Skip to comments.MPís Bill (Canada) will establish new impaired driving law at 0.05% BAC level
Posted on 11/10/2006 6:29:02 PM PST by elkfersupper
A Private Members Bill to set a new 0.05% BAC legal limit for drinking and driving was introduced today by Kelowna British Columbia MP Ron Cannan. MADD Canada supports the MP's initiative because it will 'significantly reduce the numbers of Canadians being killed and injured in impaired driving crashes.' Mr. Cannan's Bill would introduce a new 0.05% BAC offence to complement the existing Criminal Code impaired driving offences. The new measures would differ from the current 0.08% BAC offence in three significant ways. First, the 0.05% BAC offence streamlines procedures and contains ticketing provisions. Second, the proposed offence contains lower penalties than those for the 0.08% BAC. Third, the proposed offence also contains special criminal record provisions.
Robert Solomon, MADD Canada's Legal Director and a professor in the Law Faculty at the University of Western Ontario, states the Bill will help keep impaired drivers off the roads. "We are supportive of Mr. Cannan's legislation because research from around the world indicates such measures will save lives on Canada's roads. His Bill will effectively reduce the amount a person can currently drink and then legally drive."
Professor Solomon is quick to add, "This legislation will not interfere with 'social drinking.' It won't stop people from having a drink or two after work or with a meal. It simply provides police with a further option for getting that person who has had too much to drink off the road and out of harm's way."
The MADD Canada Legal Director explains: "The proposed .05% BAC offence is designed to deter impaired driving without being unduly punitive, or creating greater burdens on the police and the courts. The ticket option of pleading guilty without having to go to court may discourage accused persons from needlessly challenging the charges."
"This is a very reasonable approach to making our roads safer from impaired driving crashes," says Professor Solomon. "A 0.05% BAC level is the appropriate legal limit when considering the risk impaired drivers pose to all motorists who must share the roads with them."
In a November 2005 SES public opinion survey, 73 % of Canadians believe the current legal drinking limits should be reduced. In that survey, when the proposed lower drinking limit was explained, 84% of Canadians felt this level was 'about right' or should be even lower.
In the last Parliament, Senator Marjory LeBreton tabled a similar piece of legislation that would have introduced new impaired driving Criminal Code measures at the legal limit of 0.05% BAC.
For a detailed discussion of the case for a 0.05% Criminal Code offence, MADD Canada has posted on its website a recent submission to Criminal Law Quarterly.
THE ELEMENTS OF A WORKABLE 0.05% BAC CRIMINAL CODE OFFENCE
The proposed 0.05% BAC law is designed to maximize the deterrent impact of the law, minimize the administrative burden on the criminal justice system, and appropriately sanction offenders.
The Criminal Code should be amended to create a new summary conviction offence for driving with a BAC above 0.05%. Given the BAC margin of error currently allowed by our courts, the new 0.05% BAC offence would be enforced at a 0.07% BAC limit. This new offence would bring Canada's federal BAC driving limit into line with the international trend to lower permissible BAC limits.
The new offence would complement the existing Criminal Code impaired driving offences, and be compatible with the current provincial and territorial short-term roadside licence suspension legislation. Similarly, the current Criminal Code provisions relating to demanding breath and blood samples, the consequences of refusing such demands, and the admissibility of the test results would apply to the proposed 0.05% BAC offence.
In addition to the BAC limit itself, the 0.05% BAC offence would differ from the existing 0.08% BAC offence in three significant ways:
-- First, the 0.05% BAC offence would contain ticketing provisions. The ticket would explain the consequences of pleading guilty and the process for contesting a charge. If the accused pleads not guilty, the case would proceed like any other federal summary conviction offence. However, an accused who pleads guilty would not need to make a court appearance. The ticket would explain the obligation to pay the fine and that the driver would be subject to an automatic federal driving prohibition.
-- Second, in keeping with the reduced risks involved, the penalties for the 0.05% offence would be less onerous than those for the 0.08% offence. A first conviction would be punishable by a $300 fine and a 45-day federal driving prohibition. Subsequent offences would be subject to a $600 fine and a 90-day federal driving prohibition.
-- Third, the proposed 0.05% BAC offence would be subject to special criminal record provisions. Offenders who did not have a subsequent Criminal Code impaired driving conviction within two years would be deemed not to have a criminal record for the 0.05% BAC offence and the information relating to it would automatically be destroyed. Consequently, an accused would not have to go to trial simply to avoid having a permanent criminal record.
The proposed 0.05% BAC offence is designed to deter impaired driving without being unduly punitive or creating unacceptable burdens on the police and the courts. Moreover, the option of pleading guilty without having to go to court may discourage accused persons from needlessly challenging the charges.
Coming soon to a location near you.
My favorite quote from the article: "the option of pleading guilty without having to go to court may discourage accused persons from needlessly challenging the charges."
For every one person they pull over and harass with .05, the real problem driver .13 or .14 and above are slipping by. Most of the .05s will probably be discovered when pulled over for something other than driving erratically.
1 drink, not cool ...
That means the real problems start at .03.
You can get that from mashed potatoes stuck in your bridgework.
In most jurisdictions less than 0.006 BAC is sober as a judge.
That would be one real beer or a case of Bud?
Nope, it's getting close to natural alcohol production (or things that can be interpreted as such) for folks with less than perfect dentition and/or metabolism.
At my weight .05 is one drink. It is .08 in CA which is two drinks for me.
I see the complete demise of an American icon the local tavern or perhaps, the beginning of a new cottage industry, the professional designated driver?
Excuses me, I meant Canadian icon. Forgot which country I lived in for a minuet. Same will be true in US before long.
Yet again ... correction
Minuet = minute
It I try enough times, I might get it right.
Eventually, you will be considered legally drunk if you have even a trace amount of alcohol...basically "one sip = legally drunk". I guess they need to bring in new employees for the prison economy.
I saw this story after Radley Balko and DUIblog posted about it. If this doesn't show MADD as a group of neoprohibitionists, then I don't know what will.
"perhaps, the beginning of a new cottage industry, the professional designated driver?"
What a cool, new concept! Maybe give him a cool designation, like "taxi" driver! ;)
I don't know.
2 million arrests per year since 1993. Each of those either impacts or tells another 5 people at least....
I sense a backlash.
Thank God, most of America doesn't have taxis.
This one is an example, but there are others.
To make money, you need a special title
Besides, how may taxi drivers would sit in a bar (and not drink), waiting for their charge to get drunk enough to leave and then escort them home? Aint gana happen. Need a special group, someone willing to wait it out to insure them a ride home.
To answer your next protest call a cab. Ever try to get a cab late a night when you are drunk?
Worked my way though three years of collage as a taxi driver, this is a concept that could work.
Maybe local pub owners (out of a sense of self-preservation) could create what the WWII French Army called "de-ethalyzation rooms", where patrons could lock themselves in, but would have to blow a certain BAC, and pass a hand-eye coordination test, to get out.
Hell. Lets make it: "If you think about drinking and driving you are under arrest!"
It's easy! Taxi company's bread and butter are late-night drunks. I know, I used to own a bar and grill.
Definitely one for the FR Hall of Fame! Now I have to clean up the coke and bits of cheese sandwich I sprayed all over my keyboard. :-(
Keep in mind the entire (supposed) purpose of DUI's. It is to prevent folks from driving poorly.
Now what about old folks who forgot their glasses, Or people with the flu? They are both not driving as good as they can.
So what is the best solution? Pretty simple, actually. In those vans cops have with portable breathalizers, fit them with something else.
A driving simulator. With virtual cones, red lights, green lights, stop signs, whatever.
If anyone is suspected of driving poorly, whether sober or not, put them in it, and if they fail, ticket them.
That includes folks stone cold sober, healthy, with perfect eyesight. I know many who should never be driving.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
The bartender gives him one. The guy from Schlitz says, "Give me 'The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous'."
He gets it. The guy from Guinness sits down and says, "Give me a Coke."
The bartender is a little taken aback, but gives him what he ordered. The other brewery presidents look over at him and ask, "Why aren't you drinking a Guinness?"
The Guinness president replies, "Well, if you guys aren't drinking beer, neither will I."
I don't suppose there's any evidence that driving at .05 is driving impaired? Not that it matters.
Really, the evidence doesn't even establish that the .08 standard was an improvement over .10. The GAO looked at the evidence at the time the federal government was making the change and said so. In fact, DWI deaths increased after the standard was lowered after declining for years.
Actually, anything over .00 has some impairment involved.
If they're really concerned about highway safety they should lower the speed limit to 20mph.
Decreasing the speed to 20 would be extremely dangerous as well, due to closing rates...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.