Canada Kicks Ass
As predicted, Canada’s new impaired driving law is trampling

REPLY

Previous  1  2



bootlegga @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 11:54 am

stratos stratos:
One way to solve this is just make every vehicle have a breathalyzer attached to start the engine. If found to have been tampered with you lose you license. If found not working during yearly inspection you have to have it fixed PRIOR to your vehicle being legal to drive again.

I see only 2 issues with my above. Cost of increase on vehicles might be outrageous, and cost of fixing could be a huge issue also.


Actually, if you get convicted of impaired driving in Alberta, that is one of the pre-conditions for getting your license back. And all things considered, it's not that expensive, about $150 to put in, $50 to remove it and $95/month to rent it.

https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-administ ... ogram.aspx

   



bootlegga @ Tue Jun 04, 2019 12:12 pm

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Mandatory alcohol screening should NEVER take place in your fucking living room. Especially up to two hours after the fact. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the inside of your home is NOT an impaired driving scene.


Agree to disagree on this for the reason I stated above.

   



PublicAnimalNo9 @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:04 am

bootlegga bootlegga:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Mandatory alcohol screening should NEVER take place in your fucking living room. Especially up to two hours after the fact. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the inside of your home is NOT an impaired driving scene.


Agree to disagree on this for the reason I stated above.
Look man, I had one of my cars hit by some twit who pulled that shtick. Fortunately I wasn't in it at the time.

There probably isn't anyone on this board who hates drunk drivers more than I do. But violating people's basic civil rights is NOT the way to fight the problem.

Like I said, if there's more than one licenced driver in the home and only one vehicle, who do the cops breathalyze?

I'm coming home from work and I do a little swerving to miss some wildlife on the road. Some do-gooder who doesn't see the wildlife calls my plate in to the cops and reports me as driving erratically. An hour or so later the cops knock on my door. I haven't had a drop to drink but my wife had a few throughout the day. The cops decide to breathalyze my wife because they can smell the alcohol, she fails and next thing you know, she's being charged and arrested for impaired driving even though she was home all day. Or let's say I've had a couple of pre-dinner cocktails as well, who do the cops breathalyze and how do they know they're arresting the actual driver from over an hour ago.

This is the kind of bullshit police states are made of.

   



llama66 @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:43 am

S.4 of the CCRF protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. I think it's unreasonable to do an alcohol screen after the person is at home is absolutely and categorically unreasonable. Too much reasonable doubt.

   



stratos @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:46 am

$1:
Actually, if you get convicted of impaired driving in Alberta, that is one of the pre-conditions for getting your license back. And all things considered, it's not that expensive, about $150 to put in, $50 to remove it and $95/month to rent it.


Now if they could cut out the Month rent because it's a feature in all cars and just add like $300 total to the car payment, I don't see anyone arguing with that. Keeps everyone safe and keeps someone from getting a DWI

   



bootlegga @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:55 am

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
bootlegga bootlegga:
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
Mandatory alcohol screening should NEVER take place in your fucking living room. Especially up to two hours after the fact. No matter how hard you try to justify it, the inside of your home is NOT an impaired driving scene.


Agree to disagree on this for the reason I stated above.
Look man, I had one of my cars hit by some twit who pulled that shtick. Fortunately I wasn't in it at the time.

There probably isn't anyone on this board who hates drunk drivers more than I do. But violating people's basic civil rights is NOT the way to fight the problem.

Like I said, if there's more than one licenced driver in the home and only one vehicle, who do the cops breathalyze?

I'm coming home from work and I do a little swerving to miss some wildlife on the road. Some do-gooder who doesn't see the wildlife calls my plate in to the cops and reports me as driving erratically. An hour or so later the cops knock on my door. I haven't had a drop to drink but my wife had a few throughout the day. The cops decide to breathalyze my wife because they can smell the alcohol, she fails and next thing you know, she's being charged and arrested for impaired driving even though she was home all day. Or let's say I've had a couple of pre-dinner cocktails as well, who do the cops breathalyze and how do they know they're arresting the actual driver from over an hour ago.

This is the kind of bullshit police states are made of.


That's a nice strawman you've built for yourself there.

While I don't trust cops 100%, I do trust them not to invade people's homes and force everyone inside to blow into a breathalyzer.

The woman in the report was reported to police as driving erratically. Now, if you've ever called 911 to report a suspected impaired driver (I have several times) they ask for the the make and model of the vehicle, direction travelled, etc. But they also ask for a description of the driver if you can get one. So whoever reported her, probably said the driver is a middle aged woman with long hair. Then when they show up, they look at the vehicle registration and ask for a driver's license. Bingo, suspect identified. It's nowhere as nefarious as you make this law out to be.

In her case, she said she only had one drink at the bar before heading home - maybe she did and maybe she didn't. By her own account, she then sat by the pool for two hours and had a beer or two. If she only had one drink at the bar and two beers at her friend's house (maybe three drinks over approximately three hours), she shouldn't have blown over.

I could believe 05 perhaps, but 08? I'm calling BS on the 'couple beers argument'. It sounds to me like she tried this:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/br ... cle535569/

Odds are, the law will get tweaked after the SCC challenge, but most of it will stand up as legal.

   



bootlegga @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:56 am

stratos stratos:
$1:
Actually, if you get convicted of impaired driving in Alberta, that is one of the pre-conditions for getting your license back. And all things considered, it's not that expensive, about $150 to put in, $50 to remove it and $95/month to rent it.


Now if they could cut out the Month rent because it's a feature in all cars and just add like $300 total to the car payment, I don't see anyone arguing with that. Keeps everyone safe and keeps someone from getting a DWI


That would work for me too, but you'd probably have a bunch of people screaming, "Why are you treating me as if I'm guilty!"

   



stratos @ Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:00 am

$1:

That would work for me too, but you'd probably have a bunch of people screaming, "Why are you treating me as if I'm guilty!"


True and I'm sure there would have to be some sort of exception for certain drivers doing business. Like UPS, Mail, FedEx, Police, Firemen things of that nature.

   



REPLY

Previous  1  2