RCMP Constable – judge and jury.

No problem if you don’t drink and drive.

you are right who da thunk, but some still think that rule applies only to everyone else because they are special.

only2c, I would think if you follow the laws of the land you will never have to worry about it.

Now we need a similarly tough law for the epidemic of distracted driving, like flaunting the rules concerning hand held stupid phones and such.

There is a review process, but it’s by a tribunal, not a court. But, there’s the trick. Roadside suspensions are not considered criminal matters, but administrative matters, so the full protection of the charter isn’t applicable because you’re not being accused of a crime. You don’t have a criminal record on a roadside.

You also have the right to speak to a lawyer before you blow, but you must inform the police you wish to exercise this right.

You can insist on a second test on a different device and the lower of two tests count.

If they give you a 24 hour suspension, without a breath test, you can ask for one, but then if you hit warn or fail, the harsher penalties apply.

I think end of day, what rights are given up, vs lives saved, is worth it. And I’d like to see similar laws related to distracted driving. Nothing get’s the bladder moving faster than a logging truck crossing the center line and you can see the phone in his hand.

“…..the IRP program has save 260 lives since the program was introduced.”

That is simple conjecture. I am assuming that this is based on the supposition that if the driver was not taken off the road immediately after he/she was discovered, the next event would have been an incident causing at least one death.

Can someone help explain to me how one can make such a statement?

gopg2015, like all stats, they can be manipulated to suit ones purposes.
I think maybe they took an average over a number of years of deaths before the program was instigated and compared it to stats taken afterwards. Like a poll they are subject to errors. So maybe that is how they can make that statement.
but if even the lives saved are only half or a quarter of what they claim, I think it is an effective program, thought it needs a lot of improvement yet
especially when it comes to fines and penalties….

sorry the present fines and penalties are a joke and aren’t much of a deterrent….

Ski, very well put.

I agree with you bcracer. I just see 260 as a highly inflated figure.

I just finished exploring that approach using the latest figures to 2013 available on the web.

I went back to 2008 and included the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 as a 3 year grouping (the program was introduced in Sept. 2010 so it is not quite accurate) the total fatalities due to impaired drivers were 345.
From 2011 to 2013 it was 195. That is a reduction of 150 deaths or 43% reduction for similar periods.

I also looked at non impaired driving fatalities over the same periods. The reason is that there are other causations for changes in fatalities over time.

So, the total fatalities for that group was 736 in the first period and 646 for the recent 3 year period for 90 fewer fatalities of 12% fewer.

Accounting for non-IRP program influences in the reduction of IRP related fatalities (such as improvements in vehicles, roads, other enforcement efforts, etc.) the IRP related reduction would be 31%. That percentage component means 108 fewer fatalities as a result of the new law up to the end of 2013.

The latest figures which might be available to the government would be to 2014. That is quite a gap to make up over one year, from 108 to 260 ……

So, I still want to know how they do their calculation.

If you do not drink and drive …no worry’s rite…Smoke and Fly..you arrive alive…get out and VOTE folks Polls close at 7 on Vote day…..GO JT…all the way home to 24 S Dr……

JT means junk in the trunk, right? With all the campaign promises, he’ll bankrupt us.
You started it.
Now, lets get back on TOPIC, okay?
Very pleased with the SCC decision, but man, there’s still folks complaining about it in the pubs, what gives?
Stay sober,get a ride, arrive alive.

I for one am happy the law survived the challenge the people who get mad over the law are generally ones who play with fire maybe having a drink or two and then driving because they feel they are fine to drive chances are that 9 times out of 10 they roll the dice in their favour but that one time in ten.

I have personally been first on scene of several accidents where alcohol was involved whether the person had one drink or 10 I can tell you right now I have seen the ugly side of drinking and driving especially when kids are involved that is one thing many first responders will tell you that hits them the most.

If you choose to drink then drive then get caught its your fault nobody else’s except yours so you roll the dice you pay the fine. Deal with it.