Funny piece, but I suspect....

we see the world differently.

I support zero tolerance for drinking and driving; alcohol in the blood and driving simply should not co-exist.

This way knowledge as to whether one is committing a crime is without question.

Remove this slippery slope and I strongly suspect the death tolls drop without cooking the statistics.

Impairing the public and then demanding they are accountable at all times for their degree of impairment is the type of 'social agreement' only a cunning rogue would claim as fair.

Further Evidence

Witness MADD's reaction to McLean's restaurant downtown offering free rides home: "this is a bad idea because it will encourage excessive drinking" (paraphrasing from memory). Maybe they should they drop the "Driving" and simply admit to being against drinking.

We now live in an age of.........

........prohibition and totalitarianism, where not breaking the law is now considered breaking the law.

Orwell and Kafka must be smiling.

We have made out police (you know, those chaps who tazered that poor Polish chap 5 times because he couldn't speak English) judge an jury for not breaking criminal law.

If you want to curb drink and drive, then get the province to get rid of that 1 mile rule where pubs have to be a mile apart!

I'm sorry, but I feel that my rights have been taken away by a fascist government who panders to anyone who will support it.

We live in evil days, with evil people creating laws for the sake of creating laws.

Real reason

They just don't get it.

The Canwest/Gordo coffers are way down in the red after the election and because of the HST that hole is getting deeper.

The Taxi cab and towing companies understand that their business depends on paying off politicians who arrest Gypsy cabs and toss them in the slam. They donate big. Now as a reward the towing companies get a cool thousand bucks towing peoples cars a few blocks and storing them for a week out in the boonies. And the taxis have doubled their business, since there is no transit at night to get to/from bars and they get to haul the hapless dude who had a bottle of beer with dinner all the way out to White Rock for a cool hundred.

The restaurant and bar owners association not only were not coming across with the bribes and payoffs but had the the temerity to go public with HST complaints.

This insane law which has to be unconstitutional was the result.

Good side. It will get a lot of folks out there signing that recall petition.

Taxi corruption now in the spotlight

Another good side to the fascist driving restrictions, is that the fun loving public is now going to be demanding to know why taxi service is almost non existent in the GVRD.

The problem starts and ends with the corruption in the the GVRD taxi licencing system. The unaware will be surprised to find with our corrupt city councils, we actually live in a third world culture where the payment of bribes is a cost of doing business.

In Vancouver /lower mainland where one can never find a cab at rush hour or friday night, only after great public protest and the permission of the 4 or 5 cab companies do councils issue licenses and then only and only then to the big cab companies. Joe Public can't get a licence.

In Bellingham, folks could get into the taxi business for less than $10K invested in insurance, testing etc. No trouble finding cabs. Cabbies make a decent living.

What I find extremely disturbing is how after these taxi licenses are issued for a few hundred bucks they are instantly worth a half million dollars. Why can't I have one? Why not an auction? Why can't Joe six pack win one of the licences? How come the companies make a fortune and the city and the cabbies bupkiss? Nope the platinum plated licences are simply shuffled over to politicians favourites in exchange for large undisclosed campaign donations later?

When I lived in Kingston - a city the same geographic area as Vancouver - cabs cost double bus fare and acted like buses Sometimes you'd have 3 other people in the cab. The cabbies loved it. Some Surrey taxi company once had a van service that picked up passengers and dropped them off like a bus service for a very reasonable fare. The City of surrey shut that down real quick.

Given there is no tracking of municipal campaign donations in between elections, this corruption and cronyism is an obvious source of corruption and a major inconvenience to citizens.

.05 drivers not the problem

The new laws make driving with a .05 blood alcohol reading a serious offense with penalties out of proportion with the danger presented by doing so. Accident reports routinely speak to drivers with .15 or .20 levels but rarely mention an accident caused by someone with a .05 reading.

Unfortunately the laws are here to stay as is the HST since neither the Liberals or the NDP with eliminate them.

Taxis

If you think finding a cab in Vancouver is hard, try finding one in Hope, Enderby, 100 Mile House, Nelson, or Smithers.

This is yet another "Vancouver-centric" law that completely screws over people living in the "heartlands." The parallel I like is the graduated licensing laws designed give more "training" to the lousy drivers in Vancouver. Anyone who has ever lived "out of town" would have been driving for years prior to their 16th birthday.

If you want the law to be criminal sanctions at .05: fine, go ahead and change the law. Don't, however, give cops the power to be the judge and jury - stealing both your car and livelihood for two glasses of wine with dinner.

Alcohol Consumption

I am a non-drinker of alcohol. I grew up with alcoholic parents and while I loved them I also feared their destructive habits. I do not associate with drinkers - they are simply too schizophrenic for me, but their habit is their choice. I think allowing bars, pubs etc. to be open only during the time when public transit is operating would allow drinkers their addiction and also give them a way to get home without driving their car. Any amount of alcohol in one's blood-stream is too much if one is going to drive a car. If you want to see a really scary sight be downtown on the Granville Drunk when the bars empty out early in the morning. You don't have to wait for Halloween.

"But the fact is, the drive

"But the fact is, the drive to institute the tougher drunk driving standard began with the arrest of the bombed Jane Thornthwaite, (MLA-North Vancouver-Seymour)on February 23, 2010."

In the mid 80's in Alberta, Premier Don Getty's son was busted for drugs. The result was a new holiday in mid-February called Family Day to encourage families to spend more time together and discourage substance abuse.
I don't think it worked but Albertans do take advantage of a mid winter holiday by spending more time chipping the ice off their sidewalks and visiting mom at work in the mall.

What was the point again????

Sorry, got lost after the first paragraph as to whether this was an article about drunk driving, prohibition or people getting the strap.

Whether you can drink or not is not the issue.
Being impaired and getting behind 1/2 a ton of steel doing 60K is.

There should be 0 tolerance of anybody getting behind a wheel while impaired in anyway. You are putting me and my childrens life at risk. I have relative who drove drunk and killed someone and I have a mother-in-law who was almost killed by a habitual drunk driver. I have seen the results from both sides.

The police should not be the judge and jury but unfortunately the previous laws made a conviction extremely hard and long process with minimal results and this is what we end up with.

Guilt transferrence

I think Piker's first post was dead on. All these pronouncements are really the public paying for the transgressions of a bombed Campbell and Thornwaite. Their defense from now on will be, "Just look at how we tightened the penalties and standards for when somebody is bombed." The inference is that they are therefore exonerated. It may be hypocritical in the extreme but for some it will do the trick.

Jitney

Vancouver needs to move on from the Victorian age, as much as the rest of the world has. As Seth says this is a ridiculous situation, rife with convoluted protectionism.

Shared taxis or Minicabs should just be the start!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi

Minicabs:
"In England the term minicab is used to refer to a private hire car and "private hire" is used in Scotland; that is a car with a driver available for hire only on a pre-booked basis. They began operating in the 1960s in competition to hackney carriages after a loophole in the law was spotted (although in some areas it is possible to hold a dual hackney/private hire licence). A minicab must be booked, for example, by telephone, internet, or fax, or in person at the registered minicab office. A minicab can be booked at the time it is required, but only at the office of a company registered to accept bookings rather than directly with a driver.

Since 2001 minicabs have been regulated in London and most other local authorities. London minicabs are now licensed by the Public Carriage Office, the same body that regulates London black taxicabs, but the minicab drivers do not have to complete the Knowledge. All vehicles available for hire by London minicab drivers must hold a Public Carriage Office licence showing that they are fit for purpose; this is updated twice a year after an inspection at a licensed garage. In London all private Hire Drivers must undergo a Topographical test. In order to obtain a Private Hire Drivers License in London a new applicant must send their Topographical Skill Certificate along with their application to the PHV Driver Licensing Section of the Public Carriage Office."

This new law has turned

This new law has turned responsible drinkers into pseudo-criminals. One can go have a drink or two at the pub after work and not be a danger to anyone. Those that think any alcohol in one's bloodstream equates to impairment are being ridiculous.

So now one will be severely penalized for NOT being drunk and choosing to be responsible. Simply idiotic.

This is just another

This is just another indication of how exacerbating class divisions based on income is a perfectly acceptable, and desirable, thing to do with either Vision Vancouver or the BC Liberals: create conditions where lower income people cannot afford to take taxis from restaurants and pubs anymore. Then pubs and restaurants lose their lower income customers, go out of business, and sell their business to a restaurant or pub owner that renovates and 'upscales' the business to cater to customers that can pay for a taxi home. Then rents go up around the area, gentrification occurs and lower income people are further marginalized. Lower income people start drinking more in public places, get fined/screwed over once again, and relegated to drinking in their apartment that they increasingly cannot afford because there is no effective rent control anymore. They start having money problems, start drinking more to temporarily relieve their anxiety, cost the health care system more money. Then rich people resent paying for poor people's health care and demand health care money be reduced.
Welcome to...
British Columbia: The Best Place on Earth!

MADD should be outlawed.

MADD should be outlawed. Nothing but a bunch of Puritans.

I don't drink due to gout but I think they are nuts and have far too much influence.

Time to legalise the marijuana though but MADD will be against that.

MADD sure has changed since they first started. Losers now.

Where is the data this law is based on???

I have yet to see any data that shows that people who are blowing between 0.05 and 0.08 are causing accidents at a rate greater than any other group. If this law is based on fact, the raw data should be made available.

the real problem

catering to the automobile industry and buying their wares then using them mindlessly so that our money goes to pay for auto uses and abuses and that is a huge amount covering so many areas like police surveillance, hospitals, roads, coroners, emergency response, courts,public health issues, etc, etc.
all that money could go to innovative transit

In my opinion this law is

In my opinion this law is probably just designed to fund the provincial coffers, without having to implement another tax. Lower income people, who are moving further and further away from Downtown because they can't afford the rents, tend to rely more on public transportation and private vehicles to commute. The BC Liberals and what's left of their supporters (wealthy financial backers. Vancouver Sun/Province) win because it:
A) ensures monopolistic taxi companies
will be flush enough to financially
support the BC Liberals.
B) keeps the great unwashed at bay and away
from higher income people who don't feel
comfortable around poorer people.
C) doesn't offend the class of people who CAN
afford to take a taxi home from the pub
more often, because it has a less tangible
negative effect on their disposable income.
D) creates more provincial revenue by
indirectly taxing lower income individuals
with more and more fines, while not having
to rely on taxing income (which rich
people don't like).
E) ensures Vancouver remains a very expensive
city to live in, thereby ensuring the
'compensation index' for employees working
for multinational companies and living in
Vancouver are compensated very highly
(which then reflects 'positively' on
Vancouver's status in the eyes of people
that equate socio-economic exclusiveness
to 'livability' or 'desirability.'
Wait, I have to stop!
I'm feeling nauseous, frustrated, upset, angry and revolutionary. I think I need a drink!

Piker: Unfortunately, not *all* British Columbians will suffer.

Piker's statement re: consequences is largely correct, but missing one crucial distinction. Yes - the *majority* of British Columbians will suffer the consequences Gordon Campbell's drunk driving offense, HOWEVER, the one British Columbian who will very likely *never* suffer as a result of these new laws is Campbell himself. No doubt that were he to consume bucketloads of martinis here in British Columbia and get caught behind the wheel, it would be the source of yet one more Campbell cover-up.

cash grab

The legislation is a cash grab, pure and simple.

One more thing: This

One more thing:
This puritanical law will also reinforce the idea prevalent among conservatives that being poor is proof that one is morally inferior to rich people. Why? Because conservative rich people can bask in their smug assumption that more lower income getting busted for drinking and driving then higher income people equals generalized lower moral character on lower income people. Even some of their more benevolent members can even take solace by donating more to charity (because after all 'those people' just don't know any better.)

anti drinking

I personally don't think drinking is a laughing matter. Not after being married to an abusive alcoholic who regularly abused me and the children. So if MADD wants to be against socially sanctioned alcohol use, I am all for it. Say it for what it is: a crutch used by people who don't want to have to deal with emotional attachment issues or relationship problems. A replacement for relationships, a replacement for family involvement. If people want to use it responsibly, I am all for it. But if I have to wear a bike helmet and a seat belt because my carelessness might cost an insurance company money, then I think drinkers need to pay extra tax dollars to pay for the messes they make in the streets, on the roads, and in our homes.

targeting the wrong people

These new alcohol regulations (I may be wrong but were they even laws passed by the elected legislature or simply regulations decided upon by the police without any public input?) are a classic case of being seen to do something politically correct rather than effective legislation. Targeting and severely penalizing people who register between 0.05 and 0.08 blood alcohol levels in the roadside blow-test machines the police use completely misses the point: these are not the people who cause accidents or drive recklessly. In fact they are the people who, until these new regulations, were the most compliant with the laws on drinking and driving, i.e. role models for others who want to have a glass of wine or beer with dinner but not overdo it, so they restricted their intake to modest levels to remain under 0.08, the former cut-off limit (and by the way still the legal limit in many other countries). There is virtually no evidence that having a 0.05 blood alcohol level in one's system increases the rate of alcohol-related accidents on our roads. There is lots of evidence that significantly higher levels of alcohol are much more directly related to accident rates. Stopping people who blow between 0.05-0.08 from driving is going to do virtually nothing to change the drunk driving accident rates, as they are not the drivers who cause them. We are now punishing people who are being responsible, out of all proportion to their so-called new crime. The police are targeting the wrong people.

One more thing to note: those blowing machines the police use at roadblocks are notoriously inaccurate and have been successfully challenged in court. In fact, until these recent changes, if you blew between 0.05 and 1.0 you were officially "warned" and had the choice of either voluntarily having your licence suspended and your car impounded for 24 hours (as I did a while ago), or going to a police station to take a more accurate blood test which could result in either being charged (if you tested over the legal limit of 0.08) or released with no consequences (if you tested below 0.08). Note that the police didn't actually have sufficient confidence in their own machines to tell you what you blew at if it was over 0.05 but below 1.0; they would just tell you that you blew in the "warn" range.

While I am all for reasonable limits on drinking and driving, these new regulations are not the solution and I do not believe they will be effective.

"Because conservative rich

"Because conservative rich people can bask in their smug assumption that more lower income getting busted for drinking and driving then higher income people equals generalized lower moral character on lower income people."
(i.e. People like Glen Murtz)

Alcohol bad

Mormons, Muslims and Mennonites all seem to be abstaining from booze, so they're all Puritans eh? There ARE some places with 0.0 tolerance for drinking/driving, and thats what this .05 may become - a de facto zero level. However, if we can't get people out of their cars for environmental reasons, maybe drinking will do it! Bring back the neighbourhood pub!

Conspiracy theories?

So let me get this straight: this is all an evil conspiracy (led by those powerful taxi/tow truck drivers and killjoy Protestant Puritans)?

Maybe it's the same conspirators who were responsible for implementing smoking bans in public places, another social health move that critics (inaccurately) predicted would cause the immediate failure of all pubs, sports bars and restaurants in the province.

Trouble is - the general suggestion to avoid drinking and driving, street racing, driving while prohibited, and self-assessment of legal impairment to drive just hasn't worked so far, has it? Last year, B.C. saw 3,700 vehicle crashes where alcohol was a factor, resulting in 2,300 injuries or deaths - and those numbers represent an alarming growing trend.

Something's got to give here - and unfortunately, we seem to only start paying attention when consequences hit us where they actually hurt.

These do.

Obvious solution

If public transit was available until 3:00 am everywhere, more people could drink in liscensed establishments without worrying about getting home without getting nicked.
The other reality is that 'experienced' drinking drinkers (i.e. those who drink frequently or daily) are actually less impaired while driving with a higher level of impairment than those who don't.
The former level of 0.08 was sufficient for most drivers who drink.

Who is normal anyway?

Maybe if we did not live in such an uptight society, people would be able to relax and feel happy without booze or drugs?

People who indulge readily admit that it makes them better able to cope with their stress and for a short while feel at ease with themselves.

So maybe if we allowed people to act like people instead of forcing them to fit into this "Normal" mode, then we could all get along better?

.05 not a problem?

I spent 15 years prying people out of car wrecks. An estimated 650 serious injury or fatal motor vehicle incidents. Don't try and tell me "one or two" don't do any harm.
Rationalize it all you like, blame whomever, cite all the "examples" in the damn world, you are LYING through your teeth, even to yourself.

Responsibility................

HA- All this whining about the new laws is a JOKE!!!
NO alcohol should be in your blood when you're driving -PERIOD!
Problem is NOT all of you drinkers are being responsible in your attitude, nor in your actions.
Other problem is our society as a whole- and our law makers, and enforcement officers are ALL a bunch of hypocrites-
Espousing on the one hand sanctions on drinking and driving while on the other hand making alcohol available in more and more location- locations where there ought to be NO need for people to be drinking at all- hockey games, and concerts, just for a couple of examples.
Worse yet is that I'll bet that nearly ever one of these law-makers, and enforcement officers is occasionally, if not regularly getting into their own cars and driving after consuming alcohol!
It's simple really- BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS and you'll have nothing to worry about- and STOP the WHINING......

utter nonsense

Calling someone drunk who had a beer after work or a glass of wine with dinner is complete and utter nonsense.

You forget FAS

yes, one innocent life saved from the lifelong sentence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is worth reducing alcohol consumption and most of all reducing our society's enthusiastic encouragement to and endorsement of all things alcoholic. We need to lower our tolerance just as we have done for tobacco. Some studies have found that FAS is the most common cause of homelessness, and as a techer of adults I can tell you that people with a dual diagnosis of addiction and mentalhealth problems are usually better off.
YOu can say Booo, you're no fun to me, but let's look at what is fun,really, and what's not.

laws-fines do not equal concern

carolyn ~ "Something's got to give here - and unfortunately, we seem to only start paying attention when consequences hit us where they actually hurt. ... These do."

Look, if the government wanted to responsibly stop drinking and driving and its associated carnage, then this law does not do that. This is just a boost for the legal industry.

The government does not care about you or the people despite the rhetoric. If it did, we would not be closing hundreds of schools, privatizing medical matters, shutting down courthouses and increasing politician's salaries and pensions, let alone inviting the global resource pillagers to have their way with our country.

It is, at some levels, a criminal organization which operates behind closed doors and with vested interests unspoken. We give them the right to carry-on every 4-5 years, asking for no accountability to ourselves, each time we vote one of the two parties back into office. Rinse, repeat.

It is our own fault, and we have to learn to face this fact. Only then will we see our way out of this mess of broken representative governance.

FAS is a red herring

FAS has nothing to do with drunk driving laws. However, on that subject.... the fact that some people cdon't use it responsibly is no reason to try and curtail MY access to booze. I love good scotch, beer and cider, in that order... If you want to not drink, that's great... leave me alone with my bottle in front of me...

FAS is not about drunk driving, it's about drunk breeding

We have laws about drunk driving, unfortunately we don't have laws about drunk breeding. Why not?

hedonism overrules intelligence

Apparently drinking and driving with a blood alcohol level of .05 isn’t a problem? The real problem is the fact that folks have no way of knowing (or feeling) when they’ve crossed the line, and even if you do cross the line, because you don’t know how it feels, you didn’t know you were doing anything wrong?

Nonsense.

The rationale used in this article is just a few sips away from making ignorance a legitimate excuse for all sorts of deviant and harmful behaviour.

Against BC's New Alcohol Limits

Puritanical I'm not and if you really need something to make you feel and act like someone you're not then I suppose alcohol is the lesser of most evils . . . but do you really need it? Can you not enjoy yourself with others minus the crutch of artificial stimulants be they alcohol or drugs?

Personally, I gravitate towards people who don't need these aids for living and enjoy their company while they're in their real minds not minds and personalities addled and invigorated by a phony substance they will soon pi-- out or have evaporate from their system . . . then what have you got . . . certainly a totally different person you had than before when they were intoxicated. Who needs that?

Be real people, forget about phony living aids such as alcohol and drugs . . . Get high on life as it is, strive to genuinely improve it and reap the benefits thereof.

it's a load of bollocks

Seth is right. This is nothing more then a cash grab by a desperate, broke and corrupt regime. And the fact that the cops are now judge and jury should give everyone cause for concern. Even child molesters get their day in court. As for the zero tolerance argument: forget it. Sounds warm and fuzzy, but is a load of crap. Studies have proven that people who have one or two drinks actually drive more cautiously then when they haven't. And the average person driving after a couple of drinks is still a better driver then the average BC driver in general. It's way too easy to obtain and keep a license in this province. And why not penalize all impairments? Women in menopause or menstruating. Someone with a migraine. Taking prescription drugs. Allergies. I could go on and on. And of course stupidity is always lingering around. Tip: if you have a drink or two and drive and get stopped:deny, deny, deny.

Zero Tolerance is nonsense

Zero tolerance does not work in the real world and those who advocate for it are not thinking things through (in other words: they're idiots).

1) Some medicines/health products are provided in an alcohol tincture: you could consume a minute quantity yet you are now a criminal. This creates disrespect for otherwise good laws, and lawbreakers out of many.

2) Alcohol is metabolised and decays over time. At some point you're going to have measurable (i.e. very small) quantities of alcohol with no effect on your driving ability. Again, disrespect for otherwise good laws, and lawbreakers out of many.

3) Where is the evidence that low quantities of alcohol are causing crashes? I would submit that new drivers, elderly drivers, and simply incompetent drivers (there are a lot of them) present a much greater risk than a reasonable driver with a low BAC.

The Ontario Stats are pretty

The Ontario Stats are pretty clear (see: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired/fact-sheet.shtml):
"The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:

Drivers with a BAC above 0.05 but below the legal limit are 7.2 times more likely to be in a fatal collision than drivers with a zero BAC.
In 2005, 16.7% of drinking drivers killed in Ontario had a BAC less than 0.08."

Smart thing is not to drive if you've taken any drinks (or tokes, or.....).

You're all looking at this the wrong way!

Drinking and driving. The thing wrong with this concept does not lie in the operational parameters, but in the social ones. Why do you have to drive right after you drink? Not to mention, why do you have to drink when you are going to have to drive? The whole scenario is on a par with a one-night stand, sling them back, wham bam, hit the road. WRONG! Drinking is for cozying up, taking time, celebrating or grieving TOGETHER, folks! think of wakes where someones life truly was being celebrated, the time taken to do it properly; think of wedding celebrations that run over several days, where nobody goes home until they're clearheaded again, until they're finished putting their spirit in order, not just their spirits away. The whole thought of drinking and driving within a time span that could bring the two in conflict is nothing less than completely barbaric. We need to learn (again) to do something, really do it, and then put it away and do soemthing else, really do that. We get frazzled and fragmented and rootless and scared by this slutting around with all the supposedly good things in life. We should, in short, grow up and try to be real people. Then the problem would solve itself. Amen.

zero tolerance

mica66 ~ Zero tolerance does not work in the real world and those who advocate for it are not thinking things through (in other words: they're idiots).

Really? Are you suggesting a court would toss out evidence to the contrary if it was proven that the minimal alcohol measured was derived from a prescription or medication?

Canada has zero tolerance in four provinces for drivers under 21. 'In Europe, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany and Sweden have zero-tolerance law for drugs and driving'. Is this not part of your real world?

I wonder how you would think about alcohol and driving IF your wife or child or mom was killed by someone with 0.05 in their blood. Would you chalk it up to some extra special care behind the wheel but accidents happen?

Alternatively, how would you cope in killing a small child with your vehicle knowing you had a couple of 'legal' shots under your belt? Are you so sure your 'negligible' level of impairment would not have been a contributing factor?

And due to discretionary police powers, do you think 'zero tolerance' would be strictly enforced in all cases such as when there are zero signs of impairment? Folks are caught with weed all the time, but not all see the light of the courtroom.

I guess I will remain one of your categorical 'idiots'.
Considering all the unnecessary problems we have in our world,

dorothy

You make it sound like the only time anyone drinks is right before they plan on driving. That's ridiculous. I only drink as a social affair, ie: with friends. And I do not drive drunk. But if my wife and I go out for a nice dinner at a restaurant that's not in our area and we drive there, I'm driving home. And yes, I will have had a glass of wine or a beer. A criminal? Give me a break!

Ontario's propaganda BS

The increased collision risk of drivers with a BAC from 0.05 to 0.08 (also known as the "warn range") is well documented:

Yet they can't even document such research in footnote. Why? Because it doesn't exist.

"Is well documented:" - a failure on a first year political science paper and failure on a piece of government bumph.

excellent analysis

I received a fundraising letter from MADD and used that opportunity to make clear to them my opposition to their police state mentality.

A petite woman who has one glass of wine before driving home is not the problem. It is the alcoholics who drink drive and kill who should be the focus of our limited police resources.

What's the issue here?

Anyone who spends $50,000 on a fancy-ass car and isn't wiling to spend another $50 on a cheap breathalyzer to figure out when it might be safe for them to operate it is like a drug-runner taking off at night in a Cessna without a compass or nav.

http://www.breath-tester.com/
http://www.breathalyzercanada.com/personal-alcohol-breathalyzers/

Just go buy one. And use it. And if you don't like the results, spend your money on a better one. I guarantee you might learn something about yourself, and I don't mean your tolerance for alcohol.

And stop this senseless bickering. It sounds like seat belts and cycle helmets all over again.

And that goes double for the zero-tolerance whingers among you - God you sound so petty! Have you never jaywalked, gone swimming in the ocean without a lifeguard or "forgotten" your condom?

Yeah, sure, I really believe you....

jnewcomb

Hey! Easy on the Mennonites! We like our wine too, and I don't mean "communion".... ;>)

J M Gray

Funny, sort of. But not the polemic. MADD may have some blurred vision now and again, but using the foibles of politicians to make your point is duck-hunting with Cheney.

Of course, you probably already know that by now...

Zero tolerance

University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers. As have numerous other researchers.

Seems to me the problem with the new drink/driving rules are that they don't apply, mutatis mutandis, to driving while talking on a cell phone....Surely, if cops are allowed to pull your license, impound your car and fine you as a result of a roadside blow of between .05 and .08 they ought to be allowed the same extra-judicial powers when they see someone breaking the cell phone law.

The problem really is that police are not meant, constitutionally, to be acting as judge and jury - this law will undoubtedly be challenged under the Charter and found to be ultra vires.

In the meantime, there are personal breath analysis units available for purchase - I suggest anyone who's concerned that they might be driving @ over .05 to buy one and take the time to calibrate their own BA levels under the influence of various amounts of alcohol.

zalm

Well put - While I was composing my words you seem to have posted them - or a least a fairly close approximation of what I was meaning to say - Cheers!

The Zalm said.......

Seriously? You're comparing impaired driving to jaywalking? Swimming without a lifeguard? As far as I know, nobody has EVER killed someone else by swimming or jaywalking.

Let's get one thing straight, alcohol is a mind altering substance and that is the reason people use it. If not, then why not drink low alcohol (.05%) beer with your buddies after work if you intend on driving? Why not drink non alcoholic wine with your dinner? Why, it's because you like the way alcohol makes you feel. I don't give a shit what anyone says, one beer or one glass of wine alters your consciousness and impairs your senses and reflexes.

And did anybody read the article in the "reported elsewhere" section that says alcohol is THE MOST damaging drug? More so than heroin, crack and meth. I think people need to look long and hard at the reasons they use to justify ingesting this poison.

By the way, what the hell is a whinger?

I don't buy it

I've been driving for 29 years, and drinking for 28. I've driven impaired a handful of times, only in rural areas. I simply don't trust my reflexes and night vision, even after only one drink.

Although everyone's subjective assessment of impairment varies, knowingly driving impaired is nothing short of anti-social.

Living in urban and suburban areas, I've always managed to budget for taxis or buses, or I've walked. It's not that hard.

so murtz and other madd fascists

Any of you ever driven a vehicle when you had a cold. How about bullshitting with a front seat passenger, small kids in the back, maybe havin a smoke or sippin a coffee. Don't lie now.

Because when you did you were far more impaired than a .08 driver.

I insist that you revoke your driving priviliges for 6 months for each incident and consign your car to an impound lot at $200 a day until your sentence is up.

Sentence is doubled because you are an f'ing hypocrite.

Living in fear of the iron fist?

...Try instead living in fear of the iron bumper. There's not a day I step out my front door without having a close call with a distracted or reckless driver. Having a vehicle is not a right. Having a drink is not a right. Get used to it.
And for those of you worried about the fine line at 0.05 - a breathalizer is $20 on ebay - about the price of 3 drinks.

I'm certainly no puritan,

I'm certainly no puritan, but I don't have any sympathetic feelings for the plight of those who want to have a few and get behind the wheel. I don't mean the alcoholics, but the inbetweeners, the ones who are 'fine to drive'. Best not to leave it to the judgment of someone who thinks they are good to go.

If anything, this makes a case for better public transportation.

Debate and prose...

This one will not be resolved here...

There are so many good arguments each way, in the rurals there are no taxis or transit, 30 40 kilometers is nothing..
Nobody trusts the mounties to be judge jury and executioner.

It is a lot of money for tow, impoundment, fines........

Yet no government left or right will reverse the new law, maybe a private challenge will overturn the law in the upper court but this is here to stay...

There is another one, a person(s) has a designated driver, they drink their faces off, get driven home, pass out....

5 hours later they drive to work still drunk..

And there are other arguments,dead sober brutal drivers just looking for a crash site and "well seasoned" drivers that can stop on a dime.

Many idiots are destined to cause accidents straight or sober....

My advice, give the man nothing, don`t drink and drive, don`t drink at restauraunts, don`t speed...

They changed the game and there is only one way to play...

Smart!

MADD

MADD is an emotion driven organization, about as dangerous as PETA but with about as much clout as the anti plastic bag people.

Nope.

"Any of you ever driven a vehicle when you had a cold."
Nope.

"How about bullshitting with a front seat passenger, small kids in the back, maybe havin a smoke or sippin a coffee."
Nope.

My conscience is clean and I'm calling out all you irresponsible, drunk driving [OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED HERE...].
Don't drink and drive.

Grow up you [...HERE...], irresponsible [...HERE...].
Your privilege to drive carries responsibilities. Canadians pay billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize your stupidity, arrogance and recklessness.

35,270 times you drove away from your moral and ethical duties in 2007, at who knows what unimaginable cost.

[...HERE...]

[...HERE...]

[...HERE...]

If you worked alongside a machine at work and your coworker who operated it came in smelling of booze - would you feel that demonstrates responsibility? If they said "I only had one or two" would you feel okay about crawling into that machine while they were at its controls?
How many times would you let that behavior go before you told the boss? Or are you drunk driving apologists so far gone brain cell wise, you'd let this behaviour slide indefinitely?
I mean, remember - they only had "one or two"!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
[...HERE...] DONT DRINK AND DRIVE.

[...AND HERE. -MODERATOR.]

Have a nice, sober day.

Too bad, but....

Let's face it we are not all affected exactly the same by alcohol.
I can understand that some feel that their tolerance should allow them to drive with a higher percentage of blood-alcohol in their system.

By the same token I have fast reflexes and am very in tune with machinery/cars and feel that I should be allowed to drive 25% faster than the posted speed limits!

Can you see the predicament if the law had to consider individual circumstances?

So, unfortunately we have to adjust everything to the standard that is safe for those with less ability or tolerances to Alcohol.

Yup, the lowest common denominator, just like everything else in our society!

Alive

"we are not all affected exactly the same by alcohol.
I can understand that some feel that their tolerance should allow them to drive with a higher percentage of blood-alcohol in their system."

So, said 'tolerance' means you are not affected by an amount of alcohol that would incapacitate lesser people, huh? My question to that is: why drink the stuff, then? One drinks in order to be affected. Those who are lying to themselves about not being are dangerous. Those who truly are not should be worried that they are on the way up the ladder. Truth is, as pretty solid research many years ago made by Ralph Nader established, men between I think it is 45 and 49, who are really good drivers, and who are in impeccable health, actually drive better within a two-hour period or thereabouts after drinking one or two glasses of red wine. Change one of those parameters to the smallest extent, such as other kinds of drink, less than perfect health, being an acutally lousy or mediocre driver, or waiting three hours, or changing your gender, and it doesn't hold true. But for that very narrow group in that very narrowly defined situation, it does. To me, this simply comes under serendipity and should not form the basis for legislation or law enforcement practices. It has, however, formed, I think, the basis for a widespread and dearly held mythology, for all of us think that somehow we fit into that group, but almost no one does.

As for your notion of fast reaction: Fewer accidents are acutally caused by people who drive SLIGHTLY above the speed limit, rahter than under or to it. Idea is they drive on instinct because they are better drivers. It also helps your odds if you drive a white car. Again: This is serendipity. Choose your places to bes special, just like you choose your battles. Actually, same thing.

To the man who crosses town for a 'nice dinner': what is your aim: culinary enjoyment? quality time with your wife? getting out of the house? all of the above? They could each separately be had to a better quality without combining them, but we are such crammers. That's what I mean by slutting around!

Dishonest Statistical Analysis is the only support of this law.

MADD & Politicians promoting "zero tolerance" refuse to use honest statistical methods. The accurate way to determine SCIENTIFICALLY, AUTHENTICALLY & HONESTLY the effect of alcohol on driving, is to use COMPARITIVE RISK ASSESSMENT on an actual Driving Simulator, which are readily available, and VERY REALISTIC. Compare a sampling of drivers with blood alcohol of .05%, with those with normal blood alcohol levels, compare with people taking non-prescription drugs like aspirin or Tylenol or Tylenol w codeine(which can really make you sluggish), compare with someone taking common prescription drugs - totally legal (some anti-depressants that doctors like to prescribe like they were candy, can whack you out like drinking 10 beers), compare with Cell phone use, Loud Music, Conversation, Handsfree Phone Usage or Llack of Sleep. Speaking of which the USELESS, INEFFECTIVE Daylight Saving Time KILLS thousands of people, because the one hour less sleep causes a higher rate of accidents in the morning.

So it is claimed that people w. blood alcohol of .05% are 7X more likely to be in an accident. Yeah, because most accidents are in afternoon, evening & night when people drink, and people who are not likely to drink and drive are FAR more likely to drive more cautiously and in less risky situations - and so on - called CONFOUNDING FACTORS - that are DELIBERATELY ignored in these MICKEY MOUSE, BOGUS analyses.

I know an accident in which a motorcycle driver was killed when he made a totally legit right turn onto a road. But was killed by a driver who swerved into his lane to avoid another vehicle that went in front of him. Absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done. But the accident was blamed on him and called a drunk driving accident, because he was the only one of the three parties that had drank, and was legally impaired. Bogus data once again.

How about the person who had a REALLY BAD day at work. Fuming with Anger, would stop at a nearby PUB have a few beers to relax and wind down, instead because he would have HUGE HASSLES to do so without making .05%, he drives home in DANGEROUS Rush Hour conditions smacks into another car and kills three kids. According to MADD, those deaths don't count - those kids were sacrificed for the MADD religious dogma.

The REAL TRUTH is that .05% drivers are SCAPEGOATS, targeted by politicians so they can FEEL GOOD claiming (using false statistics) that they are saving lives, while they are in bed with Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Steel and also the Legal System and Insurance Companies who make HUGE PROFITS preserving the Status Quo. It is really not difficult to make vehicles that crash into each other, without harm to any occupants. Racing Cars crash at 250 mph, without an injury. But Vested Interests don’t want those changes to be made. Got to blame somebody with NO MONEY – yep, drunk drivers – we used that one up – well, now we will have to blame .05% drivers. What a CROCK of BS!

And How About Deadly Auto Emissions which Politicans Ensure?

They kill 20,000 people in the USA every year, and proportionate amount in Canada, including thousands of children. Transport Canada went to great lengths to blockade ZERO EMISSION Electric Vehicles over the past 10 yrs. Even California quit the Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate, that would have put millions of clean Electric Vehicles on the road by now - under pressure from Big Oil.

And SLIMEY POLITICIANS - have still have not done anything about Chevron who STOLE the NiMH battery patent - a battery developed by funds from the USA Taxpayer. And Chevron has blocked all licensing of large format NiMH batteries for the past 10 yrs, and sues any company that tries to produce them, which would have allowed millions of life-saving low emission EVs to be on the road right now.

Yep, blame the little guy who had one beer before driving, but wouldn't want to do anything about Chevron - who has killed ten's of thousands of people through their ILLEGAL Acts.

A drunk driving an electric vehicle

is a stealth weapon.

The issue is driving while impaired and I have my doubts about the new limit. I understand the police aren't all that enthusiastic either.

Whingers...

...are slightly more educated whiners, in the British tradition. Perhaps I was mistaken, eh?

Stephanie T, if you think hitting a jaywalking pedestrian is easy on the driver, you need to think again. PTSD is no joke. Nor is drowning your silly ass in Lynn Canyon or off Ogden Point and taking your rescuer with you. The only difference is you don't have a licence for stupidity for someone to take away. It wasn't even a week ago that some were complaining on these very pages about cyclists needing a licence so that it could be taken away for doing stupid things and using up vast amounts of society's resources in the process.

I think we dealt with that nicely there, and this ought to about do it here. I don't even have to ask why you didn't "whinge" about condom use.

Except for Glen Murtz. I've no idea what you were trying to say because your mouth ran away with your brain, but I want to remind you that aggressive driving is recognized by ICBC as the single biggest contributor to BC's accident rate, and your anger is the single biggest indicator of a hazardous driving style according to the BCMA in their journal.

So I invite you to turn your driver's licence in until you can learn to control your anger - further, until you can prove to the rest of us that you won't unleash it on the road in as threatening a manner as you've tried to do on these pages.

Obviously you've mistaken me for some kind of apologist for drinking and driving. I'm not and you can't put that into my words. I'm telling people who want to drink that they should drink responsibly, according to the law; and for one-thousandth of the price that some of you might have paid for your big fat-ass Hummer, you can buy the technology to help you do it. It's not like we're in China where anything not expressly permitted is prohibited, you know.

Enough already! The law permits modest degrees of impairment by way of caffeine, alcohol, illness, distraction, hands-free cellphones (which I really disagree with, by the way) head-banger music at full volume, black-tinted windows, and a variety of other vanities while operating motor vehicles. Learn to live with it!

YCSTS

Interesting thoughts. Thank you.