The Tough New Vancouver Drunk Driving Laws – An Attempt to Protect the Innocent, or a Self-Serving Money Grab?


by Average Joe Cyclist

If I had to pinpoint the one news story that has disturbed me the most this year, it would definitely be the trial of Carol Berner, the woman who apparently downed most of a bottle of wine before mowing down four-year-old Alexa Middelaer, while the little girl was feeding a horse at the edge of a quiet street in Delta. I do have some sympathy for Berner, who made a tragic mistake and will have to live with it forever.

But mainly, as a parent of three wonderful daughters, I just feel overwhelming sympathy for the parents of that beautiful little girl. Watching them talk on TV over the past few months, I have actually wept for them. And they are not the only parents to have suffered such a tragedy …

So of course I was happy on September 20th, when the BC Government changed the Motor Vehicle Act, announcing that it was introducing the toughest drinking and driving laws in Canada. Effectively, the limit for blood alcohol levels was decreased right down to 0.05, meaning that small people cannot risk even one glass of wine. Even though this means that Maggie and I will no longer be able to go out for dinner and a bottle of wine, if it saves one family from that kind of grief, who am I to complain about minor inconveniences?

Drunk driving can cause devastating accidents. Photo by Hussein Isa

However, right back when it was introduced, the Times Colonist warned that “Critics of the new law say it will effectively `decriminalize’ drunk driving by having many cases dealt with roadside instead of in a courtroom”. I didn’t even notice that warning – I was too busy being happy that cyclists, pedestrians and innocent motorists would be in less danger from impaired drivers.

Has our DUI  Criminal Process been Turned into Nothing but an Administrative Process?

Two months in, lawyer Michael Shapray is saying that what has really happened is that the government has come up with a regime to turn the criminal process that used to handle drunk drivers into an administrative process. Shapray is upset because the number of DUI clients coming into his offices has plummeted. He believes the government’s real motive is to alleviate the pressure on the courts, which are hamstrung by a shortage of judges and prosecutors.

Apparently police used to send suspected DUI drivers in for breathalysers, which initiated criminal charges that often ended up in the courts (providing plenty of business for lawyers). Now, if drivers fail a roadside screening breath test, police just seize their cars and impose the new administrative penalties. This saves the police a lot of paperwork and the courts a lot of cases. It also nets a lot of money for government, as those who blow a “fail” end up paying about $4,000 in administrative penalties. (A heavy hit for those who may have had just two glasses of wine; a get-out-of-jail-almost-free ticket for the very drunk.)

When I read this, I began to think that a move that has been hailed as Canada’s toughest ever crackdown on drunk drivers was just a clever sleight of hand, designed to create the impression of cracking down, while secretly just helping balance the budget by taking pressure off the courts and bringing in revenue.

The Tragic Results of Impaired Driving

However, I changed my mind this morning, listening to an interview on CBC with an emergency room doctor. He spoke about dealing every day with the severely injured or dying victims of drunk drivers. He spoke of the horror of having to give parents the devastating news that their child has been killed by a drunk driver. As he said, these parents will never be the same again (and I know that from personal experience too). This doctor applauded the new laws, saying that the number of victims of drunk drivers coming into his emergency room has plummeted since the new legislation came in.

So now I think that whatever the motive for introducing the new tough laws, if they are saving lives and saving people from the agony of losing their loved ones, then I am 100% behind them.

Random Roadside Checks as Well?

Then the doctor added that the laws don’t go far enough:  what we also need is to introduce random roadside checks. He said that in all the countries that have introduced these, accidents caused by drunk drivers have declined dramatically. (These kinds of checks are however opposed by those who believe they invade privacy rights. Personally, I don’t think anyone has the right to be privately drunk on a public road.)

All of this is especially pertinent today, given that Carol Berner has just been released on bail pending her appeal. Despite accepting responsibility for her actions in court, Berner apparently doesn’t think she should actually be punished for them.

Finally, why is this relevant to a cycling blog? Well, the doctor interviewed on CBC noted that drunk driving has been growing steadily over the years, and that presently if you are driving at night, you should expect that at least one in 42 of the cars you see will be driven by impaired drivers. Well, given that I have noticed that drivers often have difficulty noticing cyclists even when they are sober, I find this pretty terrifying.

Remnants of a bicycle after being hit by a sober driver in broad daylight. Apparently, the motorist did not see the cyclist. The cyclist was seriously injured. Photo by Roadside Pictures

So I say, if even tougher laws will make all of us safer (and when I say all of us, I include motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, little children feeding horses and babies in strollers), then bring ’em on!

And I have to say I am finding it hard to care that fewer impaired drivers means lawyers have less work … almost as hard as I am finding it really hard to care that business in pubs and restaurants is down because patrons are drinking less before they get in their cars …

http://averagejoecyclist.com/?p=2215

by B' Spokes

Like most people I live a hectic life and who has the time for much exercise? Thanks to xtracycle now I do. By using my bike for daily activities I can get things done and get an hour plus work out in 15 minutes extra of my time, not a bad deal and beats taking the extra time going to the gym. In case you are still having trouble being motivated; the National Center of Disease Control says that inactivity is the #2 killer in the United States just behind smoking. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb_nutrition/ ) Get out there and start living life! I can carry home a full shopping cart of groceries, car pool two kids or just get lost in the great outdoors camping for a week. Well I got go, another outing this weekend.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Share It!

Login required to comment
Be the first to comment