Drinking and driving sucks!
May 1st, 2009
As of today a new plan to get drivers that have been drinking off the road takes effect.
From now on drivers with a blood-alcohol reading between 0.05 to 0.08 will have their licence suspended for three days. A second offense will get the driver a seven day suspension and a trip to an alcohol education program. If the moron in question still doesn’t learn and gets caught for a third time they’ll get a 30 day suspension, be required to attend a remedial alcohol treatment program and have an ignition interlock condition placed on their licence for six months. Meaning they will not be allowed to drive any vehicle that does not have a breathalyzer device installed.
There’s also another law set to take effect around 2010 that will impose a zero tolerance blood-alcohol limit on all drivers 21.
Before today drivers between 0.05 and 0.08 only had a 12-hour licence suspension, no matter how many times they managed to get caught. A minor slap on the wrist as far as I’m concerned.
I’m glad our province is taking measures to get drinkers off the roads. I’m sure a lot of the people receiving suspensions between that 0.05 and 0.08 range (known as the warn range) put themselves in the “I only had a few drinks I’ll be fine” category but I have no sympathy for them. I personally don’t own a car now but when I did I had a 1 beer 1 hour rule for myself. 1 beer then a 1 hour wait to drive. I’m sure that even then at times I may have been able to blow between that range. Now my only mode of transport is my motorcycle and I have a strict zero alcohol tolerance for myself (not only that but so does the govt. as I am still under my M2 licence).
This is definitely a step in the right direction to getting drivers off the road after a few drinks.
The new laws effectively state that you are guilty, no trial and no appeal. The police officer is judge jury and executioner. It is unconstitutional, is a violation of our fundamental rights, and I cannot see how any intelligent person could support them. You must not be a very intelligent person.
It’s unfortunate that you think that way. I would think that an intelligent person would be willing to put a name to their words instead of just initials and a fake email address. I wonder if your view would change if someone you love was killed by a drunk driver who could have been taken off the road by a police officer. I believe that there is a time at which anyone caught can fight a ticket or suspension that has been given in the field.
Also the officer doesn’t just decide that you’re over the limit. They use a breathalyzer which is the accepted in field method to test blood alcohol throughout Canada and much of the world. There is also the option for someone who has been stopped to chose to have a blood test done and the officers will take you to a hospital to have said test completed.
I wonder why you would think that removing drunk drivers from the roads is a bad thing? If you don’t drink and drive there’s no reason to be afraid of getting caught.
I agree 100% with Grant. Not only is a breathalyzer admissible in court, and therefore a legal method of determining your blood alcohol content, but so is the blood test you can choose to take instead. Basically the courts have decided that the judge and jury don’t have much to argue on the hard fact of what your blood alcohol level is, so it would just be a waste of money that would allow drunk drivers to remain on the road for longer periods of time.
It is not a criminal offense, so it’s not something that NEEDS to go to court. If you get a speeding ticket, you don’t have to go to court to get the ticket. You can fight it later on, but this is a different nature of offense. Because your blood alcohol level is obviously not a constant, the cops can’t just be like “you’re in the warning zone, but keep on driving around drunk and we’ll see you in court when you’ve sobered up. Just try not to kill TOO many people on your way home.”
Honestly I think the rules should be more strict than this – apparently a 5 year jail term for killing a mother of four is the strictest sentence ever given to a drunk driver in this province. But at least this is a step in the right direction and I back it wholeheartedly.
And like Grant said. If you don’t want the cops suspending your license on the side of the road, just don’t drink before you drive. Then you KNOW you’re not in the “warning zone”.. not to mention that you won’t kill yourself or others on your way home.
Unlike other offences, offences under the Highway Traffic Act are not disputable outside of a courtroom. When being arrested for any other offence you can request to have your lawyer present for the entire arrest procedure. If you do this, the police cannot proceed with the arrest until your lawyer is present.
The only times this does not apply is if you are endangering yourself or others, or if you are being arrested and charged with an offence under the HTA.
This is done because some people would try to get out of traffic offences by requesting a lawyer and then hoping that the arresting officers either get a more urgent call, or do not want to wait around. It would cause undue stress and delay in the system and so yes, the police do have the right to act as judge and jury AT THAT TIME. As MOST people know, you do get a chance to dispute the charges in front of a JP.
Of course if you’re caught driving while drunk, you won’t get a break from any JP in Canada, and nor should you.
It’s because of people like CS that the system is set up the way it is. These people would do anything they can to try to get out of being held responsible for breaking the law and putting lives at risk. Unfortunately they are out there and they will continue to do stupid things like drink and drive. All the rest of us can do is hope that they do get caught before they hurt someone other than themselves. If and when they do hurt themselves… Good.