Ontario Bill 203-Blowing A Warning Over .05

[Keebler Elf]

A 3-day suspension can be pretty damn significant if you live in remote areas and/or your job depends on your ability to drive. Even the 3 month suspension for allegedly blowing over 90 days is just plain wrong, IMHO. Penalized without a trial.

I think MADD is a bunch of kooks trying to force their teetotaler values on others. And from what I've read about MADD, it's not even a legitimate agency.

 

[thompo69]

A 3-day suspension can be pretty damn significant if you live in remote areas and/or your job depends on your ability to drive. Even the 3 month suspension for allegedly blowing over 90 days is just plain wrong, IMHO. Penalized without a trial.

I think MADD is a bunch of kooks trying to force their teetotaler values on others. And from what I've read about MADD, it's not even a legitimate agency.

Simple solution: don't drink and drive.

 

[destillat]

A 3-day suspension can be pretty damn significant if you live in remote areas and/or your job depends on your ability to drive. Even the 3 month suspension for allegedly blowing over 90 days is just plain wrong, IMHO. Penalized without a trial.

Exactly. A person can lose their livelyhood because of a jack-ass police officer or a malfunctioning device, and months (or years) later be aquitted in court. Are lost wages compensated? Previous employment restored?
Ontario's drunk-driving approach is one of the biggest erosion of due-process Canada has ever seen.

 

[doggee_01]

this is all bullshit make the limit .5 and if you are over you are breaking the law or leave it at .8

 

[Rylan]

this is all bullshit make the limit .5 and if you are over you are breaking the law or leave it at .8

Agreed. Make it one set limit. It is the only law that I know of where you get dinged for a warning. LOL

For those who have a problem with the law - Don't drink and drive. It is that simple.

 

[Malibook]

.... and you have no point to make .....

I guess we can conclude that while you don't like the law you actually can't find any fault with it, otherwise you would have responded to my point.

You lose your license at the roadside. That's the same as today. You then get your day in court. Just like today. Any long-term impact on you is decided in court. Short-term it's not a lot different than having to go get your car from the pound.

I just don't see what your point is honestly.

I don't recall claiming that dishing out punishment before trial and conviction is something new.

It was bullshit before and it is bullshit now.
The point is that the stiffer sentences exasperate this bullshit.

I'm sure you still do not comprehend my points and never will.
So what?

.05 is literally a couple of drinks for many people.
I don't see this as an indication of impairment and a dangerous driver.

Since the punishment is effective immediately and based solely on a less accurate roadside test, there would seem to be no recourse or due process of law.

People are supposed to have the right to defend themselves against alleged charges and full due process of the law.

This new law is based only on the less accurate roadside machine.
They should at least make sure they are calibrated to err on the driver's side so people at .04 or so can't blow a warning.
They should be set to at least .06 to allow for some error.

People are being sentenced before having their day in court and being convicted.

 

[BoringBob]

Here's maybe the simple way to deal with it:

Don't drink and drive period.

 

[tboy]

I am not saying these machines should be available as grounds for a defence.
I am saying that most people have no reference to know what their blood/alcohol level is and we should be allowed to know or at least have some reasonably accurate idea.

Failing a roadside breathalyzer leads to 2 more tests at the station on a much more accurate machine.
I don't think you can demand a blood test.

This new law is based only on the less accurate roadside machine.
They should at least make sure they are calibrated to err on the driver's side so people at .04 or so can't blow a warning.
They should be set to at least .06 to allow for some error.

Here's a clue: don't drink ANYTHING and drive. Why is it so hard for people to get this?

You don't need a frame of reference, a even less accurate bar breathalyzer, or worry about whether the roadside test is accurate of not if you just DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE.

Seriously, why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Malibook]

Here's a clue: don't drink ANYTHING and drive. Why is it so hard for people to get this?

Having a couple of drinks at a restaurant, bar, party, hockey rink, golf course, pool hall, bowling alley, etc.... is an acceptable form of leisure in our society.
It isn't always practical and affordable for everybody to always take a cab or get a ride which is also acceptable in our society or the limit would be 0.00.

Some people are impaired with no drinks.
Some are impaired after one drink.

The point is what is the consensus on an acceptable amount and what constitutes impairment.

People who don't drink and/or don't have a car often think the limit should be 0.00.
If enough people thought like Tboy, this would be the law, and we would have much bigger problems in society.

 

[Rylan]

Having a couple of drinks at a restaurant, bar, party, hockey rink, golf course, pool hall, bowling alley, etc.... is an acceptable form of leisure in our society.
It isn't always practical and affordable for everybody to always take a cab or get a ride which is also acceptable in our society or the limit would be 0.00.

Some people are impaired with no drinks.
Some are impaired after one drink.

The point is what is the consensus on an acceptable amount and what constitutes impairment.

People who don't drink and/or don't have a car often think the limit should be 0.00.
If enough people thought like Tboy, this would be the law, and we would have much bigger problems in society.

Just like the guy in the cat thread, if you can not afford to take a cab, if you can not come up with alternate transportation, if you can not find a DD for the evening, then don't drink.

You have choices. Many, many choices. They just happen to be ones that you don't like, but you have the choice to make. You can drink, you can drive, you and can drink and drive. You can drink and cab it, you can not drink and let others drink. The list goes on and on.

It is called responsibility. You know the limits, know the laws, work within them or face the consequences. Why is that so hard to figure out?

I got 2 speeding tickets in the 3 weeks. Guess what? I was speeding, and I am going to pay for it. Pay the tickets and pay with my insurance. It is my own damn fault. That is life.

 

[thompo69]

Just like the guy in the cat thread, if you can not afford to take a cab, if you can not come up with alternate transportation, if you can not find a DD for the evening, then don't drink.

You have choices. Many, many choices. They just happen to be ones that you don't like, but you have the choice to make. You can drink, you can drive, you and can drink and drive. You can drink and cab it, you can not drink and let others drink. The list goes on and on.

It is called responsibility. You know the limits, know the laws, work within them or face the consequences. Why is that so hard to figure out?

I got 2 speeding tickets in the 3 weeks. Guess what? I was speeding, and I am going to pay for it. Pay the tickets and pay with my insurance. It is my own damn fault. That is life.

Bingo.

 

[tboy]

While drinking is an acceptable form of leisure, so is boxing, playing hockey, bowling, etc. But you can't do any of those while driving. If you do? You will be stopped and charged with dangerous driving.

When you drive, you should be awake, alert, un-impaired by ANY means (and this goes for cough syrup, anti-histamines, or any other drug (legal or illegal) that will prevent you from being alert).

As you say: some people are impaired with NO drinks. So how bad will they be after a drink or two? 2 to 3 times worse.

The consensus on what is acceptable or not is shown in this new law. If an individual blows .05 to .08, then that is UNacceptable.

Sorry, the excuse that it is impractical or not affordable to take a cab, bus, subway is 100% bullshit. If someone can afford to pay $6.00 $8.00 or more for a drink, they can afford $2.00 for busfare.

People like Mailbrook just don't get it: No one is forcing anyone to have a drink and then drive, I have yet to see a bar or restaurant that makes it mandatory to have a drink when you enter. I have yet to see ANY establishment that has 2 huge bouncers grab you the second you enter, tie you up and pour alcohol down your throat.

Seriously, why is it so difficult for you (in particular) to get it through your head that you shouldn't drink and drive?

 

[thompo69]

Having a couple of drinks at a restaurant, bar, party, hockey rink, golf course, pool hall, bowling alley, etc.... is an acceptable form of leisure in our society.
It isn't always practical and affordable for everybody to always take a cab or get a ride which is also acceptable in our society or the limit would be 0.00.

Some people are impaired with no drinks.
Some are impaired after one drink.

The point is what is the consensus on an acceptable amount and what constitutes impairment.

People who don't drink and/or don't have a car often think the limit should be 0.00.
If enough people thought like Tboy, this would be the law, and we would have much bigger problems in society.

Yes, having a few drinks is a socially acceptable form of leisure in our society. Driving home afterward is not.

 

[The LoLRus]

On May 1, 2009 new tougher penalties will be implemented in Ontario for drivers who blow a warning between .05 and .08.

So if use too much Listerine I can blow over, thats just wonderful

 

[Malibook]

Yes, having a few drinks is a socially acceptable form of leisure in our society. Driving home afterward is not.

Yes it is or the limit would be 0.00.

 

[thompo69]

Agreed. Make it one set limit. It is the only law that I know of where you get dinged for a warning. LOL

The problem is the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law, so they set the limit for impaired driving. However, the provincial government can create quasi-criminal or administrative penalties, as they have done in this case.

Should there be one limit? Yes. I'm just trying to make it clear why there isn't -- the province wants to be stricter on impaired driving, but they can't change criminal law so they are doing what they can within the confines of their constitutional jurisdiction.

 

[Malibook]

The consensus on what is acceptable or not is shown in this new law. If an individual blows .05 to .08, then that is UNacceptable.

I have no problem with these limits.

I do have a problem with self-righteous preachers who think it should be 0.00.

I do have a problem with people being sentenced before trial and conviction.

 

[tboy]

Yes it is or the limit would be 0.00.

I see where you're going: I think you want an all or nothing approach. Where as the powers that be realize that some latitude is more practical in today's society but you're not happy with that.

Where would YOU draw the line? The government obviously has drawn the line at .05 and created a reasonable punishment for going over that line. The tests to determine a pass or fail have been the standard for at least 20 yrs and even if you DO blow over in error, what's the penalty? You don't drive for 12 hrs? BFD.

Again, if you're so worried about the test being inaccurate, DON'T RISK A FAIL......

 

[tboy]

I have no problem with these limits.

I do have a problem with self-righteous preachers who think it should be 0.00.

I do have a problem with people being sentenced before trial and conviction.

I don't think anyone here said the limit should be 0.00. Yes, some of us have said Don't drink and drive. What's wrong with that? If you're worried about getting caught and losing your priviledge to drive for 12 hrs, then....DOH, don't risk it.

So, according to Malilogic, if you're determined by the standard test to be breaking the law, you should be allowed to continue to break the law until you're found guilty in court?

So, by Malilogic, if someone is raping a woman, and the cops see him, they should just charge him, then let him go back to raping her because he hasn't been found guilty in court?

Please.........in case you don't realize it, you're not being sentenced, you're being prevented from continuing to break the law.

As for the impounding of the vehicle, I don't believe they do. They just prevent you from driving it. I know I was stopped under the 12 hr suspension law 20 yrs ago and they let me park it in a strip mall right next to where they stopped me.

 

[Malibook]

So, according to Malilogic, if you're determined by the standard test to be breaking the law, you should be allowed to continue to break the law until you're found guilty in court?

So, by Malilogic, if someone is raping a woman, and the cops see him, they should just charge him, then let him go back to raping her because he hasn't been found guilty in court?

Please.........in case you don't realize it, you're not being sentenced, you're being prevented from continuing to break the law.

There are degrees to laws and that is why there is a wide range of sentences for various crimes.

If you equate rape to someone blowing .05, than there is not much point in me continuing.

The sentences for blowing a warning are punishment as in conviction, not preventive as in preventive custody.