Ontario Bill 203-Blowing A Warning Over .05

[fuji]

Does BAC actually measure "impairment"?

Same concept as speeding. A few people might be able to drive 200km/h safely, a few are likely a little unsafe even at the posted 100km/h. The law draws a line somewhere, arbitrarily, at a point that could be called "unfair" to those who could drive faster safely--but we need some law, and we pick a point. Same thing with BAC.

I don't particularly see this as unfair to people who could drive with a BAC or at a higher speed, the negative consequences to them of having to slow down, or wait a little longer before driving, are massively outweighed by the benefits to society of a law which "on average" works well for most people.

It benefits society to set the rule at a point that is fairly conservative because you actually want it to be a point where it is reasonable for 99% of people to be on the road as the ones who are unsafe are a menace to the entire highway, not just to themselves.

In both cases of course there's the issue of self-identification: 80% of people likely believe that they are among the best 20% of drivers.

 

[Hard Idle]

Much as it sickens me to agree with anything this provincial government proposes, and much as I despise doogooder prevent-obsessed legislation in general, I have to agree that it is high time to re-tighten the noose on drunk drivers.

We are losing this game again, I get the feeling that we're right back where we were 25 years ago with this problem. In the late 80's and early 90's I really got the impression that stiffer penalties and education campaigns were getting people to take this seriously (at least in the GTA, probably not up north or to the east...) But somewhere along the way it seems to have gone bad.

Last fall during a stretch between September & November it seemed like 2-3 times a week there was a major highway closure in the early rush hour and virtually every time a drunk driver turned out to be the cause. Some of these were before 7AM. Who the hell is already drunk at 7AM, and how?

Taking a tour form FYEO along King W to the club district around closing time, it is easy to track dozens of people who can barely negotiate a doorway or walk a straitght line stumbling to their cars in the parking lots.

Far too many people are simply not handling the freedom responsibly enough right now.

 

[tboy]

.....
First, let me say I never drive "impaired". Never have, never will. I have however driven after a couple drinks. A glass of wine with dinner and maybe a cocktail... give me a break. THAT contrary to what MADD would have us believe is NOT impaired.

......

CG: you know I like and respect you but I have to ask: how do you "know" you weren't impaired? The second your body starts absorbing alcohol your judgement becomes impaired. By a little or a lot. That is the problem with drinking and driving: people have one or two drinks and "decide" whether they are impaired or not yet it is too late to decide because the basis of your judgement is already in question.

The only way to make an unimpaired decision is to make that decision BEFORE consuming alcohol. ie: Leave the car at home, or decide to take a cab once you start drinking.

As I said: being stone cold sober around people who are drinking you tend to notice the effects ONE drink has on them. Try it sometime and pay attention, you'll notice it too. But if you've had one yourself, you wont' notice it......

 

[thompo69]

I have read it. It does. BTW this is the essence of how Charter arguments are made in Court. You say it doesn't, I say it does. Now we argue the point and the judge decides.

EU

Well, that's the thing. In order to even get a judge to listen to you, you have to at least have an argument. And you don't.

Let's look at the text, shall we? Subsection 6(1) gives you the right to enter, leave or remain in Canada. Subsection 6(2) gives you the right to take up residence and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. Neither of which has anything to do with driving. And, even if it did, there is subsection 6(3) which indicates that the rights are subject to limits imposed by the province, provided they don't discriminate on the basis of province of residence.

In other words, zero application here.

 

[thompo69]

Yup I am well aware of this law. I say it is unconstitutional. Now, I just have to get a judge to see things my way!!!!!!

EU

Which will never happen, because your view has no basis in law. This bullshit argument has been tried before, and tossed out by many courts across the country.

 

[Fritz96]

Much as it sickens me to agree with anything this provincial government proposes, and much as I despise doogooder prevent-obsessed legislation in general, I have to agree that it is high time to re-tighten the noose on drunk drivers.

We are losing this game again, I get the feeling that we're right back where we were 25 years ago with this problem. In the late 80's and early 90's I really got the impression that stiffer penalties and education campaigns were getting people to take this seriously (at least in the GTA, probably not up north or to the east...) But somewhere along the way it seems to have gone bad.

Last fall during a stretch between September & November it seemed like 2-3 times a week there was a major highway closure in the early rush hour and virtually every time a drunk driver turned out to be the cause. Some of these were before 7AM. Who the hell is already drunk at 7AM, and how?

Taking a tour form FYEO along King W to the club district around closing time, it is easy to track dozens of people who can barely negotiate a doorway or walk a straitght line stumbling to their cars in the parking lots.

Far too many people are simply not handling the freedom responsibly enough right now.

The point is these drunk drivers are not people between .05 and .08. Every reporting of a drunk driving accident mentions that the offender was several times above the legal limit.

 

[Fritz96]

And you have to learn reading comp: I specifically said "NEED". it is a CHOICE that one makes and if it becomes having to choose between having a glass of wine with dinner and taking a cab or having a soft drink or non-alcoholic drink with dinner and driving, it is a choice.

The point you all miss is that you DO NOT NEED TO CONSUME ALCOHOL. You may WANT to, you may ENJOY it, but again, that is a CHOICE.

The funny thing is you all fail to realize that.

You also fail to realize that rules change all the time. I bet most of the people against this new law applaud the new anti-smoking laws. At one point we were allowed to smoke in hospitals, restaurants, bars, offices, clubs. At least you still have the OPTION to drink.....Now if we want to smoke we have to go outside or be fined $5000.00. Now if you want a drink, you have to take a cab. Cry me a river........

Go back to my posts on those threads: I specifically said, "wait until they come after something YOU enjoy" and sure enough, here they are. Going after drinking and sure enough, everyone is bitching about it. Welcome to the club!!! lol.....

The implication was clearly that everyone who drinks NEEDS a drink, doesn't just want it. And it's funny you bring up the smoking crackdown. Whenever you post about the evils of drinking, while mentioning you've been dry for 13 years, you come across like one of many annoying reformed smokers.

 

[tboy]

The implication was clearly that everyone who drinks NEEDS a drink, doesn't just want it. And it's funny you bring up the smoking crackdown. Whenever you post about the evils of drinking, while mentioning you've been dry for 13 years, you come across like one of many annoying reformed smokers.

Sorry, I'm not reformed. I just chose/choose not to. I don't care if people drink, more power to them! have at it! Just don't drink and drive.

I mean hell, I have booze at my house for guests but if they drove and will drive? It stays in the cabinet.

The point I was trying to make was: if you can't go out for dinner without drinking, if you can't go play golf without having a beer, if you can't go to a club without having a drink or two, then you have a problem.

For eg: when I drank and worked corporate, a gang of us used to go out after work. Sometimes until the wee hours and sometimes just for a couple of hours. When I had brought my vehicle to work, I wouldn't drink but there were some who would. I'd steal their keys and they'd get pissed. I'd say "then don't drink" and their response? They can't sit there and shoot the shit without drinking. They couldn't have a good time without drinking. I said "then you have a problem and shouldn't drink period....." and that IS the definition of a drinking problem: if you can't do X without a drink in your hand.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

What about people who NEED to smoke? They have serious problems too...


You're clouding the argument. Basically: 1. driving is a privilege 2. there are laws to govern the greater good 3. the safety and security of the majority is more important than the selfish wants and needs of a few.

It has been proven that drinking and driving is a deadly combination. If the drunks only killed themselves, then I would have no problem with them driving drunk. Since they don't, I have no sympathy for those that want to drive after drinking.

 

[tboy]

What about people who NEED to smoke? They have serious problems too...


You're clouding the argument. Basically: 1. driving is a privilege 2. there are laws to govern the greater good 3. the safety and security of the majority is more important than the selfish wants and needs of a few.

It has been proven that drinking and driving is a deadly combination. If the drunks only killed themselves, then I would have no problem with them driving drunk. Since they don't, I have no sympathy for those that want to drive after drinking.

BINGO, yeah, people need to smoke because of their addiction........and if you need to drink, you too have an addition......

 

[Fritz96]

What about people who NEED to smoke? They have serious problems too...


You're clouding the argument. Basically: 1. driving is a privilege 2. there are laws to govern the greater good 3. the safety and security of the majority is more important than the selfish wants and needs of a few.

It has been proven that drinking and driving is a deadly combination. If the drunks only killed themselves, then I would have no problem with them driving drunk. Since they don't, I have no sympathy for those that want to drive after drinking.

What you and TBoy don't get is that it is legal to drink and drive. It is only illegal to drink too much before driving. If someone WANTS to have a couple of drinks before driving or NEEDS to have them is irrelevant and a digression. They're legally allowed to. Same as TBoy stealing people's keys so they can't have anything to drink before driving. He's preventing people from engaging in a lawful activity. If it was me, I'd probably call the police on him. If I'm only at .04, I'm legally under the limit and if someone stole my keys he should be charged with theft.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

What you and TBoy don't get is that it is legal to drink and drive. It is only illegal to drink too much before driving. If someone WANTS to have a couple of drinks before driving or NEEDS to have them is irrelevant and a digression. They're legally allowed to. Same as TBoy stealing people's keys so they can't have anything to drink before driving. He's preventing people from engaging in a lawful activity. If it was me, I'd probably call the police on him. If I'm only at .04, I'm legally under the limit and if someone stole my keys he should be charged with theft.

You might want to re-read my post. Where did I say that it was illegal to drink and drive?

What I said was there are laws to protect the greater good. If you break the law, I want you to lose the privilege of driving. The safety of the innocent is far more important than the need to drive drunk - there are too many options to prevent it.

I have a question for you: how the hell would you know if your blood alcohol level is 0.04? You do realize that it's a pretty fine line between .04 & .05? I don't want to run the risk of my health or the safety of others because you think you know the difference when in fact, it's practically indistinguishable.

 

[Cycleguy007]

CG: you know I like and respect you but I have to ask: how do you "know" you weren't impaired? The second your body starts absorbing alcohol your judgement becomes impaired. By a little or a lot. That is the problem with drinking and driving: people have one or two drinks and "decide" whether they are impaired or not yet it is too late to decide because the basis of your judgement is already in question.

The only way to make an unimpaired decision is to make that decision BEFORE consuming alcohol. ie: Leave the car at home, or decide to take a cab once you start drinking.

As I said: being stone cold sober around people who are drinking you tend to notice the effects ONE drink has on them. Try it sometime and pay attention, you'll notice it too. But if you've had one yourself, you wont' notice it......

Sorry tboy... I didn't even see this until now.

The answer to your question is simple... because, by the law of the land I'm not impaired. I'm not arguing the fact that alcohol impairs judgment. There are MANY times where I go out and don't drink a drop and yes, I can see the effect of a couple drinks, although subtle at best. Regardless, the law states that I am not "impaired" to operate a motor vehicle until I have a blood alcohol rating of 0.08. (Unless they do in fact change it to 0.05...) That means a man of 175 lbs would have to drink 4 beers in an hour. I don't drink that much, so legally I'm not impaired.

Regardless, the MAIN point of my earlier post was to expose the utter idiocy of the "charitable organization" known as MADD. Which makes me MAD!

 

[thompo69]

Sorry tboy... I didn't even see this until now.

The answer to your question is simple... because, by the law of the land I'm not impaired. I'm not arguing the fact that alcohol impairs judgment. There are MANY times where I go out and don't drink a drop and yes, I can see the effect of a couple drinks, although subtle at best. Regardless, the law states that I am not "impaired" to operate a motor vehicle until I have a blood alcohol rating of 0.08. (Unless they do in fact change it to 0.05...) That means a man of 175 lbs would have to drink 4 beers in an hour. I don't drink that much, so legally I'm not impaired.

Regardless, the MAIN point of my earlier post was to expose the utter idiocy of the "charitable organization" known as MADD. Which makes me MAD!

This is actually a fairly common misconception. It is not, in fact, legal to drive with a BAC of less than 0.08. It is illegal to drive a vehicle when your ability is impaired by alcohol or drugs, no matter what your BAC. A BAC of over 0.08 is considered de facto evidence of impairment.

If having a beer or two causes you to weave in and out of your lane despite your BAC being below 0.08, you're still driving while impaired.

 

[Fritz96]

You might want to re-read my post. Where did I say that it was illegal to drink and drive?

What I said was there are laws to protect the greater good. If you break the law, I want you to lose the privilege of driving. The safety of the innocent is far more important than the need to drive drunk - there are too many options to prevent it.

I have a question for you: how the hell would you know if your blood alcohol level is 0.04? You do realize that it's a pretty fine line between .04 & .05? I don't want to run the risk of my health or the safety of others because you think you know the difference when in fact, it's practically indistinguishable.

You wrote, "It has been proven that drinking and driving is a deadly combination." which implies all drinking and driving is deadly. If you had written "drinking too much before driving is deadly", that would have been more accurate.

I used .04 just as an example of a below limit number. I can change it to:

"Same as TBoy stealing people's keys so they can't have anything to drink before driving. He's preventing people from engaging in a lawful activity. If it was me, I'd probably call the police on him. If I've only had 2 drinks over 3 hours and the drinks didn't impair my ability to drive, I'm legally under the limit and allowed to drive. If someone stole my keys he should be charged with theft."

 

[JohnLarue]

Well I wouldn't want to judge because I've certainly had my own share of long drunken nights out, and I enjoy having a few drinks with my friends too.

The difference is I either only have one, or I wait long enough to metabolize it (using the hour per drink rule of thumb) or I decide (sometimes plan) that I'm not going to be driving home.

I have no sympathy for people who break these rules--they are the rules, everyone knows them, even if you don't agree with them you're a fucking idiot if you open yourself up to the possibility of the a DUI charge ruining your life.

And what if you miss judge on your hour per drink rule (it is a judgment) and wind up in the slammer, lose your license for a year, then have to pay $10,000 per year for insurance

Who will be the the fucking idiot then?
I do not want to sound overly critical specifically to you but there is an awful lot of uncertainty at this level and anyone is liable to make a very costly error without being an absolute menace on the road

In two to five years MADD will have pressured the government to bring th 0.05 down to 0.02 an the 0.08 down to 0.04.
That will play havoc with your rule of thumb

By 2020 it will be 0.0 & 0.0

 

[tboy]

.....

The answer to your question is simple... because, by the law of the land I'm not impaired. I'm not arguing the fact that alcohol impairs judgment. There are MANY times where I go out and don't drink a drop and yes, I can see the effect of a couple drinks, although subtle at best. Regardless, the law states that I am not "impaired" to operate a motor vehicle until I have a blood alcohol rating of 0.08. (Unless they do in fact change it to 0.05...) That means a man of 175 lbs would have to drink 4 beers in an hour. I don't drink that much, so legally I'm not impaired.
.....

Actually, by rule of thumb you're not impaired but you very well could be by the standardized test. As stated over and over again, there are many factors that determine how quickly one person metabolizes alcohol. Even the same person could break down alcohol from one day to the next.

For eg: back when I drank and was charged with the warning, 12 hr suspension I had a light beer at dinner at 6 pm. We went to a dance club at 9 pm, I had one beer when we arrived. We danced for 4 hrs and at 12:30 my date had a shot of bailey's. There was a little left in the bottom so I swirled it with my tongue. At 2:15 am I left the parking lot and was stopped. I blew a warning. At the time I weighed 175, had a huge dinner, and danced my ass off all night. When we were at the club I was drinking a bottle of water an hour (at least).

So, moral of the story is: you never know how you're gonna blow.

What you and TBoy don't get is that it is legal to drink and drive. It is only illegal to drink too much before driving. If someone WANTS to have a couple of drinks before driving or NEEDS to have them is irrelevant and a digression. They're legally allowed to. Same as TBoy stealing people's keys so they can't have anything to drink before driving. He's preventing people from engaging in a lawful activity. If it was me, I'd probably call the police on him. If I'm only at .04, I'm legally under the limit and if someone stole my keys he should be charged with theft.

LOL that's the funniest think posted here yet. I'd LOVE to see the explanation to the cops: I want to charge him with theft, I'm drinking and he took my keys so I wouldn't drive impaired. At best they'd have me return your keys but then I can bet they'd be sitting outside the bar waiting for you to leave. (and yes, I've seen that happen). In fact, wasn't there a story in the paper not long ago about 2 cops were sitting outside a bar, saw someone obviously drunk leave the bar, get behind the wheel of his car?

And for the record, the person whose keys I took had a drinking problem and wouldn't stop at 3 over 2 hrs. He'd keep going until we left and 9 times out of 10, he was so hammered he couldn't walk straight. And yes, there were times he drove when he couldn't walk (and no, I wasn't around when that happened).

 

[LAS0023]

And what if you miss judge on your hour per drink rule (it is a judgment) and wind up in the slammer, lose your license for a year, then have to pay $10,000 per year for insurance

Who will be the the fucking idiot then?
I do not want to sound overly critical specifically to you but there is an awful lot of uncertainty at this level and anyone is liable to make a very costly error without being an absolute menace on the road

In two to five years MADD will have pressured the government to bring th 0.05 down to 0.02 an the 0.08 down to 0.04.
That will play havoc with your rule of thumb

By 2020 it will be 0.0 & 0.0

How is it a judgment? You make a point of knowing how long you're drinking and make sure you average less than a drink an hour. I was at my family's for Easter yesterday from 6-10. I had 3 beers from 6-9 and nothing from 9-10. I had nothing to worry about driving home.

MADD's been pressuring the government for years, don't count on them being successful. I doubt most people truly want the legal limit to be too low.

 

[tboy]

How is it a judgment? You make a point of knowing how long you're drinking and make sure you average less than a drink an hour. I was at my family's for Easter yesterday from 6-10. I had 3 beers from 6-9 and nothing from 9-10. I had nothing to worry about driving home.

MADD's been pressuring the government for years, don't count on them being successful. I doubt most people truly want the legal limit to be too low.

And you're the type of person the new law is targeting. It is a judgement because you didn't use a secure method of testing yourself to determine your state. Did you use a breathalizer? Did you perform the standard roadside physical tests? I doubt you did.

You had nothing to worry about if: you metabolized the alcohol at the top of the rule of thumb rate. If you were only 10% slower than the ROT then you would have blown a warning.

For eg: I believe that if you were exercising, as in walking, running, playing touch football or ?, your metabolic rate would have increased and your would have processed the alcohol faster. But I bet you were just sitting around shooting the shit in which case your metabolic rate would be lower meaning you would have processed the alcohol slower. And I believe the consumption of alcohol is cumlative. Meaning the more you have the longer it takes to metabolize. I think it is something like: 1 oz per hour if one is consumed. 2.5 hrs if 2 are consumed. 4 hrs if 3 are consumed. I also think the time starts an hour after you've consumed your first drink, not WHEN you drink it.....

Anyone have some links to stats? I seem to recall the above from some site when this topic came up before.......

Here's a good link:

http://www.faslink.org/Physiology - Alcohol and the Human Body - Alcohol Properties.htm

Notice in the paragraph about absorption that a non-fasting individual on average achieves peak concentration 1 hr after consumption. That means after 3 drinks, you'll most likely achieve peak concentration on the 4th hour if you consume 1 an hour.

 

[Fritz96]

LOL that's the funniest think posted here yet. I'd LOVE to see the explanation to the cops: I want to charge him with theft, I'm drinking and he took my keys so I wouldn't drive impaired. At best they'd have me return your keys but then I can bet they'd be sitting outside the bar waiting for you to leave. (and yes, I've seen that happen). In fact, wasn't there a story in the paper not long ago about 2 cops were sitting outside a bar, saw someone obviously drunk leave the bar, get behind the wheel of his car?

And for the record, the person whose keys I took had a drinking problem and wouldn't stop at 3 over 2 hrs. He'd keep going until we left and 9 times out of 10, he was so hammered he couldn't walk straight. And yes, there were times he drove when he couldn't walk (and no, I wasn't around when that happened).

As others have already stated, you really are a jackass. I clearly wrote, if I was under the limit (I used .04 as an example) and not impaired and you took my keys, you would be the one breaking the law. Funny that someone mindlessly taking the side of the police in every legal discussion on this forum doesn't even know the law. By the same logic, everytime you see someone talking on their cellphone while driving you may as well compensate it. It may not be illegal either, but that doesn't seem to stop you.