More Education Needed on New Drinking Driving Penalties

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 03:45 AM

By Rich Coleman

Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor GeneralBritish Columbia has had Canada's toughest drinking-driving penalties for almost two months, and it is timely for the Province to examine the new rules to ensure they are working effectively.

I think most British Columbians share the same objective - we want people to make good choices, and we want safer roads. We also want a fair system that the public supports, so we committed to look at the results of our approach.

What has become increasingly clear is the need for more public education, so that British Columbians can make well-informed, responsible decisions, and for police to consider the discretion available to them around impounding vehicles.

People need to know that they are able to legally drive their vehicles if they drink small amounts of alcohol over time. Most people can still enjoy a glass of wine with dinner or a beer after work.

This is entirely consistent with the 0.05 per cent blood-alcohol content (BAC) threshold, which has been in place in B.C. since 1977. Only the penalties have changed.

Before Sept. 20, police were imposing 24-hour driver's licence suspensions at the roadside on any driver tested with a 0.05 breath sample. The driver's vehicle could also be impounded for 24 hours, at an officer's discretion.

Why did we get tougher on drivers at the 0.05 threshold?

One of the reasons was that police were handing out 30,000 to 40,000 of the 24-hour suspensions to those in the "warn" range each year. With those kinds of numbers, we knew that changes needed to be made.

But one effect of those changes is that the new penalties are causing many responsible people - people who are not a threat to road safety - to err on the side of extreme caution.

A number of tools, including online calculators and personal blood-alcohol readers, are available that help people make informed decisions about when they are safe and legal to drive.

In the coming weeks, the Province will be examining the value of these tools in supporting our efforts to improve road safety. We will also look into how more public education can continue to support responsible drivers in making safe decisions when they go out for a meal or celebrate with friends.

Our educational efforts will extend to police officers at the roadside.

The fact is, they have discretion over whether or not to impound the vehicle of someone who's caught once or twice in the "warn" range of 0.05 to 0.08 per cent BAC. There's still the option of parking a vehicle, if it is safe to do so, or allowing a sober passenger or friend
to get a vehicle home.

Still, I'm concerned about the number of tows, which is far higher than we anticipated. So, I've discussed with law enforcement leaders the need to reinforce the "discretion" message with officers, and committed to strengthening police training about the new rules.

We know the public supports our efforts to keep dangerous drivers from killing and injuring people on B.C.'s roads. What we're committing to now is further education, consultation with the public, the hospitality industry, police and others, and a willingness to revisit the
legislation next spring, if necessary.

The law can't work for our Province if it's based on widespread and unreasonable fear. The new rules, and their enforcement, must be understood and accepted by the public - and we intend to work quickly to ensure they are.

-Rich Coleman

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 03:45 AM in Views by Submitted Article

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Boudicca on November 10 2010 6:45 AM

i for one cannot have a glass of wine with dinner if i want to drive home i would be between .05 and .08 assuming the serving it right course i took is accurate. I am also not impared by one drink!!
with the HST eating out is rare in my house but with the .05 No way, if i go out for dinner i want a drink, its a treat.
I see restaurants and pubs losing alot more bussness.
I aggree we need safe roads, but one drink with dinner and you get your car stolen legaly by the police!!
for safer roads we first need to teach drivers what the road signs mean!

Posted by: gus on November 10 2010 7:00 AM

Geez ...... one after another!!!!

"What has become increasingly clear is the need for more public education, so that British Columbians can make well-informed, responsible decisions, and for police to consider the discretion available to them around impounding vehicles."

Ever hear of pilots to get the bugs out of a system?

Were test runs conducted with the police using various scenarios and what they would do under the conditions presented to confirm that they understood the intent behind the new regulations?

In other words, why does the result in practice not reflect what the government was expecting?

What should the government have done to ensure that the application of the regulations closely mirrored the expected outcome?

I am wondering if anyone even thought that through?

Parliament gives directions. The public service implements them.

I put the blame of this program implementation failure directly at the feet of the public service.

Posted by: Pylot Project on November 10 2010 7:55 AM

Another stinking pile provided to you and me by the Liberals.

This has nothing to do with with whether we've been "educated" or not. This has to do with the less tax revenue rolling in.

The bars and restaurants buy their alcohol from the same source you and I do... a Gov't controlled agency. If the bars and restaurants are buying less because the public is buying less.... that equals less revenue on taxation.

Also, if we are not going out as often or at least not drinking while out, that means less HST on the final bill.... less revenue rolling in.

Posted by: SummerSoul on November 10 2010 7:57 AM

Those in the "hospitality industry" claim that their liquor business is being hurt by tightened drunken driving standards.
Well, wasn't that the PURPOSE of the legislation, to deter drinking and driving?
Suck it up. If you want to drink, do it at home or have a designated driver. We have enough people being killed and maimed by drinking fools.

Posted by: Taxed Out! on November 10 2010 10:00 AM

Who is running this province, the Three Stooges?

Everything this government touches turns out to be a comedy of errors.

Posted by: gus on November 10 2010 10:27 AM

They are not planning on changing the regs. They are noticing that the police seem to be using the maximum allowable penalty too often in first or second offender situations.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/impaired-driving/index.htm

From the above site:
WARN means your breath sample is between 0.05 and 0.08 BAC. If you are caught in this range:

The first time within a five-year period:

•You will lose your driver’s licence immediately, for three days.
•You MAY also lose your vehicle for three days. If you do, you will pay all related towing and storage fees.
•You will pay a $200 monetary penalty and a $250 driver's licence reinstatement fee.

There is discretion by the officer of whether the vehicle will be towed/impounded, etc. What Coleman is saying is that they are applying that more often than expected.

It is the third time caught that there is no discretion.
---------------------

The other aspect is that some people are simply afraid to drink alcohol when they are out. They do not know when they have enough alcohol to register .05 so that they will wait or not drive.

You can get all the breathalizers in the world, the one you used before getting into the car may register .04 ... 30 minutes later in a roadblock the police breathalizer will register "WARN" (notice it does not register a number, so the police cannot even use that as part of their discretionary decision of whether to tow or not. 0.55 = no tow .. .075 = tow)

With that lack of knowledge, there will be a significant part of the population, the part that is cautious and tending to be law abiding, interestingly enough, that will not take the chance and simply not drink, or perhaps drink one but not two, or two, but not three, depending on what they know about their body.

Too many have blind fait in technology. Breathalizers are not perfect machines. In fact, they are subject to flse positives, and the lower you go for the limit, the worse it becomes.

Some classes of people are more likely to have false positives than others. People who eat yeasty breads, diabetics, people on diets, etc.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1055505643.html

The suggestion by some lawyers is that for such individuals the bet bet is to ask for a blood test since that is relatively definitive. It is the blood alcohol level that is the standard. Only a blood test will provide that. Breathalizers estimate what it might be.

But hey, it works 90% of the time, right? So who cares about the individual who swears up and down that they did not drink alcohol. :-(

Posted by: gus on November 10 2010 10:28 AM

I wish there were only three. We would have a fighting chance .... :-)

Posted by: gus on November 10 2010 10:30 AM

Sorry... the previous post should have read 0.055 = no tow .....

Posted by: Jimmi on November 10 2010 11:28 AM

There should be more of an outcry about the suspension of "Due Process" instead of how much bars stand to lose and how much you can drink...

Anyone else concerned about roadside convictions?

Posted by: Skeezix on November 10 2010 12:28 PM

Now what? They want us to take a little more chance drinking and driving. Take a chance that they just might tow our vehicle and impound for only three days. Or take a chance and leave it up to the RCMP to decide. Are there not any numbers on how much the .05 to .08 BAC range are costing us in accidents, fatalities etc. Being a betting man I bet it is just the larger part of the population that does have a drink falls into this range equaling way more fines than actually going after the real problem. But that's what happens when you let an insurance company run the province.

Posted by: Give more on November 10 2010 3:50 PM

Bar business is 'way down. Beer store business is 'way up. People are still buying alcohol but drinking it at home. Do most people who drive to a bar or pub have just one drink? I think not. There are many alternatives to having a few brews and then driving home. Friends, busses, shuttle services, taxis, keys please, tow trucks. P.G.Taxi will drive your vehicle home for you too.
What does this tell you? It tells me that most people who drink at a bar or pub are probably inebriated when they leave and still want to drive home. Are there any pubs/bars that have an accurate breathalyser that patrons can use when they want to leave? So why are neighbourhood pubs required to have a set number of parking spaces relevant to their seating capacity? You would think that a requirement would be no parking.

Are we such a dim thinking society that we think we should have the right to drive home after drinking for several hours at a pub? Seems that a lot of people think that way or the pubs' business would be consistent.
If you've been drinking-don't drive. Or if you are going to be drinking, decide beforehand that you will not drive. After the first drink your ability to decide that has already been impaired.

Posted by: Huh? on November 10 2010 5:17 PM

Are you for real "Give more"? Do you really think this is about making the roads safer??? Why then, are they making the .05- .08 fines and penalties so stiff? Because that group is killing so many people on the streets? Or is that another major percent of people that they can milk for more fines? I know for myself ( and my driving record will prove it) that I am safe to drive after two beer. Legally I cannot. I think if you looked up some statistics you would find that under .08 is not causing the problems on the streets that the over the 1.1 are.

Posted by: Chester on November 10 2010 8:07 PM

Does anyone really believe that the .05 to .08 drinkers are responsible for the carnage on our highways? Give your heads a shake.

All of this effort is to generate between $10 Million and $20 Million of extra revenue each year. Period. And we are doing nothing to deal with the problem drinkers who are continually driving above the limit and also driving without a license.

The focus is on the wrong people. Deal with the problem and leave the rest of us alone.

Posted by: dow7500 on November 10 2010 10:51 PM

Bang on Chester. where the hell did the need for punitive fines and confiscation come from? Siezing veicles for speeding, come on. This does reek of Icbc. and how can coleman be surprised the cops are siezing most of the vehicles? Give them the power, of course they will use it. Ask anyone who has been tazered, if they are still alive.

Posted by: Eagleone on November 11 2010 6:02 AM

ICBC deemed we no longer have any due process, and the RCMP are glad to oblige... the 'rules' should be regulations made in the legislator, and not by unaccountable bureaucrats in a semi private organization with a vested interest... not when the other stakeholders have a right to due process from rights that superseded that authority of ICBC... namely our Charter of Rights and the Magna Carter.

By abdicating their responsibility to govern both the ndp and the BC liberals have contributed to turning BC into a police state. The bureaucracy rules over our lives and we have no control or due process anymore.