I will also say of the young drivers who drink and drive, there seems to be 2 major factors:

They live just outside of the city in small towns (in Calgary these were places like Airdrie and Okotoks).  There was no transit, and they thought cabs were too expensive.  I think a shuttle (even from a private company) at the north and south ends of the LRT line would be beneficial.  In Edmonton, I've seen less problems this way because the surrounding areas (St. Albert, Sherwood Park) transit is connected with Edmonton's transit.

People who are clubbing and are trying to drink as much as possible and still drive.  They predrink to a level they think is still safe so that they can get drunk quickly at a club, and then stop for a little while before driving home.  These people are not just having 1 or 2 drinks when they do this.  I think a breathlizer would help some of this.

 I also have an issue with the timing of checkstops though.  I used to go clubbing and to parties fairly often.  I lived far away from the university where I did my undergraduate degrees, so I was driving far distances.  I've gone clubbing and DD'ed for friends all over the city, driving for 1.5hrs to get everyone home.  I have been through a checkstop once.  ONCE.  I have never been through one as a passenger.  This includes BSD (last day of classes - Bermuda Shorts Day with beer gardens).  I have heard you can't leave campus without hitting a checkstop.  I have driven or been driven at least 3 times on BSD and not once hit a checkstop.  That one checkstop?  I had just been hanging out with friends (not really a party and it wasn't very late, maybe 11 or 12).  They need to set these up to catch the predrinkers, the older people who drink a lot with dinner, the people leaving the nightclubs (a little after closing time) or leaving a houseparty, and early in the morning when people are driving still drunk from the night before.

I recall a promotinal campaign in New Zealand that billboarded the slogan: "DRINK, DRIVE, DIE". Young male drivers saw it as a challenge and the incidence of youth drunk driving rose markedly. But that's Kiwis for you.

Mike, even if the limit was lowered that much, I think education would still be needed. If someone has really gotten wasted, how many hours do they have to wait to drive?  Many people assume they next day they are good to go (even if hungover) but it's not always long enough.  What about having a drinks at lunch, how long do you have to wait?  Is an hour per drink suitable for everyone?  It would be a lot more clear than it currently is though.

Drinking and driving is a bit different than smoking.  You don't actually have to be drinking at the same time as driving to be charged.  It's more like third hand smoke, and I haven't seen any laws about that (although sometimes I wish there were).  Someone's cigarette from 30 minutes ago can affect my health when they sit next to me on a bus, but that's another topic :)

BC changed the drinking and drivnig laws last year, so that now we have the strictest laws in Canada. A DUI charge is treated much the same way as a speeding ticket. That means, the police officer has the hand held device. If you blow a fail you will get an immediate "ticket" and lose your licence for 90 days, have your vehicle towed and impounded for 30 days, have fines and will be required to take the Responsible Driver course. You will also be required to have an "Interlock" device or "blow and go" in your vehicle for a year. There is no 24 hour suspension anymore. If you blow a warn, showing your BAC is between .05 and .08 you will get a 36 hour suspension, vehicle impoundment and fines. The second warn will get you a 7 day suspension, and the third in five years will get you a 30 day suspension. The fines and impoundment increase each time as well. After the third warn, you will be required to take the Responsible Driver Program.

This law was very controversial. Establishments that sell liquor saw their sales go down. There was an education compaign along with the implementation of the law, so many people modified their behaviour before they were charged. The authorities considered modifying the law after the complaints, but when the stats were released less than a year later, they decided not to touch it because it was working. In less than a year, the law reduced the drinking driving fatalities by half. Bars are getting shuttle busses. We now have a safe ride service in town. People are adjusting.

I have noticed that pumping up the consequences for driving at .05 has made the biggest difference. People now think that is the legal limit. People are not willing to take as many chances at that level.

I was glad to see that Alberta is looking at making their laws tougher. It needs to happen. Ask Grande Prairie about this. They just had a terrible crash because of imnpaired driving. Four high school football players were killed, and one was severely injured. The impaired driver was 21 years old. It is such a tragedy on all levels.

The Australian ads worked.... I do not know the campaign name to search for it, but they were gruesome and emotional. It was also, from what I say, multi-prong and targetted many.

We have to know that there are many kinds of drunk drivers, from the drink-til-you-pass-out type to the person who has too much wine at dinner ...from the young binge drinker party goer to the little old lady with a mickey in her purse... from the falling-down to the alcoholic who never appears drunk....

The antismoking campaign has been remarkably successful. A drink-drive campaign would have to stigmatise the whole idea of any drinking and any driving, It has to be pretty simple and pretty emphatic about its antisocial dimensions.

If you have half a glass of wine with lunch then don't drive home that night. If you're totally wasted, don't drive for 48 hours. Enjoy a drink with, before or after dinner at home. Just one! That's totally unreasonable from any scientific point of view, but it's the sort message people can "get"... the variables, as you point out, are too complicated, conditional and obscure to explain to everyone and persuade them individually. Anyway, it should be not great loss to forego alcohol during the working week and share drinks on days off (and get about in a taxi if you're drinking). If you can't afford that, you can't afford to drink. And if you NEED to drink, you should probably talk to a doctor about your alcohol dependency/vulnerability top alcoholism. NEEDing a drink needs to be identified, like smoking, as an addiction... as a debilitating, unhealthy, anticocial illness you may well need help to overcome.

Alcohol would need to be billed as the toxic excretions of microbes (useful in cleaners and solvents).

We enjoy wines and the ocassional dram (when we can afford it, or someone who can offers!)... and that's another line of attack: educating people to drink with discernment. 

You can't drink beer discerningly from the bottle or a can: that's just jacking back some alcohol. You need to see, smell, taste, savour and explore drink — as you should food. You can't be discerning about cocktails full of sugared flavourings and cream which camoflage taste; nor can you be discerning about iced drinks because the ice suppresses the aromatics in the drink and numbs your taste buds. Some drinks, like vodka, have very little to appreciate except the intoxication and the hangover. Some, like alcopops should simply be banned.

WE would need pictures of car smashes, vomit, beaten wives, pee-stained trousers, heads in toilet bowls and faces in the gutter on gin, vodka and lager labels.... and pub glasses, along with prominently displayed health warnings.

it's a campaign that's NOT unwinnable!!! (Except that there's a helluva a lot of vested interest in the money that's to be made from pissheads, drunks and alkies.)

It is interesting to see how people respond to the Interlock device. I often ask if they have learned anything. Usually they find out the car won't start the next morning after a night of drinking. The device also does what you suggest Mike. It makes people more moderate and selective about when and where they drink. They have to have the device in their vehicle for a year and then reduce the risk to reoffend significantly.

If you live in an urban area, then, you are likely to be pulled over for things other than driving erratically.

Ride programs are common.  

Drivers who have not bothered to go get their G license, have a zero tolerance.  To me, this is crazy; especially for the consequences.  It is considered a serious offence, subject to years of insurance impact ....definitely an impact which is way way outside of the crime.

it's a nice little perk for insurance companies, though

That is Ontario Pinga. ICBC is different, there is only a Driver Risk Premium, and not for the first offence. Frankly though, the potential consequences for impaired driving are far worse than higher insurance premiums.

Check out this video. It is part of a very powerful video by MADD

Northwind - I have noticed a huge difference since those laws have come into effect in BC. Most of my friends now won't even think about touching a drink if they are driving and those who do might have one at the beginning of the evening - and after that, only sodas for the next several hours. I have always been like that - especially since my job requires me to have my license, the changing of the law encouraged my friends to join/ catch up to me.

I <3 the local Drinking & Driving Counterattack ads -- they are very well done and there is one in particular that captured the sheer horror for an instant quite well :3

I'm glad at the laws here in BC and how brutal the law is with even a 'first time offender'.  It's serious stuff, being lazy & putting people's lives at risk.

That information about 6  beers in 2 hours is nothing like I ever saw...and I worked in a bar for awhile when the bars began to be held partially liable for accidents involving those drivers who had left their establishments after drinking.

I was always told that a drink an hour for 3 hours would keep a man under the legal threshold but that a woman would need less to go over. Now that the threshold is .05, it's obviously going to be even less for both. 

Rural communities have no capacity for transit or alternate arrangements and thus people continue to take chances where I live and many other small communities around the country. I'm not saying that the rules shouldn't be tight but it bears thinking about...those of you who live in larger towns or cities have options once you've had even one drink but your rural counterparts don't. Not only is there a need for education, there needs to be consideraton given to how communities can respond in healthy ways to support people who have a few drinks and wish to avoid driving.

Motheroffive,

that sounds like a business opportunity to me, if there is a big enough market of rural folk who like to have a toot or two but then have to worry aboot transportation.  Maybe you can get together with some like-minded folk and work up some business plan and then find some backers (Dragon's Den?) and think aboot all those potential people being helped.

Maybe call it the Root n Toot?  Farm Cab?  Safe n' Tractor?

It seems to me that having a designated driver is always an option, no matter what size of town you are in?

As an aside, by far the coolest taxi I have ever ridden in was in a small community (one of the smaller gulf islands on the coast of BC). I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the cab coming towards me - it was a Mercedes Benz! The female driver told me it was the only cab on the island and she was the only driver.

A drink an hour for 3 hours would have me violently ill and closed to passed out.  Tolerances seem to vary.

I live in a remote northern community with poor taxi service, and no public transit after about 6:00 p.m. In the winter temperatures go down to blistering cold levels of -40 or so, and there can be a windchill on top of that. I run the education groups that people have to take after they've received a DUI. I've heard all the excuses. It is my opinion that you can walk anywhere to anywhere in this town if you are dressed properly. I walked my dog every day last winter, and it was a tough winter.

That being said, I know it is not realistic to walk to the bar on every occasion. There have been changes in this community in the past year since the law changed. We now have a service that drives you and your vehicle home for $30 if you live in town. It will cost more if you live out of town. This service has also been hired for events. Event planners have made arrangements for volunteers to provide this service as well. Most bars in town have shuttle busses for their patrons now. One has a snazzy stretch limo. They will even come and pick you up at your home, or from another bar. The stupid rules that prevent others from starting a taxi service in town are being challenged, and hopefully we will see more taxis. People make sure they have a designated driver.

It is quite possible to separate drinking from driving. If the community can adapt here, it can adapt anywhere. I didn't mention, this is a rather redneck community that likes to party hearty. Heck, even behaviour of the oil patch workers is changing.....and that is a huge thing!

These options are not going to happen here for reasons that I won't go into because it will sound like I'm justifying them, and since I don't support these reasons, I'm not going to do that. Suffice it to say that there will be no service of this kind in the foreseeable future. That said, the only option is hitch-hiking and we know where this leaves young women - is anyone familiar with what has happened along the Highway of Tears in BC? 

Hitch-hiking was all the rage back in the 1960's-70's.  I got in with one guy, and he did not stop when I asked to be let out.  I got out at the next red light.   I still get the creeps thinking about that.  What fools we were!

Mike, I agree with you, but I think it would be wrong to just implement tougher laws and charging people without educating them.  Like I said, I don't have an issue with tougher laws, but those alone won't prevent drinking and driving.

When BC implemented the tougher laws, it also had an education program. Now the perception is that the legal limit is .05% even though this has always been a threshold for legal consequences. There has been quite a noticable change in people's drinking habits at restaurants and apparently bars. People are talking about this. Our laws have made a difference, and have reduced the fatalities considerably.

While I agree that education is better than legislation, sometimes only legislation will make the big difference.

Northwind, there is a huge difference between zero tolerance and an impaired.

My point is that the zero tolerance should not be considered a serious offence, in teh same way that an impaired is...ie 3 years on your license,etc.

Zero tolernace does not mean you are impaired...by legal definition, just that you broke the law for zero alcohol consumption

Northwind, thanks for sharing more about the changes and BC.  It sounds like it worked well there and hopefully it will work just as well here!

Chemgal: I wasn't really advocating extreme penalties so much as reflecting on the sorts of "education" that would be needed to bear comparison with the more or less successful anti-smoking "education" campaigns... the graphic compulsory images on beer labels, etc.

Here are some of the "Counterattack" ads that I have found to be very good

(I'm having trouble finding my 'favourite', it's one camera angle looking out from the window of a flipped over car and you can see an RCMP officer walking towards you...then they kneel down and ask how you are and then when they make eye contact the look of horror that comes on their face...)

I understand why the legal age for driving is how it is; there is a part of our brains that is able to modulate or (think ahead) to act or not on our urges and strong feelings, that part of the brain is still developing even in teenagers.

I wonder how teenagers have learned to drive in earlier times. And, the adolescent stage of brain development doesn't finish until age 25 so that makes me wonder when the graduated licensing programs are going to further infantalize young adults by extending their age-reach into the mid-20s. 

http://www.thebrainwizard.com/braindevelopment/development

Neato website Motheroffive :3

Soon I hear our lovely vehicles will soon be under computer control, in the name of efficiency (global warming etc) & safety.  We'll just plug in or say our destionation and our vehicle will take us there.

(barring the invention of teleport pads/Serial Suicide Booths, of course)

Inanna, the videos are graphic, but I'm not sure how much they work.  I think things like the PARTY program probably work better, but maybe they need a refresher as grade 9 students aren't driving (I think that's when it was offered here, it was before I was 16).

I also wonder about how things work in BC.  If someone can't pass a breathalyzer test, what happens (not because they were necessarily drinking)?  Do they test any driver, or is it based on signs of impairment?

 They don't just test anyone here - you have to be showing signs of alcohol or drug consumption.

An acquaintance of mine did not pass a breathalyzer test. He had his license suspended and when it was returned, he had to have the interlock device installed in his car - for the next year. This experience has certainly made him think about his actions.

Actually, with the new laws, the police can randomly stop drivers now. They do not have to have reason, though they usually stop people if they see something that suggests the person has been drinking. The Party program is here in this town at least and I think it is aimed at the grade nine level. I'm not absolutely certain on that one.

I do the groups that people have to take if they are charged with impaired driving in BC. The options are either an 8 hour, or 16 hour course. Most people get referred to the 16 hour course. People are not happy with all the consequences in the new law, fines, Interlock device, course, but they certainly think about it. It may make them think about reoffending.

Again, though, those who in rural areas not only have to take the courses but they have to travel significant distances to participate. (Same with the courses for seniors who are thought to need some refreshing, btw.) So, the options for alternate transportation are diminished and the punishment is greater for those who live "beyond Hope". So, drunk drivers are, in effect, punished more in rural areas than those in cities despite the fact that there are other possibilities in urban communities.

I don't drink at all, to speak of, but I object to this in the same way that I object to policies and laws that are not even in how they affect people. One could argue that the law is the same but, just as with other aspects of our lives, we know that a variety of factors are at play. 

One reason why there are limits on where the courses are held is availability of facilitators. I am currently doing two groups that run every other week, and then weekend groups that happen about once per month. I do live in a rural area with limited public transportation. I've heard all the arguments about how it is difficult to avoid driving after drinking. There is one sure fire way to avoid charges, don't drive after drinking.

This area has also had some very spectacular and tragic motor vehicle crashes because of drinking drivers. The most recent one happened about a month ago. Four young football players were killed, a fifth ended up in hospital in Edmonton. The young driver who drank and drove, and likely drove well over the speed limit, now has his life ruined because of a terrible decision he made.

Motheroffive, how often do rural drivers get caught?  I imagine that it's usually while driving in a city, or if they were pulled over for something else, or had a collision.  I would be a little surprised if checkstops were set up in rural areas considering how few are set up in citites?  They might be punished more if caught, but they are probably also less likely to be caught.  I don't think the 2 justify each other, but it is another way to look it at.

 I wonder if they will ever do video conferencing for the classes, it could save costs (especially if they charge the same amount) and more people could do a class at a time.

Northwind, they might randomly stop people, but they still have to have reasonable suspicion to use the breathalyzer, correct?  I'm curious as I'm not confident I could always pass a breathalyzer without having had a drink.  I'm not sure what type of lung capacity the current ones require, and certain conditions and medications can also alter the results.

Northwind, if you're hearing that I'm offering excuses, please let me clarify. I do not drink myself for the most part and I wish others didn't. However, the reality is that people do so therefore, precautions to protect themselves and others need to be put in place. This is more difficult in rural areas and thus, rural people are expected to exhibit a different behaviour than their city counterparts in respect to alcohol use. 

When the precautionary approach fails and a educational/punitive approach it taken, drivers in rural areas have far less access to programs that officially rehabilitate them. I recognize that facilitators might not be available in all places, however there are lots of skilled people in our area that could be approached to offer the course somewhere closer than several hours away, through mountain passes. I highly doubt that there has been any thought given to doing so, frankly.

The tougher laws are in effect here.  I sought out more information and found out that it doesn't matter the reason for refusing to provide a breath sample, you are penalized the same.  If you try to give a breath sample, but are unable to it also counts as a refusal.  I'm not impressed by the change.  You cannot choose to give a blood sample.

I'm all for penalizing people who are drinking too much and driving.  Why do they have to discriminate against people with respiratory issues to do so?

I think if you can show that you have legitimate respiratory issues you will be okay. A lot of people pretend they can't blow properly in order to avoid problems.

Similar laws have been in effect in BC for almost two years. They were challenged, then slightly tweaked so that people have more recourse to dispute the charges. The fatality rates from drinking and driving have gone way down since these laws came into effect.

Northwind, I directly asked.  That's how the law is set up.  Of course, the police always use their own discretion (most people don't have to blow when stopped at a checkstop anyway).  If one decides to be a jerk though, someone would automatically lose their car (temporarily) and have to go through the appeal process.

One thing our amendments did was remove some of the power of the police. The way the law stood before, the officer was sort of judge and jury. Now the person can ask for a second test, and the lower of the two tests is the one that stands.

It sucks that a person would have to go through an appeal process if they have respiratory issues. Hopefully the officer would be smart and have some discretion on that area. Of course, being a jerk is not wise under those circumstances. The police office might be an ass, but s/he has the power, and being mindful of that is always wise.

The Alberta law is set up to asssume guilt.  And by instituting a loss of driving privleges until the case is resolved it provides punishment before conviction.  Chemgal is accurate in that not providing a sample (while there is still some room for police discretion) is the same whether it is for refusal or inability.

It is also argued that becasue of the way the law is written there is an incentive for people to plead guilty and resolve quickly whether they are guilty or not.

I will have to check the Alberta law and compare it.

If you are subject to an Immediate Roadside Prohibition in BC, your vehicle will be impounded for 30 days, your licence suspended for 90, and you will have to take a remedial driver course, pay fines, and install an Interlock device in your vehicle. It is similar to a speeding ticket, where you do not go to court unless you are appealing it. I am going to check on what happens if you have respiratory issues.

One thing that happened here, is people thought the legal limit was reduced to .05 from .08 because the consequences for falling within that range had increased. Thinking the legal limt had changed to .05 made a big difference. People were not as willing to gamble on that number as they were on .08. A lot of behaviour changed with this, so that also had a big impact on the fatalities and rates of drinking and driving. Of course though, the people who are on the roads after drinking now tend to have a higher BAC because they don't get it....or something.

Sorry for being a little fuzzy on the details - it's been a little while.

In the Canada code though, you have the right to refuse to blow if you think it will physically be a risk to yourself.  You can also request a blood sample.  I think that's only for jail time for 0.08 though.  I would just like to see the tougher penalities provide some protection for those who are innocent.

Here's the government page with Alberta's changes:

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/impaireddriving.htm

side-note:  i'm glad that companies like google are helping making driving accidents and reducing drinking & driving...

bless you humanity bless you technology

There is a consequence for refusal to blow in the Criminal Code. There are also fines and licence suspensions in the CCC. In fact, the reason the licence is suspended for 90 days under Motor Vehicle Acts is the CCC says that if a province has a law requiring ignition devices or "blow boxes" then the licence can be returned after 90 days. All the MVA's have to follow the guidelines (for lack of a better word right now) of the CCC.

Thanks Northwind!  I wasn't really paying too much attention to the penalities when I looked at it.  It was just more the refusal to blow section and giving a blood sample instead that I was interested in.

I do agree that people with respiratory problems need to be given consideration. Having met so many people who have been charged, I know some will use that as an excuse. Having the option of a blood test would be one way to address this. 

I would have no problem with that, Northwind.  I'm not sure why Alberta removed that option.

Those laws do look stricter than in BC. It looks like you gte charged under the Criminal Code first. The advantage to BC's tougher laws, is you get charged under the MVA so it won't show up on a Criminal Record Check. I tried to post the link to the BC laws, but couldn't from this tablet. They are outlined on the Ministry of Justice, Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles page. 

Edit: I'm on my laptop now, so can put the link in here - http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/prohibitions/impaired-driving.htm#irp