they reviewed this shit sooner. just lost my licence for 3 days after having 3 beers with dinner tonight.
If you're the size you say you are, 3 beers shouldn't have blown a warning even with the margin of error, especially with 30 mins elapsing. How do I know? I've had access to a police breathalyzer as a teen, it takes me pounding 3 drinks to blow more than a warn in 30 mins and I'm about your size. Plus more than 15 mins had elapsed, so there's be no false positive.

Thus the BS is probably in your story, and judging by the rest of your rant about police, security guards, bouncers, ... I'd say you lost your credibility.

[asahai69]

If you're the size you say you are, 3 beers shouldn't have blown a warning even with the margin of error, especially with 30 mins elapsing. How do I know? I've had access to a police breathalyzer as a teen, it takes me pounding 3 drinks to blow more than a warn in 30 mins and I'm about your size. Plus more than 15 mins had elapsed, so there's be no false positive.

Thus the BS is probably in your story, and judging by the rest of your rant about police, security guards, bouncers, ... I'd say you lost your credibility.

I wish buddy. I have nothing to gain in telling BS on the internet. I just paid 480 go get my license back and 100 for the tow charge. I could care less what you would blow.

I don't know how it works. Maybe you drink more than me. Maybe your body processes it better than mine. Not sure. Actually. You must drink more than me. Look what you did to that mercedes of yours. Lmao
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Nightwalker]

3 pints is equal to 4 cans of beer.

[asahai69]

Its closer to 5 cans
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Acuracura]

The police already use a 0.099 BAC for a DUI rather than 0.080 BAC cause of the margins of error and wanting to make sure they have a strong case for a criminal conviction. If the margin of error is ~0.01, people with 0.109 BAC are getting off with just a warning.



I'm well aware of calibrated settings to ASD Alco-Sensor IV DWF. Thanks.

[misteranswer]

The margin of error can work in favour of the driver as well. People who should have warned could have got a pass. Things work both ways even though the article doesn't explain that.

People who should have failed could have got a warned. That could have been you, maybe it saved you from a 90 day prohibition...

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

[taylor192]

Its closer to 5 cans
Depends where you are drinking.

Cans/bottles are 12oz
Restaurant pints can be 16 or 20 oz.

3 20oz pints (60) would be about 5 regular beers (62).
3 16oz pints (48) would be about 4 regular beers (48).

[taylor192]

I'm well aware of calibrated settings to ASD Alco-Sensor IV DWF. Thanks.
I wasn't criticizing your post, just adding more info to it for others. :thumbsup:

[Tim Budong]

So I ended up blowing 0.001....
Said so by the machine..and I did it twice...
I got a 24hr suspension cuz I had a slight scent of alcohol

Cop said no fine as its a warning..but a 24hr suspension must be given. Basically I get a goddamn record for being legal.

I can't get my impound fees back, I'm sure of that, can I dispute this warning as I felt I was treated unfairly by the officer who gave me the test?

To be fair and truthful, I told him I had a beer 3hrs b4, and he asked me if I was aware of the new laws so I answered that I was very aware of the consequences of DUI. He even said thanks for being cooporative and for understanding the seriousness of the new laws.

To close, is there anyways I can dispute this warning?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[originalhypa]

Sad to hear that.
One question though, are you an "N" driver darthchili?

[RiceIntegraRS]

The absolute only way this is not disputable is if u are an N driver. If ur not this is the biggest load of BS.

[Tim Budong]

Not an N driver
It felt like the cops were pullin everyone aside. 7cars pulled over to be exact. These weren't urr typical rcmp performing the block, clearly said transit something on the side of the cars
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[RiceIntegraRS]

what the hell? somethings not right here. I would of completely lost it on the cop if i was in your position. Maybe since u were being soo cooperative thats why he thought he could just run u over, and give u this "warning" which leads to ur car being impounded. I have a friend whose argued his way out of many tickets, and ive honestly done it myself aswell when cops "try" to issue me tickets when i didnt deserve them.

[Tim Budong]

what isnt right is what the cop did
I guess all those reports in which drivers are being wrongfully targeted is true. What i find odd was that I asked for a copy or warning ticket of some sort aside from the 24hr suspension ticket, in which he claimed that was all it was required. I called up the RCMP just now and they say its the officer's discretion to issue an impound/warning if he believes its the right thing to do. In which i can dispute and most likely win to have the record removed.

The fact that i was pulled over along with 7 other vehicles already proves the fact that the officer out on patrol was out to serve tickets like no tomorrow.

[asahai69]

these new laws are hilarious.

[Lomac]

So I ended up blowing 0.001....
Said so by the machine..and I did it twice...
I got a 24hr suspension cuz I had a slight scent of alcohol

Cop said no fine as its a warning..but a 24hr suspension must be given. Basically I get a goddamn record for being legal.

I can't get my impound fees back, I'm sure of that, can I dispute this warning as I felt I was treated unfairly by the officer who gave me the test?

To be fair and truthful, I told him I had a beer 3hrs b4, and he asked me if I was aware of the new laws so I answered that I was very aware of the consequences of DUI. He even said thanks for being cooporative and for understanding the seriousness of the new laws.

To close, is there anyways I can dispute this warning?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

WTF? That's messed up!

[Ludepower]

what isnt right is what the cop did
I guess all those reports in which drivers are being wrongfully targeted is true. What i find odd was that I asked for a copy or warning ticket of some sort aside from the 24hr suspension ticket, in which he claimed that was all it was required. I called up the RCMP just now and they say its the officer's discretion to issue an impound/warning if he believes its the right thing to do. In which i can dispute and most likely win to have the record removed.

The fact that i was pulled over along with 7 other vehicles already proves the fact that the officer out on patrol was out to serve tickets like no tomorrow.

ive never heard a story like this before...why did you bend over backwards...u clearly blew under...in this situation ur allowed to rage back.

[zulutango]

If the reading was 0.001 and there were no other grounds of impairment, I cannot see how a 215 suspension was issued legally? A reading of 0.001 would show as a "pass", not a 'warn". The appropriate reading level for issuing a 215 is between .05 and 0.8 Both tests showed the same miniscule readings and you still got a 215? Did he explain why he was issuing the suspension when both readings showed your were not in the 215 suspension catagory? Something is missing from this picture?? IF this was the case 100% accurately, then you should contact SMVB and contest the suspension. Personally I have never seen a reading that low on anyone I ever tested.

[Tim Budong]

RCMP has told me to call back monday
His reasoning for towing my car was that I shouldn't be drinking and driving and under current weather conditions in which he claimed was icy. Im just going to wait till monday to resolve this matter. I'm really curious what happened to the other vehicles as well. Does the Breathalyzer need to be calibrated everytime it is used on a suspect?

Regardless, was there suppose to be another slip that stats that I have a warning? or is that 24hr suspension slip the only thing?

[zulutango]

Your story is becoming stranger as it unfolds? I think you should be talking to a lawyer about what happened as there are more twists & turns in it than the S2S. The RSD ( it is not a breathalizer) is checked every two weeks, or at least the ones I used were. If the calibration needs to be adjusted at that time, then it is. I'm not sure what you mean about a warning...the 215 impoundment form and DL suspension papers should explain what happened. If you have questions then by all means talk to a lawyer. You should be taking this off line, out of the public domain.

[Acuracura]

do you have a class 5 or class 7 licence?

[Graeme S]

do you have a class 5 or class 7 licence?Not an N driver

Read plox thx

[originalhypa]

you should contact SMVB and contest the suspension.

You know, this sort of thing wasn't necessary back when we WERE FUCKING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!!!


just sayin'

[adambomb]

When an police officer asks you if you've had anything to drink...

Always say NO!!!!!


Don't tell them you had 1 beer, 2 hours ago or a glass of wine with dinner or that you did 2 shots of vodka before returing to the scene of an accident.

ALWAYS SAY NO!! :grinno:

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

So I ended up blowing 0.001....
Said so by the machine..and I did it twice...
I got a 24hr suspension cuz I had a slight scent of alcohol

Cop said no fine as its a warning..but a 24hr suspension must be given. Basically I get a goddamn record for being legal.

I can't get my impound fees back, I'm sure of that, can I dispute this warning as I felt I was treated unfairly by the officer who gave me the test?

To be fair and truthful, I told him I had a beer 3hrs b4, and he asked me if I was aware of the new laws so I answered that I was very aware of the consequences of DUI. He even said thanks for being cooporative and for understanding the seriousness of the new laws.

To close, is there anyways I can dispute this warning?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

WHOA WAT A PILE OF BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:bullshit:

[jmvdesign]

When an police officer asks you if you've had anything to drink...

Always say NO!!!!!


Don't tell them you had 1 beer, 2 hours ago or a glass of wine with dinner or that you did 2 shots of vodka before returing to the scene of an accident.

ALWAYS SAY NO!! :grinno:

I had 1 beer with my dinner just 2 hrs prior to driving. I hit a roadblock and the cop waived me to stop. He shoved his whole head through the driver side window and went up real close to my face and asked me if I had any drinks prior. I obviously said "NO" in a very loud/annoyed voice and he let me through.

General rule is exactly this, just always say no. No reason to be overly cooperative and explain your whole life story mentioning how you've had 1 drink 3-4-5-6 hrs before you drove.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

^

what IF they smell the beer in ur breathe, and you said NO. HE found out u are lying...than ....what happens???


wouldnt that piss them off that you lied to him? and making the cop trust no one?

[tool001]

i passed thru road block 2 weeks ago, had some to drink, 2 bottle of sake, among 4 of us. Cops asked if i had some to drink, i said yes, "couple of shots" he asked how long ago. i said "2-3 hours back"

he said "u should be ok" and waved me thru. i wasn't tipsy or buzzed. i think a well trained cop would be able to pickup if somebody was without breathlizer and would have pulled me over to test.

i fit the "discription" but i've never been stopped or pulled over so far.. :p

[asahai69]

^ wtf really? if i said that they woulda made me get out right away and probably call for back up like im some sorta criminal

You know, this sort of thing wasn't necessary back when we WERE FUCKING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!!!


just sayin'

heres a preview of the RCMP/VPD new uniform

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t-Dy2G2jvCI/TO1y2vw4rkI/AAAAAAAABIg/crItZg9VW88/s1600/stallone-dredd.jpg

[adambomb]

^

what IF they smell the beer in ur breathe, and you said NO. HE found out u are lying...than ....what happens???


wouldnt that piss them off that you lied to him? and making the cop trust no one?

You could be the DD, and be at the club and some drunk girl spills her vodka/soda all over your shirt. Now you reek like booze but are comepletely sober.

I've had that happen to me before and the cop was really pushing the issue that I was drunk. I passed all his road side tests and it got to the point that I had to explain the same story about the girl spillling a drink over and over. I was getting fustrated to the point I said to the officer... "Listen to the way i'm talking to you, Do I sound drunk or not coherent? I've passed all your tests! I haven't slurred a single word! Some bitch spilled her drink on my shirt!!" Eventually, he let me on my way.


It's up to the officer to prove that you are lying to him. Therefore, we have breathalyzers, road side sobriety tests, etc.

Oh...cops already trust no one. Everyone is a suspect because we are not "MEMBERS", we are civilians. Civilians are a different group of people that can't be trusted because they are not part of the "brotherhood"... just ask any cop (member). :showbutt:

[tool001]

went thru another road side test. this time got tested. i had told the officer before that i have 3 beer . 2 hours ago. he tested. came to 011, he told me, that means u have 3/4 beer in ur system. and "ur good to go buddy"..

[jigga250]

went thru another road side test. this time got tested. i had told the officer before that i have 2-3 beer . 2 hours ago. he tested. came to 011, he told me, that means u have 3,1/4 beer in ur system. and "ur good to go buddy"..

the scary part is that they actually believe they have it down to that much of a science

[zulutango]

It's not a science...the instrument measuring your breath sample uses "science". What the Cop was doing is based on his training and past experience. I could tell within a drink, how much a person had consumed. The reading, combined with the elapsed time and general body size and any other symptoms, gives you a pretty good idea. The purpose is not to guess how many drinks, it is to remove impaired drivers from the road. A skilled carpenter can usually estimate distances in his work, a good golfer can estimate distance to a hole and a long term hunter can figure out the distance to a target. If they want to get exact measurements then they use a ruler, spotter scope etc to actually measure.

[Nightwalker]

the scary part is that they actually believe they have it down to that much of a science

Why wouldn't they? The scary part is that people believe they can drink and drive.

[asahai69]

It's not a science...the instrument measuring your breath sample uses "science". What the Cop was doing is based on his training and past experience. I could tell within a drink, how much a person had consumed. The reading, combined with the elapsed time and general body size and any other symptoms, gives you a pretty good idea. The purpose is not to guess how many drinks, it is to remove impaired drivers from the road. A skilled carpenter can usually estimate distances in his work, a good golfer can estimate distance to a hole and a long term hunter can figure out the distance to a target. If they want to get exact measurements then they use a ruler, spotter scope etc to actually measure.

if thats the case. why not just throw out the judge and jury and use strictly lie detectors to figure out if someone is guilty or not. it will save alot of time and hassle. im pretty sure with that device you can get a fairly accurate GUESS if sumone has broken a law or not

:facepalm:

[Nightwalker]

if thats the case. why not just throw out the judge and jury and use strictly lie detectors to figure out if someone is guilty or not. it will save alot of time and hassle. im pretty sure with that device you can get a fairly accurate GUESS if sumone has broken a law or not

:facepalm:

With experience, I don't see how anyone wouldn't be capable of estimating how many drinks someone had if they knew their BAC from a breathalyser.

[zulutango]

With experience, I don't see how anyone wouldn't be capable of estimating how many drinks someone had if they knew their BAC from a breathalyser.

You got it!

[jigga250]

With experience, I don't see how anyone wouldn't be capable of estimating how many drinks someone had if they knew their BAC from a breathalyser.

probably because people metabolize alcohol differently? Can you tell someone has a high metabolism just from looking at them? Can you tell if a person is 1/8 first nations just from looking at them?

[asahai69]

i love how the police are using guess work and estimations in determining peoples ability to drive

[tool001]

You got it!

so going with the assumption that the officer was right.. i could have had, 6-10 beer , 2-3 hours ago and still would have shown under/around the .05 ? thats crazy.

frankly..i dont like the lower drinking limit, or the discretionary power that the police DOESN"T use when impounding.... but nobody should be drinking that much and driving, regardless if they BAC count shows below .05 or not.

[Nightwalker]

probably because people metabolize alcohol differently? Can you tell someone has a high metabolism just from looking at them? Can you tell if a person is 1/8 first nations just from looking at them?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. If your BAC is high enough to blow a warn or fail, your fucked anyway.

I'm guessing that "I'm an alcoholic, so I was not inebriated even though my BAC was too high" doesn't fly in court. Any other example I can think of would mean they were more intoxicated rather than less.

Estimating how much is in their system is just something an officer would pick up through experience, for their own enjoyment.

[terkan]

probably because people metabolize alcohol differently? Can you tell someone has a high metabolism just from looking at them? Can you tell if a person is 1/8 first nations just from looking at them?

Actually being a fast metabolizer makes you more drunk because the intermediate metabolite acetylaldehyde is more toxic than alcohol and the cop can probably pick it up by their actions. Unless they're also a fast metabolizer of that then whether or not that persons BAC is lower than
others with the same amount of alcohol ingested is a moot point because they won't be drunk at all.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)