New BC Drunk Driving Bill

[Newfie Canadian]

It's too bad, and I'm guilty of it, that the thing that gets the attention in this story is the fact that Campbell was MIA when the bill was tabled.

It looks like a good bill, from a distance.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...3_37?hub=Canada

[brianw]

Smoke and Mirrors are a good trick the government uses all the time. More poeple die from smog in Ontario alone than drinking and driving in all of Canada. Setting up roadblocks and having police cars idling for hours in the hopes of catching someone contributes to these deaths. Rehabilitating someone for having a drink after work may be a waste of time. Rehabilitating someone who is a "die hard" may also be a waste of time.

[caesar]

What are you suggesting Brian??? That we allow Campbell and all the other drunk drivers to carry on endangering people with no consequences. The cops should be in the parking lots at closing time; arresting any drunk who starts up his car.

[maplesyrup]

Campbell fined $913 for drunk-driving charge

No kidding Campbell was not around for the photo-op for the new BC illegal drinking legislation. Are these guys brain-dead? Why in the world would they revive this issue front and centre, back into the limelight, with less than a year to go, until the next election?

Anyways Campbell has moved on to bigger and better things if youy get my drift! :angry:

He's leaving the illegal drugs scene for the Liberal executive assistants.

[Newfie Canadian]

More poeple die from smog in Ontario alone than drinking and driving in all of Canada.

No smog in Newfoundland.

In my community 2 Novembers ago, a woman was getting groceries out of her trunk a couple weeks before Christmas, when she was nailed by a drunk driver and killed. She was standing behind her car on the side of the road, where the car was parked.

According to Transport Canada, almost 40% of fatally injured drivers tested had been drinking in 2001.

If we want to talk about monetary cost, in 2001 MADD says:

the cost of impaired driving crashes in Canada has been estimated to range from 1.8 billion dollars (real dollar model) to 10.8 billion dollars (willingness to pay model). The real dollar model is based on the money spent, without considering any social costs. In contrast, the willingness to pay model includes money spent and a broad range of social related costs.

Link for reference

I'd consider that serious enough to warrant some attention from the police.

[August1991]

More poeple die from smog in Ontario alone than drinking and driving in all of Canada.

Are you suggesting that we must choose between death by smog or death by drunk driver?

Why can't society deal with both problems simultaneously?

The question is how much to spend, in what way?

In the case of drunk driving, I have a suspicion that penalties have been too lenient. I also think that "legal blood-alcohol limits" other than zero lead to costly litigation.

In simple terms, "don't drink and drive" should mean literraly that. If you're caught with anything on your breath, they should throw the book at you.

As to Campbell, how many lives would be saved in the future if he had to do three months jail time in Hawaii?

If the premier of BC did jail time, many slightly tipsy people would think twice before getting behind the wheel. And among a few of them, that would be an accident avoided, possibly fatal.

It would be a small cost with a great benefit. This is the kind of incentive the legal system lacks.

[brianw]

What are you suggesting Brian??? That we allow Campbell and all the other drunk drivers to carry on endangering people with no consequences.

No, I am stating that the methods are incorrect. A police chief here stated that ride programs result in less than 3% of impaired driving charges. Meanwhile the smog produces by police while doing their routine revenue collection is harming people.

People are able to buy their way out of problems. It seems that the more you can afford the more dangerous you can be. Why not treat people like criminals when they commit a crime instead of asking for money?

If the premier of BC did jail time, many slightly tipsy people would think twice before getting behind the wheel.

If you kill or injure someone it should be treated like a crime whether you have been drinking, speeding, passing on a corner, passing when it is not safe, etc...

I'd consider that serious enough to warrant some attention from the police.

Yes the police are always serious when it comes to money. Maybe that is why prosecuters must come up with "short lists" of criminals they wish to prosecute because there is not enough court time to prosecute them all but everyday the courts are full of people who have not committed any crime but are there for "monetary" reasons.

Are you suggesting that we must choose between death by smog or death by drunk driver?

Not at all. I am saying the methods being used are not effective. Your question

The question is how much to spend, in what way?

is right on the mark. unfortunately most people are caught up in the emotional aspect rather than the reality.

[caesar]

. Meanwhile the smog produces by police while doing their routine revenue collection is harming people

This is ridiculous. Generallty, when police are doing checks on drunk drivers; it is at a road stop and their vehicles are not running. There are a lot of ding a ling drivers and we need more police out there getting them off the road. I suspect that you Brian are one of them.; drunk driving is indefensible.

[Newfie Canadian]

In the case of drunk driving, I have a suspicion that penalties have been too lenient.

You hit the nail on the head there August. The justice system is totally shagged on this matter.

The fines and penalties repeatedly dished out for DUI is pathetic and seriously deficient in deterrence value.

I've seen people here lose more (in property and money) as well as get as much or more jail time for poaching a moose than impaired drivers get.

[brianw]

This is ridiculous. Generallty, when police are doing checks on drunk drivers; it is at a road stop and their vehicles are not running.

Firts (and it is just semantics) they don't check on drunk drivers they check on everyone hoping to stumble onto a drunk driver, which as stated by the police chief is less than 3% of the time.

Secondly, they need there warning lights going anytime the have a check set up so the vehicles are running (an they are anytime I have went through one).

There are a lot of ding a ling drivers and we need more police out there getting them off the road.

There are but you seem to be slamming me for having the audacity to suggest that they are criminals.

I suspect that you Brian are one of them.

And you would be wrong. When you make assumptions or jump to conclusions based on emotion people are usually wrong.

It is very interesting that when people don't have valid arguments they attack on a personal level.

[brianw]

In my community 2 Novembers ago, a woman was getting groceries out of her trunk a couple weeks before Christmas, when she was nailed by a drunk driver and killed.

And the guy should have been charged with murder just like any other criminal. Our justice system treats drivers as a special case and the shouldn't. It is a revenue system to them with acceptable tradeoffs. People pick up on this (even if subconsiously) and treat it differently as well. There should be no special cases, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc...).

According to Transport Canada, almost 40% of fatally injured drivers tested had been drinking in 2001.

You must be carefull with percentages. What you could be saying with that statement is that 60% of drivers fatally injured were not drinking therefore having something to drink lowered their risk. I would assume (and hope) that this is not the message to send.

[brianw]

There are a lot of ding a ling drivers and we need more police out there getting them off the road. I suspect that you Brian are one of them.

I forgot. Would you also be suggesting that the Police Cheif is one of them since he stated they only result in 3% of charges or are you simply directing your insults to me?

[caesar]

If the police only discover that 3% of the driver's checked are guilty of drinking; it means that it is working. They do publicize and warn people. It, also, means it is not a money grab.

[Cartman]

when police are doing checks on drunk drivers; it is at a road stop and their vehicles are not running. There are a lot of ding a ling drivers and we need more police out there getting them off the road.

We need more police outside BC Liberal meetings with their cars running.

[brianw]

If the police only discover that 3% of the driver's checked are guilty of drinking; it means that it is working.

So you suggest that spending unlimited resources on on something that has a negligable effect is better than actually using those resources for other areas? Tell that to the parents of those children who were mutilated.

They do publicize and warn people.

So catching the people in the act is not their main concern.

It, also, means it is not a money grab.

If they only lay 3% of charges and they warn people first then there must be other motives. Lets see, they lay many more charges for other minor offences so I would say it is a money grab but more importantly it is a control mechanism.

Can you tell me what the difference is between a driver who has been drinking and someone who is falling asleep at the wheel or someone who is so preoccupied with problems that they are not concentrating, or someone who is playing with the radio, or anything else that "impaires" their ability?

The point is that there are many other things that need attention. Emotions have been taken advantage of to focus people on one point, drinking and driving, when there are many other more serious problems. What should be happening is that resources are focused on crimes (with or without alcohol involved). You seem (this is the impression I get anyway from your posts) to get very angry very quickly. I am more affraid of someone who experiences a bout of "road rage" (or with many people working 12 hour shifts there is a real problem with people being over tired) than I am of being injured by someone who has been drinking.

[caesar]

or other minor offences so I would say it is a money grab but more importantly it is a control mechanism.

Yes, it is a control mechanism. To scare people from drinking and driving and it is working. What UNLIMITED resources and what mutilated children???

The road blocks can identify people who for other reasons are driving without due diligence. Cell phones are another irritant of mine; swerving or impeding traffic.

You worry about road rage; worry about drinking drivers; many people are mean drunks. Ask many abused wives; generally the male has been drinking.

[JWayne625]

In simple terms, "don't drink and drive" should mean literraly that. If you're caught with anything on your breath, they should throw the book at you.

I agree with you, but I am just as worried about the pot-heads who are also driving while stoned. According to Health Canada:

The physical effects of ingesting marijuana include impaired coordination and balance, rapid heartbeat, red eyes, dry mouth and throat, drowsiness. Normal doses impair motor skills, especially when used in combination with alcohol, and cannabis use before driving is particularly dangerous. THC, the active ingredient, has been detected in bodies of fatally injured drivers and pedestrians in Canada and the United States.

This is a drug that our government is talking about decriminalizing. I go along with the police on this matter. We first need to determine that it's use while driving is made illegal, and mandatory testing for it's use be implemented similar to a breathilizer demand for alcohol impaired drivers, since many ingest both similtaniously.

I also worry about those who are out there behind the wheel on other drugs as well in the various classes that also impair one's ability to drive. like Hallucinogens (LSD, PCP), Narcotic Analgesics(Codeine, Morphine, Dilaudid,and the one promoted as a treatment for Heroin addiction, Methadone), Sedatives-Hyponotics (Alcohol, Seconal), Tranquillizers (Valium, Librium), Stimulants (Cocaine, Ritalin), And many others within those classes too numerous to mention. Many of these drugs are being used with impunity by those behind the wheel, endangering the lives of our loved ones.

When accidents happen police should have the authority to demand testing for impairment, regardless of whether some of these Right's activists like it or not. Driving is dangerous enough, but it can be made much safer if people were aware that they are subject to testing. Of course it won't stop it all, but it would sure go a long way to improving the safety on our roads.

[JWayne625]

brianw; A little off subject but;

There should be no special cases, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc...).

For those who are hockey fans, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc.., whether it's on the ice or off. Assault is assault, and should be prosecuted. Only females know how to play hockey with skill today, males have turned the game into bloodsport, and have the audacity to call it a skillful game. Skill left when the gloves came off.

Sorry for changing the subject.

[Slavik44]

brianw; A little off subject but;

There should be no special cases, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc...).

For those who are hockey fans, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc.., whether it's on the ice or off. Assault is assault, and should be prosecuted. Only females know how to play hockey with skill today, males have turned the game into bloodsport, and have the audacity to call it a skillful game. Skill left when the gloves came off.

Sorry for changing the subject.

I ahve goen through this with you once and if you are to dense and judgemental to consider the FACTS once you will not understand them the second time, however take your blantent lies and go elsewhere.

[caesar]

For those who are hockey fans, assault with a weapon should be assault no matter what the weapon (car, bat, club, fists, etc.., whether it's on the ice or off. Assault is assault

Fighting is now an accepted part of the game and is not assault. Is it assault in a boxing ring when one boxer hits another. Until these rules are changed; it is part of the sport and punishable by the league; it should not be a police matter especially since it is only when the media over blows a certain incident.

[caesar]

The physical effects of ingesting marijuana include impaired coordination and balance, rapid heartbeat, red eyes, dry mouth and throat, drowsiness. Normal doses impair motor skills, especially when used in combination with alcohol, and cannabis use before driving is particularly dangerous. THC, the active ingredient, has been detected in bodies of fatally injured drivers and pedestrians in Canada and the United States.

The same can be said for many regular prescription drugs. I do believe that they are working on tests for marijuana. Other prescription drugs should be tested for too if one is driving errantly.

[August1991]

Fighting is now an accepted part of the game and is not assault. Is it assault in a boxing ring when one boxer hits another. Until these rules are changed; it is part of the sport and punishable by the league; it should not be a police matter especially since it is only when the media over blows a certain incident.

An assault is the intentional application of force, directly or indirectly, to another person without that person's consent.

Lawyer's web site

I think the key point here is that in a boxing match, the two boxers have agreed to get into the fight (according to established rules).

In a hockey game, it is not obvious at all that both players have agreed to fight. Hence, if one player swings his stick at another, it could be assault.

That's a legal definition. As to the sport itself, I'm not certain that it is any more violent now than before. Players have more equipment now and I think this creates an incentive to rough it up more. The best games are fast, with few or no penalties. Fighting slows the game down.

----

On the issue of drugs and driving, it seems to me the issue is impairment and an easy way to verify it. Alcohol in the blood is easy to measure and provides a simple way to set a criteria for impairment. I don't know if there is such an easy test for THC or other substances.

[Slavik44]

Fighting is now an accepted part of the game and is not assault. Is it assault in a boxing ring when one boxer hits another. Until these rules are changed; it is part of the sport and punishable by the league; it should not be a police matter especially since it is only when the media over blows a certain incident.

An assault is the intentional application of force, directly or indirectly, to another person without that person's consent.

Lawyer's web site

I think the key point here is that in a boxing match, the two boxers have agreed to get into the fight (according to established rules).

In a hockey game, it is not obvious at all that both players have agreed to fight. Hence, if one player swings his stick at another, it could be assault.

That's a legal definition. As to the sport itself, I'm not certain that it is any more violent now than before. Players have more equipment now and I think this creates an incentive to rough it up more. The best games are fast, with few or no penalties. Fighting slows the game down.

----

On the issue of drugs and driving, it seems to me the issue is impairment and an easy way to verify it. Alcohol in the blood is easy to measure and provides a simple way to set a criteria for impairment. I don't know if there is such an easy test for THC or other substances.

well fighting has been in decline for the past fifteen years that is what angers me about JW's posts, he continues to falsify information despite given proof that he is inccorrect.

[caesar]

In a hockey game, it is not obvious at all that both players have agreed to fight. Hence, if one player swings his stick at another, it could be assault.

Both players are aware that these incidents will happen otherwise they have never watch a hockey game. It is the NHL and team owners that need to clean up their act and deal with the situation. Teams hire borderline hockey players that are tough fighter "enforcers". Blaming one player when an opponent is injured is dumb; adrenaline and protection of one's friends and team mates come into play. It is the NHL and team officials that need to control these situations. I would prefer to watch hockey without the unneeded violent attacks; however, I am not in the majority from the sounds of cheering I hear whenever a fight erupts.

Hockey players do hit more now thinking that with all the protection worn that serious injury will not happen; incidents are quickly ignored and forgotten until someone is injured. That is what they get the big bucks for; as they may need to deal with injuries; sports related or by actions that may be allowable or those that cross the line.

[brianw]

Yes, it is a control mechanism. To scare people from drinking and driving and it is working. What UNLIMITED resources and what mutilated children???

The road blocks can identify people who for other reasons are driving without due diligence. Cell phones are another irritant of mine; swerving or impeding traffic.

You worry about road rage; worry about drinking drivers; many people are mean drunks. Ask many abused wives; generally the male has been drinking.

I was speaking about the children in Toronto who have been sexually assaulted and mutilated. But then if you don't know about that then you would not know those spedific cases. With all the child abductions and attempted abductions I am surprised you are not aware of any.

The unlimited resources are the tax dollars being spent in the wrong ways. Wouldn't you like the money and personel used wisely?

The road blocks can not identify people who are driving without due diligence (what are you thinking, that police officers are psychics?). They can only identify a very limited number of drivers that have a very strong indicator.

So how many drunks have you seen on the road compared to people driving dangerously? What I have said is that the chances of being killed by a drunk driver are much lower than being killed by someone impaired by other reasons or driving dangerously. This is not an emotional response this is reality.

Most drunks are not mean drunks (where would you get a statistic like that?). So now you are stating that domestic assault should be considerd a driving issue? This just keeps getting deeper and deeper.