BC Drunk Driving Laws

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
61

11 days and counting…

Penalties

Currently, a police officer may issue you an immediate, 24-hour driving suspension at the roadside and, at the officer’s discretion, impound the vehicle you are driving if you are found to be driving while impaired. To impose more severe sanctions, such as 90-day Administrative Driving Prohibitions [PDF] and possible criminal charges, an officer must take you to their station or detachment for additional testing.

Beginning in fall 2010, more immediate and severe penalties will apply if:
You are caught driving with a blood-alcohol content (BAC) between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent, OR
Your BAC is above 0.08 per cent, OR You refuse to provide a breath sample.

As well, the new penalties will become more severe for repeat offences.

If a police officer suspects you are driving impaired, *** they will ask you to provide a breath sample at the roadside, into a roadside screening device.*** Depending on the BAC in the sample, the device will either indicate Pass, Warn or Fail.

PASS means your breath sample contains a BAC below 0.05 per cent.

WARN means your breath sample is between 0.05 and 0.08 per cent BAC. If you are caught in this range:

The first time within a five-year period:
You will lose your driver’s licence 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 administrative driving penalty and a $250 driver’s licence reinstatement fee.

The second time within a five-year period:
You will lose your driver’s licence immediately, for seven days.
You may also lose your vehicle for seven days. If you do, you will pay all related towing and storage fees.
You will pay a $300 penalty and a $250 driver’s licence reinstatement fee.

The third time within a five-year period:
You will lose your driver’s licence and your vehicle immediately, for 30 days.
You will pay all related towing and storage fees.
You will pay a $400 administrative driving penalty and a $250 driver’s licence reinstatement fee.
To regain your driving privileges, you will have to complete the Responsible Drivers Program [PDF] and have to use an Ignition Interlock Device [PDF] whenever you drive, for one full year, following your driving suspension.

FAIL means your BAC is above 0.08 per cent. If you fail or refuse to provide a breath sample:
You will immediately lose your driver’s licence for 90 days and your vehicle for 30 days.
You will pay all related towing and storage fees.
You will pay a $500 administrative driving penalty and a $250 driver’s licence reinstatement fee.
To regain your driving privileges, you will have to complete the Responsible Drivers Program [PDF] and have to use an Ignition Interlock Device [PDF] whenever you drive, for one full year, following your driving suspension.
In all, you will face administrative sanctions that will cost you about $4,060 before you can legally operate a motor vehicle again in B.C.
You may also face charges under the Criminal Code of Canada.

It’s not just a officer’s observations that can trigger the new penalties. One needs to provide, or refuse to provide a sample of breath into a handheld device. One can also have the prohibitions reviewed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and there are grounds to have them tossed out.

$4000 hurts. And losing a work truck for 30 days wouldn’t be great either.

62

Why is this a bad thing? Don’t drink and drive, pretty simple… It doesn’t cost much to take a taxi in this town. Or walk. And if you’re going to be going out drinking, you should have made plans for some sort of sober driver to take you home anyways.
It scares me, now that I’ve gotten my N, that I have to be on the road with people who think it’s okay to drink any amount and drive. I’ve been stuck driving 25K in the middle of downtown behind some idiot who was swerving all over his lane one too many times now. I’m still learning, why should I have to worry about these idiots? They deserve to be lynched. It’s disgusting! And any law that will get them off our roads, and keep innocent lives safe, I’m completely for.

63

Why? Because if you take ALL the people measured at .05 to .08 and run them through an actual test that measures for impairment you will not get results that prove most of them are.
The breathalyzer measure blood alcohol levels, not impairment and there is a precedent of accuracy that you had to blow 0.10 or over in order to be charged and have the charges stick.

Why? Because it’s a law passed because THEY CAN. And have a large base of support from people who think they should ‘because THEY don’t like it and that’s all there is to it’. Proof. evidence, reason be damned.
And once the law is grudgingly accepted, they can lower it to 0.01 and multiply the .05 fines by a scale of ten, and the same minority percentage will say “What’s wrong with that?”.

Make no mistake, I’m not condoning drinking and driving. I’ve lost friends, not just thru accidents but through they’re too fucking stupid to stop so I no loner associate or care for them.
I don’t drink. Not in the fashion that’s accepted like as many as you can as fast as you can to get as pissed as you can, which seems to be what both those who identify themselves as drinkers and teetotalers define drinkers as these days.

64

This is more about our rights and responsibilities, theres no trust anymore , drunks have ruined it for everyone pretty soon you wont be able to drive unless you can pass a piss test ha ha whats next. Even think of this if you dont wear your seatbelt and you crash, who gets hurt or dies ? is that not a freedom of right . I think that if we don’t do something now , there will be no rights and no freedoms if there is any now .

65

We already lost our freedom shortly after sept 11 2001. We traded it for ‘security’ from terrorists.

This is just another example of a vocal minority of morons pissing and moaning until we all lose a bit more freedom. 0.05 you are not drunk you can get to .05 from one drink. Add to that the fact there is no recourse if you feel you were wrongly convicted and punished and its a terrible law.

You can dispute most tickets in front of a judge. Not this though. Cop decides ur guilty and ur guilty. Its ok tho the rcmp are trustworthy right?

66

Right now a cop can pull you over, suspect you’re ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol (or drug), issue you a 24 hour driving prohibition and tow your vehicle. No roadside test, just his observations. Also if they use a roadside screening device and it registers a “warn” (over .05) you get the 24 hour. Get a couple 24 hours and you lose your licence for several months.

Under the new program police must use a roadside screening device. It must register a warn to be able to use the program. You’re prohibited for three days and there’s an administrative fee. No limits have be lowered. They even give you the opportunity to use a second device to ensure the first one was working properly.

Regardless of the number or drinks it takes to get to .05, although one drink can’t get you there, that’s the limit the province has had in place for over 20 years know the penalties are a little more severe.

Stop whining, if you don’t like it and happen to be subject to the new program, you can have the Superintendent review it. If you don’t like that result, you can apply to have it reviewed by a provincial court judge. If any of it is unconstitutional the judge will rule that way and certain parts of the program may be invalid.

67

I think I should be able to stop you randomly, administer a random nossensical test and charge you a $200 fee. Way better than the squeegee boys get!

68

You know what happens if I’m caught with even .001% BAC? I get my license revoked, I have to start the novice driving stage over again. I’m not allowed ANY alcohol in my system when I’m driving. So I fail to see the problem… It’s SAFER to have these laws. And yes, it’s stupid that they have to be put in place, and it takes away our freedom. But in the long run, if that’s what is needed to stop me getting killed by a drunk driver, then so be it. It’s not my fault there’s drunk idiots on the road. LOL

69

And the ‘novice’ rule of no alcohol is stupid just like .05 is stupid. You are not impaired at .001 or .05 in any way. If you can’t drive at .05 or .001 then you cannot drive sober either and shouldn’t even have you ‘n’.

Impounding cars at .05 and charging an exhorbrent fee is not increasing road safety it is fundraising for higher wages for our band of murdering mounties.

I have no problem with charging fines, impounding cars, and legal charges for impaired drivers but the drivers targeted here are not impaired.

If you think this makes you safer you’re an idiot.

70

You know what should have stopped the hypothetical you from drinking and driving? How about the moral compunction to not put an innocent person at risk for your selfish actions, or valuing your possessions (as in your car) more than a bubble gum wrapper. You don’t need a ridiculous law to prevent drinking and driving. Yes, drinking and driving should be illegal, but .05 is a bit low.

Transport Canada put out a report in 2007 that examined fatal traffic collisions. In 1988 (the earliest year the report examines), there were 3,610 fatal accidents on Canadian roads. In 1997, a year before the ‘N’ was introduced, there were 2,617 fatal accidents. In 2007 there were 2,469 accidents. Of that total, the highest age group percentage for fatal accidents was the 25-34 bracket at 18.1 per cent. The next were 35-44 and 45-54 (both at 15.9 per cent) followed by 20-24 and then 65+. Perhaps we should have a license that reflects that highest risk group.

Or perhaps we shouldn’t let anyone drive. That way there will be no fatal accidents and we can even claim to be doing our part for the environment.

How has the ‘N’ had any perceptible effect on driver safety, even if it is a bit difficult to

71

Insurance

72

I wonder if there are any stats. comparing the danger from drivers under the influence to those driving while texting, talking on their cell phones, playing with their CD players etc.? Would be interesting as I see so many drivers with their eyes off the road while attempting all of the above and more. Pretty scary sometimes!

73

I drive better when I’m drunk. I’m more alert and careful because I’m worried that I will get caught. I can’t afford to lose my work vehicle. It’s the bad drunk drivers that give us all a bad name.

74

I honestly don’t know why people drink. I rarely have even one, although I’ve been craving Bacardi and Pepsi, and maybe a Tequila Sunrise… I am guessing the logic that led the charge! for inception of this comment has something to do with drinking though. So I understand the governmnet reasoning behind making driving while drinking a serious offence.

What ticks me off is ICBC using bad drivers, and drunk drivers, and people who use cell phones, and normal everyday speeders as their excuse to unilaterally impose their totalitarian rates on people with just one or two accidents in their history. That bugs me. You should read the strong language they send in letters to some people (like myself). (Rear Ended a Car, Was speeding on the way to Terrace - 125 KPH within a three year period) Part of the letter read: “You are receiving this letter because YOU are deemed to be a dangerous or high-risk driver. As such we will reviewing our records in the coming year and you may subject to an erroneous cash crab so our ICBC executives can purchase more crack and hookers.”

Well the end of the sentence isn’t from ICBC, but what the heck, their so ridiculous, why not.

Don’t drive drunk, period. If you can’t get home without driving, then don’t drink. I, and we (British Columbians) have already paid enough in horrible deaths and money out of our pocket.

75

[quote=“MeepMeepZoom”]

I honestly don’t know why people drink. I rarely have even one, although I’ve been craving Bacardi and Pepsi, and maybe a Tequila Sunrise… I am guessing the logic that led the charge! for inception of this comment has something to do with drinking though. So I understand the governmnet reasoning behind making driving while drinking a serious offence.

What ticks me off is ICBC using bad drivers, and drunk drivers, and people who use cell phones, and normal everyday speeders as their excuse to unilaterally impose their totalitarian rates on people with just one or two accidents in their history. That bugs me. You should read the strong language they send in letters to some people (like myself). (Rear Ended a Car, Was speeding on the way to Terrace - 125 KPH within a three year period) Part of the letter read: “You are receiving this letter because YOU are deemed to be a dangerous or high-risk driver. As such we will reviewing our records in the coming year and you may subject to an erroneous cash crab so our ICBC executives can purchase more crack and hookers.”

Well the end of the sentence isn’t from ICBC, but what the heck, their so ridiculous, why not.

Don’t drive drunk, period. If you can’t get home without driving, then don’t drink. I, and we (British Columbians) have already paid enough in horrible deaths and money out of our pocket.[/quote]

Funny although I’ve had a beer or two then drove (not drunk) ive never been in an accident. Maybe you are a bad (dangerous) driver after all.

76

[quote=“jesus”]

I honestly don’t know why people drink. I rarely have even one, although I’ve been craving Bacardi and Pepsi, and maybe a Tequila Sunrise… I am guessing the logic that led the charge! for inception of this comment has something to do with drinking though. So I understand the governmnet reasoning behind making driving while drinking a serious offence.

What ticks me off is ICBC using bad drivers, and drunk drivers, and people who use cell phones, and normal everyday speeders as their excuse to unilaterally impose their totalitarian rates on people with just one or two accidents in their history. That bugs me. You should read the strong language they send in letters to some people (like myself). (Rear Ended a Car, Was speeding on the way to Terrace - 125 KPH within a three year period) Part of the letter read: “You are receiving this letter because YOU are deemed to be a dangerous or high-risk driver. As such we will reviewing our records in the coming year and you may subject to an erroneous cash crab so our ICBC executives can purchase more crack and hookers.”

Well the end of the sentence isn’t from ICBC, but what the heck, their so ridiculous, why not.

Don’t drive drunk, period. If you can’t get home without driving, then don’t drink. I, and we (British Columbians) have already paid enough in horrible deaths and money out of our pocket.

Funny although I’ve had a beer or two then drove (not drunk) ive never been in an accident. Maybe you are a bad (dangerous) driver after all.[/quote]

I’ve never been in an accident either. I don’t speed when I’m driving drunk. That’s just dangerous and irresponsible! If you can’t do 125 without rear ending someone, you shouldn’t speed. Your bad driving is causing grief for the rest of us.

77

[quote=“Politically Incorrect”]
I don’t speed when I’m driving drunk. [/quote]

Wow…

78

I was going to post something but really, the analogy here is laughable at best.

At as to the accident equating to me a dangerous driver: random drivers stopped after blind turns in black cars - drivers are expected to be able to stop for raod hazards but one day I guarantee you will find yourself in the fault because of a driver that disbanded their driving logic.

79

Is speeding and killing someone any better than driving drunk and killing someone. Your 25km over the speed limit is just as dangerous as drunk driving.

More often than not, it’s the person that’s dead’s fault. Stopped behind a blind turn, crossed the road in front of a car on a dark rainy night, etc, etc
They may have been in the right, but they are dead right. And we speeders/drunk drivers get the blame.
I go out every day and get in my car and think, everyone else out here is an idiot. I have to be careful. I don’t want to kill someone, and I really don’t want anyone to kill me.

80

mmm I’m thirsty just reading this article