New Sanctions for Drinking Drivers Rack Up Numbers in Williams Lake

Wednesday, October 06, 2010 03:48 AM

Williams Lake, B.C.- The new tougher sanctions for drinking drivers have resulted in very busy times in Williams Lake.

In the first two weeks of the new Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) legislation coming into effect, the Williams Lake RCMP and Cariboo Chilcotin Traffic Services have taken 12 unsafe drivers off the roadways.

Williams Lake Mounties have impounded 12 vehicles, issued six -3 day prohibitions and six - 90 day prohibitions. Of the 12 investigations, only one case of refusing to provide a breath sample will be forwarded for charge approval.

The IRP was developed with the belief that in order to change people's behavior, when it comes to impaired driving, that the punishment needs to be quick, severe and certain.

“Williams Lake has historically had high numbers of impaired drivers investigated each year. This new legislation not only increases our members ability to take more impaired drivers off the road while taking less time, it allows our members to focus on chronic offenders and serious criminal crashes” says Williams Lake Sergeant Steve McLeod.

“Impaired Drivers are a detachment priority in Williams Lake and each member is held accountable for the investigation of impaired drivers in our detachment area" adds McLeod "Our members conduct road checks and participate in counter attack programs throughout the year with the intent of targeting impaired drivers in an attempt to make our roads safe”.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2010 03:48 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Mercenary on October 6 2010 5:19 AM

People will never get it. I have no problem with people having a drink or two but why run the risks by getting behind the wheel? The consequences are too severe.

Posted by: whatintheheck on October 6 2010 6:17 AM

I agree Mercenary. The consequences are too severe and if we stop to think about it, a thirty dollar cab fare is nothing compared to a hefty fine, the risk of losing your vehicle or injuring someone.

Posted by: He spoke on October 6 2010 8:09 AM

Ahhhh, remember the good ole days.....

Pound back a half sack and drive down town to get hammered. Yep seems like a life time ago,.... already.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on October 6 2010 8:22 AM

I don't drink and drive...period.
And anyone who does deserves what they get,but I see something happening here that we did not see until the Liberals brought in the new ticketing system.
There are far more roadside checks than there was before .05 and the fines went up bigtime.
The cops are more agressive with roadblocks now,for some reason.
Almost like there is a blitz on,but is it because of the cash that can be made under the new system?
Cash cow?...I think so.
Was that an accident?...I don't think so.
Was the increased revenue from .05 and the new rules part of the plan?
Is this about drinking and driving...or is it about filling up the government coffers?

Posted by: workinguy on October 6 2010 9:02 AM

“With the number of alternatives to drinking and driving such as the Operation Rednose programs, cabs and other public and private transit, people need to start to changing their attitude when it comes to this type of behavior.”

Ummmmm... Not sure but I suspect that in Williams Lake these services are not as readily available as they may be in the lower mainland or even here in PG.
This is such a contradiction. The Government is controls and benefits from the liquor sales,imposes overbearing and unconstitutional regulations, and then benefits from the penalty system.

Not in favour of people getting loaded and driving but firmly believe we were at the correct threshold at .08

Posted by: gus on October 6 2010 9:15 AM

"With the number of alternatives to drinking and driving"

That should actually read:

"With the number of alternatives to drinking and driving as well as drinking and sleeping" based on the case in 100 mile house.

Posted by: gus on October 6 2010 9:19 AM

"firmly believe we were at the correct threshold at .08"

I have not seen any figures of accidents where alcohol may have been a factor that shows the actual blood alcohol contents of the various drivers. If there is any validity to reducing it, that is where it should come from. Maybe it has, but it is not made public when they make such changes as far as I can tell.

Posted by: Andyfreeze on October 6 2010 9:51 AM

I am still wondering about the legality of the .05 limit and the way it is administered.
Only a matter of time before some hotshot lawyers tests it out in court.

Posted by: Loki on October 6 2010 11:51 AM

.08, .05
Just arbitrary numbers used as a threshold for legal reasons only. These numbers have little to no basis in science, just legislation that enables the authorities to apply charges.

When .08 was brought into force, it was rumored that 1 drink on an empty stomach would produce that result. I am assuming that .05 would be the result of any drink withing the last hour.

So if you want to go out for dinner, one cannot have even 1 glass of wine with the meal.

Another lesson in how to kill the tourist and restaurant industry.

Posted by: Slim2229 on October 6 2010 12:26 PM

Loki, some people can have two or three drinks and still be under. Every persons
physiology is different. If I have a beer on an empty stomach, I can detect a buzz but still be under .05, or I can have 5 with a meal and be under 08. Lack of sleep, mental state, how your body absorbs, its frustrating trying to figure it out, so best to park and cab it. I for one cannot afford to lose my vehicle or license. The fines one thing, but impoundment costs add up, then trying to find a ride or figger out the bus schedule, ahh the heck with it. Walk. Ol man's 101, says walking never hurt anyone, less you get hit by an impaired driver..........

Posted by: Andyfreeze on October 6 2010 12:27 PM

You're right Loki...and the effect is already being felt.
Put that with the HST and resturants and pubs do have a problem!
I still think something is out of whack.
It does smell like a money grab, using drinking and driving/speeding as a smoke screen.
Also,the cops are out in full force enforcing the new rules.
Who put the pressure on them?
Actually,I think we already know the answer to that.

Posted by: I.Heart.PG on October 6 2010 3:01 PM

On the one hand there does not seem to be any statistics that indicate people with a blood alcohol level between .05 and .08 have been a significant cause of accidents or a major concern to the safety of the public. On the other hand the people promoting this change tell of devastating and gut-wrenching stories of how loved ones were killed by drunk drivers, generally 2-3 times over the legal limit. There seems to be significant disconnect between emotion and fact. Does this change make our roads safer and how is that being measured? ‘Taking more drinking drivers off the roads’ is a misleading statement as it is implying that someone that had a glass of wine with dinner and is at .05 is the same as an individual who is several times over the legal limit set by the Criminal Code of Canada (.08). It’s like saying we are going to get tough on crime and then locking up anyone that jaywalks. The focus should be on people who are Driving Under the Influence (.08) unless they can show some facts that support the lowering of that threshold. Further, if there is evidence that supports the lowering of the threshold, why is there no talk of adjusting the Criminal Code to reflect that supporting information?

Posted by: Give more on October 6 2010 4:59 PM

Loki, actually there have been studies of the effects of alcohol on peoples' reaction times, vision, not only acuity but field of vision and recognising dangers. Several States have .05 as the legal limit for those reasons, so yes there are good reasons for the limits being what they are. For me, one drink is too much for me to drive. That is my own self discipline. More than that?, just forget all about it.

Posted by: Give more on October 6 2010 5:13 PM

Andyfreeze, I don't think it is a cash cow. There may be a slight increase in cash income at first until people start to understand that they mean business. After that, there will be a definite decrease because they won't be catching many. Under the old system, I couldn't understand how a person could get 6, 8, or even 12 impaireds and still be allowed to have their license and/or vehicle back. People will realise that if they want to have a driver's license, they will have to protect it.
After all the time, effort and expense to get it in the first place, people will realise that if they really want it, its hardly worth it to have to start all over again. I also think that anyone having to do so, should have to start right from scratch again with the graduated programme.

Posted by: Mercenary on October 6 2010 7:32 PM

The program is only a 'cash cow' if people continue to drink and drive.

In this day and age we should all have the fortitude to resist the urge to drink and then get behind the wheel. Again I am not condeming people who drink. When you do drink, then drink responsibly. Do the adult thing and call a taxi or be a man (or woman) and face the consequences of breaking the rules.

People go on and on about how the police have been given special authority and are now judge, jury, and exicutioner. Well if you can manage to follow the rules that society has placed before you then you will never have any problems with law enforcement. I learned a long time ago that if I wanted to save money on speeding tickets and seat belt tickets all I had to do was follow the rules and hey....I haven't had a ticket in 15 years. Funny how that works eh!

Posted by: PrinceGeorge on October 7 2010 7:07 AM

"Is this about drinking and driving...or is it about filling up the government coffers?"

Andy, you don't have anything to worry about because YOU don't drink and drive! Therefore not one dime of your money goes into government coffers! Those who still don't get it and insist on breaking the law deserve to have the book thrown at them. Get them off the road so they don't kill or injure law abiding people like us.

The government looks at the annual sorry statistics of deaths and injuries caused by impaired drivers and it decides to get tough! Isn't that exactly what we would expect from responsible government?

Condemned if it does, condemned if it doesn't...?

Posted by: taxinapothole on October 7 2010 7:57 PM

Have fun with your new POLICE STATE!!!

What a bunch of BUNK!!