List Archives

Tue Dec 7 17:21:04 GMT 2010

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Jel Coward <jel at wildmedic.org> wrote:

>
> Recently BC laws were toughened - the allowed level of blood alcohol has
> been reduced - police can impound a vehicle for 3 months based on a
> roadside
> test etc.  ........and what have we heard?.......politicians suggesting
> that
> the RCMP (police) need to be more lenient in their application of the new
> laws!!
>
>
I heard some discussion on the new BC regs from a lawyer-he felt there was a
good chance the tougher regulations would probably be challenged in court
and might not stand. I think the principle was that the required burden of
proof did not match the severity of the penalty. Got me thinking about
whether "tougher" laws-ie stronger penalties and lower limits-make a big
difference in changing behaviour. Or whether a better strategy would be a
LIGHTER penalty, but with a lower burden of proof.
Alberta is introducing "distracted driving" legislation right now, to stop
people from talking on phones, eating bowls of spaghetti, and texting while
driving. The actual behaviours are probably already covered by existing laws
against careless driving, but it seems the existing laws are rather
challenging to enforce and get successful convictions-the new legislation
basically defines drivers as distracted if they are seen doing a number of
activities which may or may not actually be distracting (I'm pretty sure I'm
safe taking a sip of coffee with one hand on the wheel, pretty sure I'm not
safe to send e-mail on my smartphone while driving in rush hour
traffic-other drivers seem to disagree according to what I see regularly).

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

A drunk driving video from Australia-- that MADE a difference