Better than it has been by far, but still not strong enough..
I fear these deterant still aren't going to have any effect on those who feel they are above the do not drink and drive rule.

why not confiscate the vehicles from those who are driving with suspended licences. And if it isn't their vehicle? too bad...maybe then people would think twice before lending out their vehicles.
Getr caught driving while suspended, licence loss 5 years.
Second time loss for life..
third time 10 years in jail..
4 th time you will be in jail the rest of your natural life.

Why so harsh?
Obviously they think it a joke, haven't learned anything, and are in no way appreciative of the break they were give in the first place.

So lets get tougher.....

why not elect a commy govt. you do gooders are after the drinkers because the are easy picking and a cash cow and they will not fight back. Why not go after the druggies and robbery artists the same way, They are doing many more bad things to the world we live in and hurting more people than somebody haveing a drink after work and they are costing society a lot more pain and money. I guess it may have something to do with the fact the druggies ect have the lawyers to fight back and you do gooders have stuck your heads in the sand again.

First off "haveing a drink after work" is not a problem, having 6 then driving is and you should be fined and your licence suspended.

Second I guess all the people that would like to see impaired drivers off the road hopefully before they kill innocent people are now called "do gooders".

Somehow I don't think the new laws go far enough as the police still pull people off the road that are impaired and are prohibited from driving.

As for the above post..... I think it speaks for itself.

Anyone who is impaired and causing the death of a person or persons, imo should be charged with premeditated murder and be sentenced to life in prison.

they can give the RCMP all the tools and laws they want,but until crown prosecutors stop giving deals to all the criminals just so they get a checkmark in the win column it isnt going to do any good.

how many times do we have to hear about the criminal who has multiple arrests for the same charge getting the minimum sentence,just to go out and do it again?

This should be all about causing crashes, I hope, and not only about causing crashes due to drinking and driving.

I have recently found out the details of three crashes and one near miss over the past couple of months. Not one of them involved alcohol. All involved other people in the car. All were work conditions.

Those involved all had their seatbelts on, so injuries were minor, even though speeds were up to 90kph and there was at least one totalled vehicle involved since it overturned overturned.

Here are the causes:

1. Driver fell asleep at the wheel - two passengers, treated in hospital

2. Driver reached for a radio (driving on a radio controlled road) overcorrected, went into ditch rolled the vehicle. Crew cab was full of people.

3. Ball joint sheared, front end dropped, driver lost momentary control and vehicle went off road narrolwy missing no post guardrail end.

4. Driver was using a mobile device despite warnings from passengers and nearly drove into a ditch. (near miss)

Lessons:

1. do not drive when tired. If you are, stop driving immediately when you know you are nodding off.

2. Keep eyes on the road. Responding to or sending message on radio controlled roads is less important than driving. Stop at the next opportunity and deal with the radio. If this is common, relocate the radio within reach.

3. Know what is being inspected on your vehicle. Increase frequency of inspection with older vehicles, rougher roads, higher loads.

4. It is against the law to use a mobile device unless it is hands free. Change your device or, better still, don't use it while driving. When passengers warn you, follow their advice, it is their lives you are messing with.

REMEMBER, the MAJORITY of vehicle crashes are still caused by conditions other than drinking and driving. DO NOT feel that the drunks of this world are the leading cause of crashes, property damage, injuries, and death. It is those who are sober and are operating a relatively fast moving object on a ribbon of asphalt, with passengers in the vehicle and are not paying attention and may not be keeping their vehicle in the condition that it needs to be to be safe.

How about we put an on-board camera on board each vehicle aimed at the driver position, plus a black box such as airplanes have, with a playback mode that police can quickly check when they do random roadside inspections. If they find any sign of "driving without due attention" the same penalties as impaired driving apply. Why? Because you are impaired, not by alcohol, but by other circumstances.

So, be honest with yourselves and think of how many near misses you had in your lifetime of driving that did not involve alcohol and compare those to the number you had that did involve alcohol and then compare those to the number of times you entered a car and thought "I should not be driving right now" because you were not emotionally or mentally fit to drive.

I have many thoughts on what should be done with those involved with the drug trade as well Dozer...

It is all about choices...
people choose to drink, or take drugs...
if they stopped choosing the drugs/alcohol those associated problems would come to an end...will it happen...I doubt it...

My concern is if some drugged up or drunk driver is on the road, then it could be me or my friends and family that get hurt and killed...that I CARE ABOUT!

It is all about choices!!!!!

If you drink and drive a motor vehicle you should be locked in a cage for life. Bottom F..ing line. Considering that it shows no regard for human life or any other life for that manner at all. Bad enough in this town that we have a bunch of show offs with skinny arms and no body hair that looks like a girl with no tits well to me these pretty boys need a cage to go to as far as I am concerned.

One other thing to remember to put the whole thing into a bit of a perspective.

The standards required to get a drivers license are MINIMUM standards, not OPTIMUM standards.

Once a person has reached the minimum age, most can get a drivers license. In its application it is more a right than a privilege. If you fail the first time, you take it over again until you get it.

A 1985 report based on British and American crash data found driver error, intoxication and other human factors contribute wholly or partly to about 93% of crashes.

While intoxication is a major contributor to the human factors, it is NOT the greatest contributor. It is just the easiest to detect and enforce.

I do not find it very comforting. Luckily I do not think about it too often. :-)

I agree, it is ALL about choices.

While driving:

1. You can drive after 5 alcoholic drinks or not

2. You can use a mobile device or not.

3. You can drive to Vancouver leaving at 8 at night, after your shift at work, to be there in the morning or not.

4. You can eat a burger while driving or not

5. You can drive with a vehicle that should have been inspected 4 months ago or not.

6. You can drive after a very emotional fight with your spouse or not.

Choices ...... we all know that!

The thing is, that we can put a good half of the population in jail for the rest of their lives because they made bad choices.

Why do some people opt for that as the solution? Because they do not know any better. Because they think that they are perfect and of course they do not make bad choices.

So, right there, I would have to say they are making a bad choice that can affect the lives of other people. So ... result by applying your own medicine ... you go to jail. :-)

"Bad enough in this town that we have a bunch of show offs with skinny arms and no body hair that looks like a girl with no tits well to me these pretty boys need a cage to go to as far as I am concerned."

Here chris, lie down on the couch and tell me all about your problems ...... get it out of your system before you end up doing someone harm. Otherwise we might need to lock you up in a cell for the rest of your life because you might just snap one of these days and injure someone.

okay Gus on some of your points I agree, but, sorry Gus, on impaired driving there is no excuse...I have absolute no sympathy or empathy for these people...
the law is there..
the education has been out there for what seems forever....
don't follow it you pay the price...as chinzy as it is at the moment...but it is getting better...baby steps

BCRacer

All that I am saying is that eventually the message will have been sent and it will become more important to start dealing with those areas we have forgotten about.

Here is a statistic from the USA that always seem to be easier to locate than Canadian and even more so than provincial stats.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s1073.pdf

1990
44,599 fatalities (all, not just driver)
17,705 BAC of at least one driver .08+
2,901 BAC .01 to .07 (at least one driver)
23,823 0.0 BAC
The percentages are 39.7%, 6.5% and 53.4%

2007
41,059
12,998 = 31.7%
2,388 = 5.8%
25,555 = 62.2%

Put in another way, the total raw number of fatalities where BAC of 0.08+ was involved dropped by over 26% in spite of the increase in population and presumed number of drivers over that time.

The figure for BAC of 0.01 to 0.07 was a drop of over 17%.

The figure for no BAC involved was an increase of over 7%.

So, based on those figures I say that in the USA the drunk driving awareness and enforcement program is shown to work. And, as I say, we are entering the time when complacency about factors other than alcohol is setting in. THAT is the point I am trying to make. And THAT is where I am saying if you want to make tough penalties, then make them equitably for ALL personal choices driving attitudes.

You are right! It is about personal choices. Just remember, we all make some of those other personal choices that are the bulk of the causative factors in crashes. They are just not easy to determine at a roadside stop and even at an autopsy.

And the punch line, of course, is that because they often cannot be detected, they cannot be enforced and you cannot be thrown in jail with the key thrown away. So, you lucked out because your lifestyle activity is non detectable.

:-)

My husband was hit by drunk drivers they were killed instantly but left my husband who was the innocent one in this - with injuries that has changed his/our life forever - there should be very strong fines/laws against people who drive impaired...we are living proof of what drinking and drive can do - it is devastating.

One third of accidents are caused by impaired drivers. The balance 2/3's are caused by careless, stupid, drivers or other causes.

This has always been the case. Most statistics regarding accidents where alcohol was a factor indicate that alcohol was in the vehicle, and they therefore report it as an alcohol related accident, even if the driver didnt have a drink.

So if you cause an accident by being impaired you are charged with impaired driving.

If you cause an accident while being sober, but not driving carefully, you will probably not be charged at all.

If you cause an accident because you are a stupid, and dangerous driver you again will probably not be charged.

Gus has it right. The focus is on the impaired driver, or the driver with a blood alcohol reading in excess of .08 (which doesnt necessarily mean you are impaired) because it is easy to collect the fines, and avoid any time in court.

However at the end of the day most accidents are caused by poor drivers, or other circumstances. So there should be some focus on those areas.

The Government itself is complicite in the impaired driving accidents, because they are the one that sell the liquor. If they are really concerned they should ban the selling of alcohol altogether. Why dont they??? Because it is a big money maker for them. So are fines from impaired drivers.

If you allow a person to leave your house impaired, and allow him to drive, you can be subject to charges. So can the owner of a bar who sells more liquor to a drunk person.

Ban all liquor manufacturing and sales, and concentrate on sending boot leggers to jail. Anyone caught drinking could then be charged with various offences and dealt with accordingly. Same thing applies to cigaretts. Big beneficiary of Cigaretts tax is the Government.

Who is really breaking the law here.

The guy who drinks, smokes, and gambles, or the Goverment who sells him alcohol, cigarettes, and casinos.

At best you could say they both participate in what should be considered as criminal activities.


Giving people a fine for being betweeon .05 and .08 rather than a road side suspension is merely a ploy by the Government to collect more money in fines.

Our justice system is more bark than bite.

In recent times we have had quite a few of these (fire and brimstone) tough talk announcements from governments about cracking down on various types of illegal activities. However at the same time the prison sentences given for all types of crimes have slowly and steadily gone down.

The bottom line is it costs too much money to keep people in jail. With the extreme pressure on government budgets, it looks to me like they have decided to save money by having a justice system where convicted criminals serve less and less prison times for their crimes.

(The following data refers to federal inmates)

"In 2007-08, the annual average cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated was $101,666 per year, up from $83,276 per year in 2003-04. In 2007-08, the annual average cost of keeping a male inmate incarcerated was $99,205 per year, whereas the annual average cost for incarcerating a woman was $182,506."

"The average daily inmate cost includes those costs associated with the operation of the institutions such as salaries and employee benefit plan contributions, but excludes capital expenditures and expenditures related to CORCAN (a Special Operating Agency that conducts industrial operations within penitentiaries)."

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2009-ccrso-eng.aspx#b3

I could not find any specific recent information on the internet about how much it costs to keep an inmate in B.C.'s provincial jails for one year, but my guess is it would be similar to the cost in Ontario.

In Ontario this year they are expecting to pay an average of $173 per inmate per day, to keep prisoners in their provincial jails. (This works out to about $63,000 per year per inmate.)

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2010/ch2e.html

some of these changes are awesome. the .o5 is insane. that is basically one drink and a half. i once was pulled over and the cop gave me a breathalyzer after one mug and a small glass in an hour and half i blew a .05. the law should stay at .08 and the laws strictly enforced. There are people out there who get caught loose there license and get caught again and again and again. How does this happen. So thanks to a handful of idiots the rest of society has to pay. When drunk drivers cause accidents they are usually well above any normal limit. punish those people.

When your impaired your impaired its only to what degree.

If fining people and suspending their drivers licence at .05 helps save one innocent person then its worth it.

I still go to the pub, have a pint, some appetizers and a good time with friends then head out. Its the people that you see that sit around and have 3 or 4 pints then want to drive home that I would like to see stopped.

BCRACER, with regards to your first post at the top of the pack: Drivers who are suspended or prohibited and who do get caught driving DO have their vehicles impounded from 30-90 days. If it isn't theirs, it's impounded regardless.

CHeck out the Vehicle impoundment program for BC.

Probably not a good time to buy a neibourhood pub, nightclub, or fancy restaurant.

Also not a good time for the City to be trying to sell beer in the seating area at the CN Centre. Probably shouldnt be selling booze there at all.

It takes very little alcohol to get you over .05% and effects different people in different ways, depending on your water content, fat cells, etc;

If the Police were to enforce these new laws to the fullest extent, there is no doubt they would have a huge effect on the number of people drinking and driving. The question is. Will they increase enforcement, or will they continue the same as usual, and only increase the revenue from fines. Who knows.

why is there no education for young people about responsible alcohol consumption???
If the government wants to sell it why not???
the kids learn about drugs in school and what can happen when they are abused but they dont learn about the legal addictive things that the government wants you to do cuz it makes them money...
oh and with this new law they may as well close down all the bars or build them with NO parking lot because 0.05 is rediculas you will blow over if you use mouthwash let alone drink a beer... so when you blow over after having half a beer just blame the bar for over serving right

"why is there no education for young people about responsible alcohol consumption???"

I would say that responsibility should rest with the parents and not the school system. Example is the best teacher.

An interesting little tidbit I ran across:

What is the effect of alcohol on drivers?
• Starting from 0.02, the perception of speed is reduced.
• from 0.03, the judging of distance is compromised.
• From 0.04, vision is restricted through tunnel vision effect setting in
======================================
• From 0.05 color perception starts to diminish. The probability to cause an accidents is now 8x the norm
• From 0.06 responsiveness begins to be drastically reduced. Accident probability is 16x the norm
• From 0.07 risk-taking threshold increases and self control is diminished. The probability of accidents is now 20 times as high.
=====================================
• From 0.08 steering movements are disrupted, traffic signs are ignored. The probability of accidents is now 34x as high.
• At a blood alcohol concentration of 0.15 the probability of accidents is 115 times as high as normal.

Of course these are approximate, indicate the starting threshold of sliding scales and vary with individuals based on weight, height, sex and habitual alcohol use.

Bottom line is .05 is below the legal limit. How do you fine,suspend and confiscate when no law is broken? change the level to .05 and this makes sense, otherwise, this looks like something from Cuba.