REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Vancouver Auto Chat (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-auto-chat_173/)
-   -   'Most drivers' stopped by police will likely be tested for drunk driving: RCMP (https://www.revscene.net/forums/715711-most-drivers-stopped-police-will-likely-tested-drunk-driving-rcmp.html)

Dbone 12-19-2018 05:25 AM
Didn't we recently realise that stop and search was a terrible policy that ends up creating more resentment than results?

This seems to come from the same line of thought. Everyone is guilty until they can show themselves as innocent. This is not progress.

68style 12-19-2018 08:00 AM
Not a fan of this either... is there such an increase in issues that warrants it?

Dragon-88 12-19-2018 08:38 AM
I don't drink but never have a problem at road blocks.

I roll up to a road block. They ask if I've been drinking, I say no, I don't drink. They look at me. Ask me "Would you take a breathalyzer." Without hesitation, I go Yes. Cop then just tells me I can go. Works all the time.

Berzerker 12-19-2018 09:04 AM
"Anything to drink tonight"
"No"
"Where are you coming from/going?"
"You aren't allowed to ask me that"
"Pull over there"

Guys, road block harassment has been going on for ages. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about. Soon it will be accepted and it will just be a part of the traffic stop.
"Hello, License and insurance papers please. Blow here"


Berz out.

UnknownJinX 12-19-2018 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by !LittleDragon (Post 8932988)
I've had a breathalizer before. It was a waste of everyones time.



Going through a road block, I tell him no. He asks me to pull over because he smells alcohol (I don't drink). He asks me for my license and asks why I'm not wearing corrective lenses, I tell him I'm wearing contacts. He tells me to step out of the car because my eyes are glassy which is an indication of heavy drinking. I tell him again that I'm wearing contacts and he's not looking at my eyes. Had me take a breathalizer, I blow a big fat 0. He throws my license back at me and told me to get lost. I pick it up off the ground and drive off.



I don't know where he was getting the alcohol smell from, I had literally just replaced my brake pads and took it out for a spin. Maybe it was the smell of the cleaning solvents I was using but it smells way different from the alcohol that you drink.
Just sounds like you are making his job more difficult. I would bet that if you just took a breathe without much protest, he at least wouldn't throw your license on the ground.

Put yourself in his shoes... If someone is protesting like this, I think you'd be pretty pissed as well.

I do agree with the VI concern, but isn't that just VPD? Now RCMP is getting involved as well?

UnknownJinX 12-19-2018 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Money (Post 8933020)
So there is gonna be road side checks with them making everyone do a breathe test Causing a Huge Grid lock for blocks going down the street???....

I wonder if that line can get so huge you could just pull out and drive the other way :troll:
As I mentioned, I doubt this will change the way they work. They probably still won't waste their time on you if you work with them. It merely just backs their action up a bit better if it's warranted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berzerker (Post 8933066)
"Anything to drink tonight"
"No"
"Where are you coming from/going?"
"You aren't allowed to ask me that"
"Pull over there"

Guys, road block harassment has been going on for ages. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about. Soon it will be accepted and it will just be a part of the traffic stop.
"Hello, License and insurance papers please. Blow here"


Berz out.
Literally, they will accept any reason. I always say I am just out for a night drive or just going home. Never had a problem.

Again, if you think your answer will cause a problem, then don't say it.

MarkyMark 12-19-2018 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berzerker (Post 8933066)
"Anything to drink tonight"
"No"
"Where are you coming from/going?"
"You aren't allowed to ask me that"
"Pull over there"

Guys, road block harassment has been going on for ages. If you aren't drinking and driving you have nothing to worry about. Soon it will be accepted and it will just be a part of the traffic stop.
"Hello, License and insurance papers please. Blow here"


Berz out.
It seems like it's always the guys that want to play lawyer are the ones who get harrassed.

Berzerker 12-19-2018 10:38 AM
Exactly. Act like a dick and get treated like a dick. Simple concept that people just don't seem to understand. lol

Berz out.

inv4zn 12-19-2018 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmac (Post 8933022)
If you have to prove your innocence without justified reasoning, that's being presumed guilty until you prove otherwise.

How do you feel about Stop & Frisk and Papers, Please policies of years gone by?
No, they are intent on proving your guilt by asking you to blow, and if you hadn't been drinking, you have no issues.

Even if they smell alcohol or you're slurring, they ask you to blow - presumed innocence until the breathalyzer reveals otherwise.

As for the second comment, I already answered that - I disagree with them. But for DUIs, fine by me.

RRxtar 12-19-2018 11:39 AM
Alot of the support for this is from people saying things like "you'd be in favor if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver too"

Yes. Drunk drivers should be taken off the road. But 2 beers with dinner, isn't the drunk driver thats killing family members.

In the past, you usually would pass the 'observation' test if you were capable of driving safely. Now, you're getting a DUI at 0.051 which is LESS than the legal impaired limit.

underscore 12-19-2018 12:11 PM
Some stats: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/dr..._2008-2017.pdf

Impaired driving is still the second highest contributing factor to fatalities and has the highest crash fatality rate by a large margin. I'd also argue it's the most easily avoided of all the top factors. Maybe once people stop killing everyones friends and families some of these complaints might sound even vaguely justified, but until then just be polite, blow in the tube and go about your day.

The mild inconvenience of having to do that doesn't hold a candle to having a loved one needlessly killed because someone decided to be a douchebag.

AzNightmare 12-19-2018 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by !LittleDragon (Post 8932988)
I've had a breathalizer before. It was a waste of everyones time.

Going through a road block, I tell him no. He asks me to pull over because he smells alcohol (I don't drink). He asks me for my license and asks why I'm not wearing corrective lenses, I tell him I'm wearing contacts. He tells me to step out of the car because my eyes are glassy which is an indication of heavy drinking. I tell him again that I'm wearing contacts and he's not looking at my eyes. Had me take a breathalizer, I blow a big fat 0. He throws my license back at me and told me to get lost. I pick it up off the ground and drive off.

I don't know where he was getting the alcohol smell from, I had literally just replaced my brake pads and took it out for a spin. Maybe it was the smell of the cleaning solvents I was using but it smells way different from the alcohol that you drink.
Stories like these always make me intrigued how much of it is exaggerated, how much is omitted, and any other things that were left out.

I don't doubt there can be dick power tripping officers, but I've yet to deal with one. Every officer I've dealt with have been professional. Last cop I've dealt with was all smiling and talking about my mods while giving me my speeding ticket, lol.

GS8 12-19-2018 01:26 PM
I've always been under the impression that:
  1. Walking down a public street is a right
  2. Driving down a public street is a privilege

I'm okay with the necessary precautions needed in taking stupid drunks off the road.

Also:

If one barista gives me a coffee with attitude, I won't say all baristas are terrible people with bad attitudes. I like to apply that same view to cops.

inv4zn 12-19-2018 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 8933093)
Alot of the support for this is from people saying things like "you'd be in favor if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver too"

Yes. Drunk drivers should be taken off the road. But 2 beers with dinner, isn't the drunk driver thats killing family members.

In the past, you usually would pass the 'observation' test if you were capable of driving safely. Now, you're getting a DUI at 0.051 which is LESS than the legal impaired limit.
Thinking like that is why DUIs are still so prevalent.

It's not the 2 beers with dinner that kill people, it's the complacent people who have been driving after drinking 2 beers that think they 'know their limit', and are fine because it was just one or two beers that kill people.

Nevermind how 2 beers will affect people of different weight differently, how much food you ate, medication you're taking, stress levels, and other factors that drastically change how those "2 beers" affect someone. Maybe you really were fine after 2 beers when you were 35. But now you're 50, but hey, still "only 2 beers" right?

Also, if you know you're going to drive, is not drinking 2 beers during dinner that much of a hassle? I've managed to do it since I got my license, so should anybody else.

vitaminG 12-19-2018 03:19 PM
Once you give up rights you will not get them back. The government and the police would like nothing more than to increase their power.

Between this and the law stating you cannot drive a car WITHIN (including before) two hours of being intoxicated. With the .05 charge your don't even get the right to dispute it, you get an immediate 3 day suspension. Then if you go to court there's a reverse onus to prove that you were innocent. Which effectively makes the police judge, jury and executioner

I think most people agree that drunk driving is bad, no need to bring that into this argument.

Hondaracer 12-19-2018 05:36 PM
Just keep willingly giving away rights and options to defend yourself until you’ve got nothing left!

!LittleDragon 12-19-2018 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX (Post 8933069)
Just sounds like you are making his job more difficult. I would bet that if you just took a breathe without much protest, he at least wouldn't throw your license on the ground.

Put yourself in his shoes... If someone is protesting like this, I think you'd be pretty pissed as well.

I do agree with the VI concern, but isn't that just VPD? Now RCMP is getting involved as well?
No protest from me. I dunno how you read it as me giving him a hard time... He asked questions, I answered them. Maybe he was getting pissed because he smelled alcohol but I kept insisting I did not have a drop which was the truth. Probably thought I was lying through my teeth.

twitchyzero 12-19-2018 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkyMark (Post 8933016)
I'm ok with this, but it would be nice if things like Uber, and the SkyTrain running later on weekends would follow suit.
agreed that it's currently a barrier compared to other cities, but having to find/be a DD isn't the end of the world

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminG (Post 8933116)
With the .05 charge your don't even get the right to dispute it, you get an immediate 3 day suspension.

exactly how are you gonna defend yourself in court if you blow over 0.05?
it's unequivocal

welfare 12-19-2018 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRxtar (Post 8933093)
Alot of the support for this is from people saying things like "you'd be in favor if you lost a loved one to a drunk driver too"

Yes. Drunk drivers should be taken off the road. But 2 beers with dinner, isn't the drunk driver thats killing family members.

In the past, you usually would pass the 'observation' test if you were capable of driving safely. Now, you're getting a DUI at 0.051 which is LESS than the legal impaired limit.
I used to think this way too.
about the only thing i learned from the mandatory course, and this really should have been obvious, is that ANY amount of alcohol in the blood slows reaction time. That is fact. Sometimes a fraction of a second can mean the difference between plowing into that jagoff who pulled in front and swerving to miss him. Two beers, and even one beer can make all the difference when we're talking about such a short timeframe.

If i had to count how many prohibitions I'd gotten in my younger years, I'd literally have to use toes. So I'm not in any position to pass judgment or harp. Just throwing it out there to think about is all. Cuz it seems like common sense but admittedly i never really looked at it that way.

welfare 12-19-2018 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style (Post 8933058)
Not a fan of this either... is there such an increase in issues that warrants it?
Read the bill.
It's not about drunk driving. Cops can usually detect alcohol well enough to issue a breathalyzer without the need to do spontaneous checks.
What they can't detect is if someone maued a couple brownies an hour before getting behind the wheel.
Read the bill. It's laid out very obviously.

Great68 12-19-2018 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8933171)
Read the bill.

What they can't detect is if someone maued a couple brownies an hour before getting behind the wheel.
Except that the new mandatory breathalyzer rules don't apply to marijuana. They still need reasonable grounds before they can administer marijuana tests. So this doesn't really help that issue

welfare 12-19-2018 10:20 PM
Are you sure? Because i thought it was pretty clear.
I read again :)

Great68 12-19-2018 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by welfare (Post 8933176)
Are you sure? Because i thought it was pretty clear.
I read again :)
I've read and dissected that part of the bill. I made a post about it on another site with the exact references, but too lazy now to find that post and put it here.

welfare 12-19-2018 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great68 (Post 8933175)
Except that the new mandatory breathalyzer rules don't apply to marijuana. They still need reasonable grounds before they can administer marijuana tests. So this doesn't really help that issue
Edit: kk yea you're right. Need reasonable grounds to suspect for drug testing.

Great68 12-19-2018 10:33 PM
Ah here it is:

Quote:

Section 320.27
"Mandatory alcohol screening"

(2) If a peace officer has in his or her possession an approved screening device, the peace officer may, in the course of the lawful exercise of powers under an Act of Parliament or an Act of a provincial legislature or arising at common law, by demand, require the person who is operating a motor vehicle to immediately provide the samples of breath that, in the peace officer’s opinion, are necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made by means of that device and to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.
Note the word Alcohol in Mandatory alcohol screening.

This is from the bill that received assent, not the proposed bill you're reading from.

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en...6/royal-assent


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:08 AM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net