Alberta's new Drunk Driving Law | GTAMotorcycle.com

Alberta's new Drunk Driving Law

psycho44

psycho44

Well-known member
Site Supporter
if you thought the Ontario's stunt driving charge was ridiculous this one is even worst. You can lose your house and job without even having your due process all because a machine says you blew just over 0.08. So just a warning for anyone that trucks or visit Alberta if you blow over 0.08 you'll have your driver's license suspended indefinitely until you're found either guilty or not. Starting September you'll have license suspended and vehicle impounded if you blow over 0.05 btw. Damn these Liberal Government!

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/06/19/lawyers-call-08-penalties-unconstitutional
 
...and here we are pretending we hate communism.
 
The lawyer that makes a bundle defending a bunch of DUIs every year points out that the new system will not allow drunk drivers time to plan for living without their licences. What about family income etc. Poor drunks.

What about the poor innocent victim when he instantly gets crippled for life. What about his family income when he instantly gets killed?

I'm not a supporter of bill 172 or its clones but when a person blows over .08 they are not competent to drive one inch further. They should be charged and the issue settled in court. The driver should have the right to have his case heard within 24 hours and a preliminary judgement made as to whether they can keep their licence while the case is being further dealt with. Zero blood level until resolved.

If a competent person can safely remove the vehicle from the scene they should be allowed to do so. Tow/impound if not.

If the driver is found guilty in the final trial I don't care what happens to them or their family. They are stupid. The person that married them is stupid for doing so and the kids have to get used to living with stupid parents. There is no reason why any innocent person should have to compromise their life or lifestyle because of a drunk.
 
Last edited:
psycho44 said:
all because a machine says you blew just over 0.08.
Click to expand...

If the machine is accurate.. whats the problem with having a machine do it? better than having a guy smell your breath.
 
The only reason this is an issue, is that they are dealing with a Criminal Code offence, which comes with the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law. As such, it is unconstitutional to put an "indefinite" sentence onto any person facing this charge, who is not yet convicted.

The simple change to this, would be to create an HTA offence which suspends a license instantly for a fixed period (such as one year). As the act of driving is not a protected right, such a punishment would be legal to that extent.
 
Last edited:
suprPHREAK said:
The only reason this is an issue, is that they are dealing with a Criminal Code offence, which comes with the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law. As such, it is unconstitutional to put an "indefinite" sentence onto any person facing this charge, who is not yet convicted.

The simple change to this, would be to create an HTA offence which suspends a license instantly for a fixed period (such as one year). As the act of driving is not a protected right, such a punishment would be legal to that extent.
Click to expand...

Thats not really the only point. its also about proportionality. The article quotes a potential 42 month suspension prior to trial, that is possibily longer than the actual sentence...
 
ENIAC said:
Alberta running by Liberals! Did I miss a recent election? :confused:
Click to expand...

The current government is what they call a red tory. The Alberta opposition party was supported by Stephen Harper and all federal PC MPs. But because it has a PC name Albertans voted for it and how can you defend not toughening drunk driving laws during an election?

Anyways Calgary rarely if ever have checkstops but this legislation will screw a lot of people up especially those coming from out of province that are unaware of losing their license indefinitely.
 
OpenGambit said:
If the machine is accurate.. whats the problem with having a machine do it? better than having a guy smell your breath.
Click to expand...

It's not accurate, it's the whole reason why blood testing still gets done (normally) to convict you of anything.
 
I'm not too familiar with breathalyzers but wouldn't trust a machine running commodore 64 chips saying I blew over 0.08 and having my vehicle seized and license suspended indefinitely until the case is resolved in court. Even if I run to the hospital to get my blood tested and it shows 0 alcohol the damage has already been done.

This legislation btw followed B.C.'s drunk driving legislation though bit harsher and if successful will filter down to other provinces.
 
psycho44 said:
The current government is what they call a red tory. The Alberta opposition party was supported by Stephen Harper and all federal PC MPs. But because it has a PC name Albertans voted for it and how can you defend not toughening drunk driving laws during an election?

Anyways Calgary rarely if ever have checkstops but this legislation will screw a lot of people up especially those coming from out of province that are unaware of losing their license indefinitely.
Click to expand...

what kind of crack are you on. PCs didn't win because they were called PCs, they won because the Wildrose went psycho ape **** with their white people and anti gay comments.
Social conservatism is, and has been for a long time, a non starter.

The liberals got wasted because liberal voters voted PC to keep wildrose out, thats why it was essentially a landslide.

The current government is in line with the federal PCs, when they existed, they aren't "red tories" at all. just not crazy. Not to mention that the PCs are the pro-business party, while the Wildrose weren't.
 
more accurate than a guy walking you down a line telling you to touch your nose.
 
Explain to me how you lose your house and job from this?

I don't see the problem with it. You're not supposed to drive if you've had too much alcohol. They obviously have a problem with it, so they're making the consequenses more harsh.

I think they should bring that law to Ontario - I don't like riding on the same roads as people that think they're okay to drive after a few drinks.
 
OpenGambit said:
what kind of crack are you on. PCs didn't win because they were called PCs, they won because the Wildrose went psycho ape **** with their white people and anti gay comments.
Social conservatism is, and has been for a long time, a non starter.

The liberals got wasted because liberal voters voted PC to keep wildrose out, thats why it was essentially a landslide.

The current government is in line with the federal PCs, when they existed, they aren't "red tories" at all. just not crazy. Not to mention that the PCs are the pro-business party, while the Wildrose weren't.
Click to expand...

I was going to say the anti-gay and white comments too in the last week of the campaign but some people are still loyal to the PC name brand. The premier btw wasn't supported by any cabinet ministers during her PC leadership run but because she bought out the teachers like she did in the most recent campaign she won again.

People can lose there house and jobs if they rely on driving as their income earner and thus no income no way to make mortgage payments on house.
 
psycho44 said:
...People can lose there house and jobs if they rely on driving as their income earner and thus no income no way to make mortgage payments on house.
Click to expand...

So it's okay to drink and drive if someone relies on driving to make a living!!! I say let them loose their house and jobs if they are stupid enought to think they can have a drink or two and get away with it.
 
EngineerJoe said:
I don't agree with taking the house away. I would, however, agree with increasing jail sentences.
Click to expand...

They don't take the house away because a person blew .08. The person could lose their house because they can't make the payments anymore because they lost their truck driving job or a job requiring vehicular mobility. That is one of the consequences of doing stupid things like DUI or gambling or letting the wife find out about the other woman or any other dumb thing. Can't help stupid by risking the innocent. Jail is the same if not worse because it's no job of any sort.

There's something inherently stupid about jail. Paying people (Guards) to watch people waste their lives while their families suck up welfare. Any brainiacs got a better idea?
 
I know a guy that worked for the Canadian company that makes and supplies breathalyzers for the police. Those machines are far from perfect. They have to be recalibrated often. It's unfair to take away someone's license before they get a chance to go to court. What if someone proves the machine was not calibrated in time or something? They could loose their income for a while even though they are innocent.

Why can't the government just apply proper sentences for drunks, and other criminals. They keep putting out laws like this and other "solutions" like banning the sale of bullets, minimum jail sentences for a few plants and other retarded laws, when we have have all the laws we need. They just need to be applied more harshly after due process.
 
I have no problem with any set out consequences upon conviction.

I do, however, have a huge problem with any punishment that is given prior to conviction -- such as most DUI laws in this country do. A person could have his life ruined by a cop who has a vendetta, and when he gets to court 6 months later to fight bogus charges -- well too little too late for his mortgage payments that depended on his truck driving job.
 
I'm going to cause a ruckus here and say the drinking and driving thing is getting a little out of control. There are many impaired people out there driving who are every bit as dangerous as 0.05mg drivers who will never be convicted of anything criminal..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom