REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

jonwon · 09-12-2011, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhillon09

Ok, one more question,

the only reason my friend got pulled over is because someone called in saying they saw a car speeding and driving erratically. Is it possible that my friend will be convicted of driving without due care, or something else based solely on another person's calling in? And for the 1 year that my friend has to drive with an interlock device, that 1 year begins after the 3 month suspension? Lastly, if my friend is caught operating a vehicle soberly, but without an interlock device within that 1 year period, what kind of penalties can my friend face?

Thanks a bunch guys. The owner of the vehicle has a hearing with ICBC in a week or so to see if they can get the vehicle back early.

Sadly, your friend will not be able to get out of it. He got pulled over and blew a fail, that automatically overrides the speeding or whatever he was suspected of.

If the car is not under your friends name, ICBC has no reason to keep it impounded. There's a very high chance the car will be released early if the owner explains their situation properly during the review.

The breathalyzer will be installed in the car your friend drives daily. Before installing the interlock, your friend will need to provide a signed form of consent allowing the interlock to be installed in the vehicle of choice. Also, it begins at the date your friend has his license reinstated.

And about operating a vehicle without an interlock. On his new license it will have say the restriction, interlock required. Sure he can drive a vehicle without one, but if he's unlucky and gets pulled over, then that's more time added on to the one year as a penalty.

Oh and if your friend isn't aware already, he will have to register for the RDP program as well and that's another $1000.

This is a harsh lesson to learn, just tell your friend not to make the same mistake again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

I've been reading lots of reports of problems with the interlock devices throwing false positives, etc..

I can't see how safety is improved when the driver is forced to blow at random while driving - fumbling for the device to blow while driving on a busy road can't be safe, is it?

Having your car shut off in the middle of the road because it recorded a false positive can't be safe, can it?

The interlock does not have the ability to shut off the vehicle, but it will make the horn, signal lights and wipers go berserk...

sebberry · 09-13-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonwon

The interlock does not have the ability to shut off the vehicle, but it will make the horn, signal lights and wipers go berserk...

I can see the crashes happening already...

ninjatune · 09-13-2011, 12:36 PM

You are required to pull the vehicle over to provide a sample into the interlock... it gives you a number of minutes of time to pull over safely. Only an idiot would have trouble pulling over. Although if they got themselves in that position in the first place.....

jonwon · 09-13-2011, 07:02 PM

It's actually not as dangerous as people are making it out to be... the thing is wireless and you can place it in this foam cup holder insert they give you. My only gripe with this thing is the fact that you have to pay for it... clearly a cash grab.

sebberry · 09-13-2011, 07:14 PM

Interesting how the government requires you yo operate a handheld electronic device while behind the wheel. I suppose you could just have your passenger give it a blow.

Simnut · 09-13-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebberry

Interesting how the government requires you yo operate a handheld electronic device while behind the wheel. I suppose you could just have your passenger give it a blow.

Ummm..you missed this post by ninjatune?

Quote:

You are required to pull the vehicle over to provide a sample into the interlock... it gives you a number of minutes of time to pull over safely. Only an idiot would have trouble pulling over. Although if they got themselves in that position in the first place.....

sebberry · 09-13-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simnut

Ummm..you missed this post by ninjatune?

Oh no, I saw it. But I can't help but think having something beeping at you for you to pull over isn't a distraction.

It would be really good if it had you pull over on a busy freeway.

marty123 · 09-15-2011, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwantaskyline

...getting info like if the cop simply wrote the date of calibration for the breathalyzer incorrectly then I would get off as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwantaskyline

..if you were caught in a situation like this you wouldn't try and find a way to "alleviate" the situation for yourself..

You were hardly trying to "alleviate the situation", you were clearly trying find a loop hole so you can get off the hook completely.

iwantaskyline · 09-16-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marty123

You were hardly trying to "alleviate the situation", you were clearly trying find a loop hole so you can get off the hook completely.

Why do you think I used "alleviate" with quotations.

Sky_High · 09-18-2011, 10:37 PM

Sorry, didn't want to make a new thread.

Friend received a 30 days impound / 90 day prohibition.

However, when he blew into the breathalyzer, it failed to give a result (as in hardware error, not that he "failed" the test)
He was not offered a second chance, or the option of going back to the police station for a blood level test.
This is his first time offense. No previous offense.

Question is:
- Shouldn't he have been given a 3 days impound / prohibition instead?
- As there was an error with the breathalyzer, what are his chances of fighting off the 90 days prohibition?

Simnut · 09-19-2011, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky_High

Sorry, didn't want to make a new thread.

Friend received a 30 days impound / 90 day prohibition.

However, when he blew into the breathalyzer, it failed to give a result (as in hardware error, not that he "failed" the test)
He was not offered a second chance, or the option of going back to the police station for a blood level test.
This is his first time offense. No previous offense.

Question is:
- Shouldn't he have been given a 3 days impound / prohibition instead?
- As there was an error with the breathalyzer, what are his chances of fighting off the 90 days prohibition?

The 24 hour prohibition is the only VT that a person can get in the "drinking and driving" category WITHOUT a valid roadside test, or based just on observation. Every other "impaired" ticket requires the officer to either prove there is alcohol in the system (for novice drivers) or OVER .05 with regular drivers. If there was a hardware failure in your friends case, I'm quite sure a lawyer would have fun with that one!

bloodline129 · 09-19-2011, 05:31 AM

Just fill up air balloons with air and slowly release it in the device. Wonder if that would work :P lol...
Posted via RS Mobile

ninjatune · 09-19-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sky_High

Sorry, didn't want to make a new thread.

Friend received a 30 days impound / 90 day prohibition.

However, when he blew into the breathalyzer, it failed to give a result (as in hardware error, not that he "failed" the test)
He was not offered a second chance, or the option of going back to the police station for a blood level test.
This is his first time offense. No previous offense.

Question is:
- Shouldn't he have been given a 3 days impound / prohibition instead?
- As there was an error with the breathalyzer, what are his chances of fighting off the 90 days prohibition?

What did the ASD display after the test? All IRP's are submitted to the OSMV. If a second test is not offered, or the ASD was over either one of it's expiry dates, the IRP gets immediately cancelled by the OSMV. If an officer were to forge results on the IRP papers, he/she could be subject to dismissal (aka fired). I highly doubt an officer would take that risk just to push forward a minor IRP...

More details needed.

sebberry · 09-19-2011, 11:28 AM

What did I predict earlier? People would lose their cars and licences due to faulty ASDs? Nah, that could never happen...

gars · 09-19-2011, 12:51 PM

I thought it also errors out if you don't blow hard enough...?

Acuracura · 09-19-2011, 02:19 PM

I would suspect that your friend "Refused or Failed to provide Sample" resulting in the 30/90 penalty. Why doesn't he look at the papers given to him...

ninjatune · 09-19-2011, 04:07 PM

A grandmother with asthma can still provide a proper sample into the ASD. Many many people try to mess around when they know their guilty or may be guilty. I've had people blow out the side of their mouth, pretend to blow a lot of air but only blow a little, or just puff up their cheeks and not blow at all. I'll clearly explain the process and even have demonstrated it for people if needed. After 3 tries if they still mess around it's an automatic refusal, which carries the same penalties as a "fail" result.

Acuracura · 09-19-2011, 07:37 PM

Don't you hate it when they pretend to blow into the machine but aren't sealing their lips properly and basically spitting all over your hand.

Simnut · 09-19-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acuracura

Don't you hate it when they pretend to blow into the machine but aren't sealing their lips properly and basically spitting all over your hand.

Hey, they're just giving you DNA evidence...in case you need it!