New Impaired Driving Punishments

[Chuck U. Farlie]

I heard today on the radio (AM640 in Ontario), that there are new punishments coming to (almost) impaired drivers.

The punishments have to do with having a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. The previous punishment was a 12-hour suspension. The new punishments are: (note - these may not be exact, as I could not find a printed source to back what I heard on the radio)

1. 72-hour suspension for 1st offence.

2. 2-week suspension and mandatory alcohol dependency councilling for 2nd offence.

3. 6-month suspension and mandatory breathalyser installed in the offender's vehicle for 3rd offense.

In addition to the above punishments, the offender will have a note put on their driver's abstract which their insurance companies will see, and no doubt their rates will rise.

Now, while I don't condone impaired driving in any way, I have a problem with this new 'law'.

1. Firstly, from what I understand, this is a punishment being handed out without actually breaking a law, since impaired driving is 0.08 and above. Since it is a punishment handed out without a conviction, it is not something that can be challenged in a court of law - say if you suspect the machine was not calibrated, for example.

2. I think they are targeting the wrong people. Aren't the most dangerous people on the road the truly impaired drivers that are well above the 0.08 BAC? With a 0.05 to 0.08 range they are targeting the people that have a glass of wine with dinner, or one beer after golf, etc etc, as it takes very little alcohol to reach the 0.05 BAC level. A call-in police officer to the program agreed that there is no need for these new 'punishments', after all we already have strong impaired driving laws which are aimed at this very problem.

Anyway... just one more example of being presumed guilty before innocent, and given a punishment that cannot be challenged before a court of law... along the same lines as actual impaired driving (automatic 90-day suspension)... and street racing (automatic impounding of vehicle).

I am, once again, getting worried about this slippery slope we are sliding down... allowing our rights to be eroded and allowing the government to give police too much power and taking away our right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[mikedavid00]

which their insurance companies will see, and no doubt their rates will rise.

This is why it's being done. The more you pay insurance, the more the gov't makes. This again is why we are amongst the highest taxed country in the world. We need that money to support surgery's for people living in Lebanon or newly arriving from the third world who do not speak english and have no net benefit to Canada.

The chance of about 50% of drivers driving at 9pm on a fri or sat night after dinner could have this alchohol level.

Oh well, I guess the Mulsims don't have anything to worry about.

Jesus drank wine. Thus i should take this to the human rights commision that i have a right to drink wine at dinner like our Prophets.

[M.Dancer]

Jesus drank wine. Thus i should take this to the human rights commision that i have a right to drink wine at dinner like our Prophets.

Then make sure it's very sweet and watered down, like the way the Prophets drank.

Unless of course you are referring to Prophets who were also Nazarenes..in which case no wine for you.

I must commend you. Not everyone is so monomaniacal that they can turn every thread into an anti immigrant thread. Yours is truly a special, if not monotonous gift.

[Riverwind]

it is a punishment handed out without a conviction, it is not something that can be challenged in a court of law - say if you suspect the machine was not calibrated, for example.

We have already slid down the slope and into the abyss on this issue. The SCC ruled a few years ago that driver's licenses are a privilege and can be revoked without any due process. No presumption of innocence or rights to appeal - governments could pass a law revoking driver's licenses of people who smoke in their cars and it would be constitutional.

You will notice that the penalities do not include any direct fines - that is likley because imposing fines would make it unconstitutional. That makes the attempt to impose backdoor fines via the insurance system to be particularily odious.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Riverwind

[mikedavid00]

We have already slid down the slope and into the abyss on this issue. The SCC ruled a few years ago that driver's licenses are a privilege and can be revoked without any due process. No presumption of innocence or rights to appeal - governments could pass a law revoking driver's licenses of people who smoke in their cars and it would be constitutional.

Keep in mind that these laws belong to us, not the gov't.

Citizen tax payes should be able to vote on these propositions to our law. We should desice who we want on our roads or not.

The roads belong to us. We pay for them, AND the salaries for our politicians.

[guyser]

This whole thing is a clusterf**k , and you can thank MADD for it. I posted about this last year.

What this new provision will net are a bunch of mom and dads who, on the whole, have little to do with driving impaired historically . So mom and dad out to celebrate with dinner and a glass or two of wine will now be handed a three day suspension.

- not contestable in court , the same way the 12 hour suspension was not contestable , the difference being now the 3 day suspension is on your MVR. If it is on your MVR, I know for a fact that insurance co's will surcharge you for it. (they have not filed rates for this new law....yet)

-MADD should lobby for a BAC of 0.0% , at least that way we know that we are to drink nothing if we plan on driving. Coughsyrup, Listerine may cause you to blow over (I have to research that one though)

-if you are tired , or small in size , one beer or a glass of wine may put you over.

-either the law is 0.08% BAC or it isnt.

And if you think MADD is a good organization, look at the % of monies raised used to fund salaries. IIRC , they were the worst of registered charities in Canada.

[Oatsandsteak]

I heard today on the radio (AM640 in Ontario), that there are new punishments coming to (almost) impaired drivers.

The punishments have to do with having a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08. The previous punishment was a 12-hour suspension. The new punishments are: (note - these may not be exact, as I could not find a printed source to back what I heard on the radio)

1. 72-hour suspension for 1st offence.

2. 2-week suspension and mandatory alcohol dependency councilling for 2nd offence.

3. 6-month suspension and mandatory breathalyser installed in the offender's vehicle for 3rd offense.

In addition to the above punishments, the offender will have a note put on their driver's abstract which their insurance companies will see, and no doubt their rates will rise.

Now, while I don't condone impaired driving in any way, I have a problem with this new 'law'.

1. Firstly, from what I understand, this is a punishment being handed out without actually breaking a law, since impaired driving is 0.08 and above. Since it is a punishment handed out without a conviction, it is not something that can be challenged in a court of law - say if you suspect the machine was not calibrated, for example.

2. I think they are targeting the wrong people. Aren't the most dangerous people on the road the truly impaired drivers that are well above the 0.08 BAC? With a 0.05 to 0.08 range they are targeting the people that have a glass of wine with dinner, or one beer after golf, etc etc, as it takes very little alcohol to reach the 0.05 BAC level. A call-in police officer to the program agreed that there is no need for these new 'punishments', after all we already have strong impaired driving laws which are aimed at this very problem.

Anyway... just one more example of being presumed guilty before innocent, and given a punishment that cannot be challenged before a court of law... along the same lines as actual impaired driving (automatic 90-day suspension)... and street racing (automatic impounding of vehicle).

I am, once again, getting worried about this slippery slope we are sliding down... allowing our rights to be eroded and allowing the government to give police too much power and taking away our right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This seems like a stupid law to implement on an already clusterfucked situation. I don't understand how the Government believes that suspending the licenses of people under the legal limit is going to curb the problem of drinking and driving. What they need to do is stick to their guns(not literal guns ) and enforce the law that is already in affect. Which they don't, I could give you dozens of situations where nothing was done and I could give you my own experience.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

They don't like arresting people with a crime that can be contested in court... because then they have to actually go to court and admit any errors they made while making the arrest.

Its a lot easier for them when the suspect can't fight back.

[fellowtraveller]

We need that money to support surgery's for people living in Lebanon

Racist drivel. Here is why: you must be a resident of whatever province to access health care in that province. Lebanon is not a province.

Simple approach to drunk driving: confiscate the vehicle and sell it at auction, first offence. No exceptions. if you lend your car to a drunk and it gets seized, tough luck, pick your friends better next time.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Simple approach to drunk driving: confiscate the vehicle and sell it at auction, first offence. No exceptions. if you lend your car to a drunk and it gets seized, tough luck, pick your friends better next time.

I don't care what the punishment is, as long as a fair trial is given and a person has a chance to defend themselves. It is the punishment without a trial that bothers me.

[guyser]

Simple approach to drunk driving: confiscate the vehicle and sell it at auction, first offence. No exceptions. if you lend your car to a drunk and it gets seized, tough luck, pick your friends better next time.

Why stop there? Any crime commited using your house and the house is forfeited too. And lets also extend it to business. Commit a crime at work and the business is gone.

Forfeiture laws in the US have shown that LE gets particularly happy busting small timers only to get their hands on the goods of those arrested.

After all, how are they buying APC's and upgrading all the weapons and what not.

No thanks.

[guyser]

This is why it's being done. The more you pay insurance, the more the gov't makes.

Care to show us how mikeyD ? Other than the tax on personal property policies ?

. We need that money to support surgery's for people living in Lebanon or newly arriving from the third world who do not speak english and have no net benefit to Canada.

Hey those Lebanon people paid good money for that service. $25 of every passport renewal is earmarked for services from our emabassies and consulates.

The chance of about 50% of drivers driving at 9pm on a fri or sat night after dinner could have this alchohol level.

Obviously one of your well researched bon mots I am sure.

[Leafless]

I don't care what the punishment is, as long as a fair trial is given and a person has a chance to defend themselves. It is the punishment without a trial that bothers me.

If your BAC was found by blood analysis rather a common breathalyser test, would you be more in acceptance of that result and non-demanding of a trial?

[oreodontist]

A pattern develops. There is a horrendous incident in society...murder, child killed by drunk driver, etc. The immediate pavlovian response is 'do something'....that 'anything' is better than doing nothing. Special interet groups and the media run around in hysterics. The special interest groups find new energy and the media is salivating for a story. Any politician who tries to be rational is labeled as 'in favour of killers' or protecting 'drunks on the road'.

We already have laws against drunk driving. They need to be enforced and the offenders dealt with. I don't like the police having arbitrary powers to make decisions about me in nebulous areas. If drunk it's off to be charged, car impounded and other consequences.

guyser: "if you are tired , or small in size , one beer or a glass of wine may put you over". Maybe a glass of wine (they vary more) but a beer? I'm not all that big (140 lbs) and drinking 3 beer in an hour still has me at .065 or so. You'd have to be real small to be up to .05 after one beer....perhaps a midget on a diet.

[guyser]

guyser: "if you are tired , or small in size , one beer or a glass of wine may put you over". Maybe a glass of wine (they vary more) but a beer? I'm not all that big (140 lbs) and drinking 3 beer in an hour still has me at .065 or so. You'd have to be real small to be up to .05 after one beer....perhaps a midget on a diet.

So many variables come into play that my positing that one "would " be over the minimum is not absolute. The word used is "could"

Amount of food in the system , alertness levels and so on.

According to this site, your weight (140) drinking 3 beers in an hour would put you at 0.10 , legally drunk. Watch out.

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/bac

[DangerMouse]

I don't see why you are all worried? You all know that the cops go after the natives and nail them first before the will hand a non-native an impaired charge. I've had non-natives joke to me about this. As one example, there was road block some time ago....the cops were nailing some of the natives and when a certain non-native came through--the cop said get home and park it now, if I see you out again, then you'll get an impaired...I think it's that hidden benefit called "white privilege."

[guyser]

I don't see why you are all worried? You all know that the cops go after the natives and nail them first before the will hand a non-native an impaired charge. I've had non-natives joke to me about this. As one example, there was road block some time ago....the cops were nailing some of the natives and when a certain non-native came through--the cop said get home and park it now, if I see you out again, then you'll get an impaired...I think it's that hidden benefit called "white privilege."

Good !

Was it 4 years in grade 10 or only 3 for you?

[Topaz]

So many variables come into play that my positing that one "would " be over the minimum is not absolute. The word used is "could"

Amount of food in the system , alertness levels and so on.

According to this site, your weight (140) drinking 3 beers in an hour would put you at 0.10 , legally drunk. Watch out.

http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/bac

women on the pill and people on medication will get drunk faster also. Frankly I wouldn't worry about this because the price of beer is going up and so the bars are going to have to put their prices up and the article I was reading says people will stay home and drink because the price of gas and beer will make it so!

[DangerMouse]

Good !

Was it 4 years in grade 10 or only 3 for you?

I actually went thru grade 6 twice so that equals 12 ...if you believe that then your a.......

[fellowtraveller]

Why stop there? Any crime commited using your house and the house is forfeited too. And lets also extend it to business. Commit a crime at work and the business is gone.

Forfeiture laws in the US have shown that LE gets particularly happy busting small timers only to get their hands on the goods of those arrested.

After all, how are they buying APC's and upgrading all the weapons and what not.

No thanks.

Well, why have any punicshment at all then? Or would you rather have fines? Oh no, those fines go to the Crown, and some of that trickles back to law enforcement... we could not have that, right?

Drunk driving is a relatively straightforward crime to detect and prosecute fairly. There are no small timers or big timers in drunk driving, you are either drunk and endangering my family, or you aren't. The crime is identical for all concerned.

No laws will prevent the insanity of chronic drunk driving other than long term incarceration, which is an appropriate punishment for repeat offenders. But if you are Joe Sixpack, you will most certainly think twice about drinking and driving if you know that your vehicle is history if you get caught. And those are the people that forfeiture is aimed straight at ansd would be very effective with preventing them from getting behind the wheel.....the same people that today go 1) I'll lose my lciense for a few months..check, I can manage that...2) I pay a fine.... yeah whatever.... 3) I get a criminal record.... yeah whatever..... add in 40 I lose an expensive vehicle, and still have to make payments on it..... whoa baby.

Edited May 12, 2008 by fellowtraveller

[Riverwind]

No laws will prevent the insanity of chronic drunk driving other than long term incarceration, which is an appropriate punishment for repeat offenders.

1) Chronic drunk drivers are most likely alcohol addicts who need help getting off their drug of choice. The threat of jail time can be a useful tool when it comes to convincing an alcoholic to sober up but jail time alone will do nothing to solve the problem.

2) Chronic drunks are more dangerous behind the wheel sober than with a bit of booze in their system because of the withdrawal symptoms. Now you can argue that such people should not be behind the wheel drunk or sober but you would be merely re-enforcing my point 1) about the need for treatment instead of punishment.

My solution for the drunk driving issue:

First Offence: Driving prohibition and fine. (i.e. everyone makes a mistake - once).

Second Offence: Driving prohibition and fine + mandatory counselling for substance abuse (i.e. you did not learn the first time so there must be some bigger issues);

Third Offence: Driving prohibition and fine + jail time OR 1-3 months in a residential treatment center (i.e. this is your last warning - do something about your problem or the hammer comes does hard).

Fourth and Later Offence: Lifetime driving prohibition + jail time (i.e. sorry bud - we gave you a chance and you blew it).

Of course such guidelines would only apply if no one gets hurt as a result of the drunk driving.

Seizing vehicles will not deter an alcoholic but will likely punish family members who are already living the life of hell caused by an alcoholic in the family. Yet another reason why any anti-drunk driving strategy must include treatment options.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Riverwind

[fellowtraveller]

Offence: Driving prohibition and fine. (i.e. everyone makes a mistake - once).

Second Offence: Driving prohibition and fine + mandatory counselling for substance abuse (i.e. you did not learn the first time so there must be some bigger issues);

These are weaker penalties than those employed right now. Was that your intention?

Chronic drunk drivers are most likely alcohol addicts who need help getting off their drug of choice. The threat of jail time can be a useful tool when it comes to convincing an alcoholic to sober up but jail time alone will do nothing to solve the problem.

Treating alcoholism is a different issue. What is required is not a cure for drunks, but an effective deterrent to stop people from driving while drunk.

'Chronic' offenders, those people with 5 , 10, 155 drnk driving convictions have not had licenses, insurance or registration on their cars for years, because they cannot. It still does not stop them from driving and driving drunk.

I'm less interested in them anyway,more interested in targetting the causal drunk driver because they are much more numerous. If there are fearsome and very expensive consequences like seizure of vehicle - they will pay attention because they must.

[guyser]

Well, why have any punicshment at all then? Or would you rather have fines? Oh no, those fines go to the Crown, and some of that trickles back to law enforcement... we could not have that, right?

I am thinking you misread me.

I have no problems with most punishment as respects drunk driving. If you are habitual, then I see no problem with the crown petitioning for the forfeiture of the car owned by the drunk driver.And that would be on top of the fines, increase in insurance rates, and a one year drivng ban.

The crime is identical for all concerned.

Sadly MADD does not agree.

The forfeiture laws introduce an element that I dont like. As has been seen in the States, people can and are targeted for what they have (and the Sheriff can keep) and then investigated for crimes. (I admit it is rarely seen so obvious)

The laws for drunk driving, and the forfeiture law you advocate can unneccesarily damage an innocent party.

I dont agree that an innocent and uninvolved person should suffer damages of another person.

[fellowtraveller]

I am thinking you misread me.

I have no problems with most punishment as respects drunk driving. If you are habitual, then I see no problem with the crown petitioning for the forfeiture of the car owned by the drunk driver.And that would be on top of the fines, increase in insurance rates, and a one year drivng ban.

Sadly MADD does not agree.

The forfeiture laws introduce an element that I dont like. As has been seen in the States, people can and are targeted for what they have (and the Sheriff can keep) and then investigated for crimes. (I admit it is rarely seen so obvious)

The laws for drunk driving, and the forfeiture law you advocate can unneccesarily damage an innocent party.

I dont agree that an innocent and uninvolved person should suffer damages of another person.

I do have a problem with a crime that does have victims, innocent victims who are killed by people who refuse to take responsibility for their ignorance. A little fine and a suspension and attendance at some boring weekend gabfest does not discourage drinking and driving, somehting more is required.

The Sheriff cannot keep anything unl;ess the person is convicted of the crime. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Who is the inocent party? Unless your car has been stolen by a drunk driver, you are responsible for what happens with the vehicle. Ask your insurance company if you are insured if driving while impaired. Ask your insurance company if your car is insured when operated by an unlicensed driver. The vehicle is under your control and your responsibility.

Tough luck if you choose to throw it all away. It is up to you.

A much larger deterrent is required than what is presently in place. It just does not work.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

A much larger deterrent is required than what is presently in place. It just does not work.

I don't know if deterrent even comes into play when you are a habitual drunk...

I am sure we all know how drinking reduces our fears, tells us we are what we are not, and no one thinks they are drunk/will get caught/ or will crash...

Anyway, the point of this post was about the punishment you get for not even breaking the law... for being under the limit and given a punishment without a conviction (so not contestable).