Nothing But a Tax Grab

Ticket Writer"This is nothing but a tax grab!" These words were often spoken by drivers during or just after signing to acknowledge the receipt of a violation ticket. I can understand being the target of an expression of frustration in these circumstances, but I wish that the expressing had a little thought behind it rather than just parroting something inappropriate to the circumstances.

To me a tax grab is an unscrupulous action by government at any level to extract money from taxpayers for general revenue. It was untaxed before hand, we cannot avoid the new tax and it is seen as having no benefit by the taxpayer. Hopefully this is seldom the case and something we will actually have control over at the next election.

A violation ticket is the most commonly used tool in an attempt to modify driving behaviour, encourage compliance with the rules and promote road safety. If you truly believe that this is a tax grab then I invite you to reconsider. Voluntary conformity will eliminate the "tax." Deliberate violation is a decision that you make and means that you chose to accept the risk of being "taxed."

Photo radar, red light cameras and increased penalties for distracted driving are not examples of tax grabs. They are genuine attempts by the people that we elect to make our highways safer to drive on. I will accept that photo radar was politically unpalatable, but it still may be a bitter pill that we should swallow in our own best interests.

Reference Links:


Where does the money go?

Obviously, penalizing drivers - or car owners - by forcing them to pay in dollars for breaking the rules was not intended originally to squeeze money out of people in order to swell government coffers.

But where are we at these days, in terms of administration?  

One would expect that the money paid by miscreants for their malfeasance (hey that was pretty good, eh?) would be put toward things like traffic enforcement (cops have a cost, whatever they're doing) or highway improvement, driver education, etc; things that would advance safety.

So, someone tell me - where does the money go?  Toward safety initiatives - or government funding?

We have a penalty point system in place here in BC, it's been in place for years.  Take a look at MVA(R) Division 28 for details.  (As an aside, if you're ever trying to find this or that in the Motor Vehicle Act - which is very poorly indexed - Div. 28 is a great place to use as a reference for the section you're after.)  The whole idea behind a penalty/demerit point system is that - regardless of how wealthy you are - if you continually break the rules, your driving privileges will be revoked for a finite period.  That way, the most dangerous drivers are removed from the road (so that the rest of us are protected from them) and forced to experience the inconvenience of being unable to legally drive.

Incidentally, but relevantly I think, 14,000 drivers were ticketed in 2014 for driving without a license.  And that doesn't just mean they left it at home, it means they were no longer licensed to drive, or possibly never were in the first place.

But for years now, police have been making their own lives easier by adopting a stance, following collisions, of not blaming anybody.  No tickets.  No point penalties.  They will say 'ICBC will deal with this' as their excuse for not allocating blame to the driver most at fault, when in fact they're just doing their best to avoid having to go to court and defend their policing actions; quite understandable, as they have nothing to gain from it and valuable time to lose doing so.  But this inaction on the part of police does NOTHING toward eliminating bad drivers from continuing to drive badly.

Ever wonder why ICBC keeps increasing our insurance rates, even when we accumulate zillions of kilometers of accident free driving?  It's to cover their costs, and then some; the 'some' usually gets skimmed off the top, and transferred to the government's coffers.

But don't anybody go calling this a tax grab!

Have faith that your elected government, ICBC, and the police forces out there, are actually doing all that they can to keep us all safe from dangerous drivers.  I mean, that's why we put them in power, isn't it?

It's an ease conscience statement.

Bad and uneducated drivers use the term "tax grab" to cover up the truth for their selfish, non caring dangerous driving. Blaming the government and police for something that is 100% the fault of bad drivers, it somehow seems to give them some sort of justification for their ignorance.

The reality is that bad drivers aren't being "forced to pay" they choose to voluntarily donate their money rather than drive safely and quit risking their and everyone else's lives. It makes little difference where the money goes as the bad drivers are in reality taking it out of their wallets & purses and burning it for no reason what so ever, if they don't have any concern that they are throwing money away because they refuse to pay attention and drive safely within the law & continue to needlessly risk lives, what gives them the right to say what happens to that money?

Of course the few good drivers would like to see the money going into driver education, automated speed cameras, ALPR's and computers that link police real time so they can catch the worst offenders stolen vehicles and vehicles with no insurance, while at the same time catching virtually all speeders & aggressive drivers so that 85% of the speeders will now have to follow the law rather than have clueless politicians setting speed limits by them and leave that up to real engineers.

The long term results would be far safer roads, cheaper insurance and police could focus their resources on DUI & distracted drivers for instance and other crimes.

Follow the Money

Revenue from traffic tickets is distributed back to the municipalities for use in public safety related programs. Rural areas benefit from reduced policing costs.

My curiosity is with oversight. Does anyone make sure that the money is actually used as intended? This 2012 report from the City of Abbotsford says:


On an annual basis, by June 30th, the city and the Abbotsford Police Department are required to report intended uses of the funds. They do this by way of a template that sets out intended use, performance targets, and progress made.

So it does appear that the provincial government is taking steps to insure that the money is used as intended.

It is what it is

As every case have to be examined on its merits - some situations are safety policing, while others are a blatant money/ticket/activity grab.

When a bunch of Occifers gather up at the bottom of a hill on the highway, just past the unreasonable 80 sign, plucking random motorists out of a crowd of 100km/h+ traffic on a sunny day - its one thing.

When a courteous Police member is monitoring a residential 4 way stop high crash intersection in the rain after dark - issuing tickets and warnings for the incorrect stops - thats a whole different case.

Regardless of where the money goes, I believe that the monetary penalties, or rather the consequences thereof in light of the majority's living situation are the main reason that 14 THOUSAND drivers were ticketed for driving unlicensed in 2014.

As far as the cant-do-the-time-dont-do-the-crime sentiment goes, it is infuriating that anybody would put that nonsense on the discussion table; since considering that a typical driver commits a ticketable offence every 3 city blocks on average, the potential for the money grab is enormous.

People's collective driving habits and rule books co-exist in parallel realities - just see what the Google Autonomous Car engineers have to say about it. They are on the forefront of the inquiry into the duplicitous nature of how people drive and how they should be driving. There is simply a ton of money in the divide of proper and expedient that it seems, at-least from one perspective, that this can be treated as an odd "savings account" for the municipalities. Perhaps municipalities/police enforce only 3% of ticketable offences now, but with a simple order they could be out in full force - raising revenue like never before.

Will that increased enforcement order come on the tail of the increased safety concerns or will it be in-connection with the budgets being covered in red ink - only time will tell.

From the things that we publicly know, facts that have happened: certain jurisdictions in the USA have ramped up enforcement as the municipal budgets dwindled in the recession - with fine enforcement, penalties for missed payments, fines for non-payment and extortionary settlement tactics being rolled out in full force to prop up the sinking municipal budgets when all other sources of revenue have failed.

If its not a tax grab now - it certainly has all the potential of being one in the future.

I believe that monetary penalties should be completely phased out of safety enforcement as far as the driving is concerned. And that the scene from the 5th element - where an on-board computer monitors and subtracts available points from a license inserted into the terminal is a much more safety conscious system; but I am uncertain that it really is required in order to make everyone drive safer.

Since engineering advancements have taken the biggest toll out of the road-toll, perhaps the focus should yet again be with car manufactures to a) prevent tailgating, b) prevent distracted driving, c) prevent rolling stops/crosswalk accidents all via machine methods - taking the driver out of the equation completely.

Thank You for proving my point :-)

Lets start with your comment,

"As far as the cant-do-the-time-dont-do-the-crime sentiment goes, it is infuriating that anybody would put that nonsense on the discussion table; since considering that a typical driver commits a ticketable offence every 3 city blocks on average, the potential for the money grab is enormous."

Funny if you take an average driver doing say 20,000 km's per year, then look at my almost 39 years and 5 million km's, that's an average driver driving for 250 years. And yet I have ZERO tickets, not one photo radar ticket or moving violation and I have driven from Dawson City Yukon to south of Acapulco Mexico. 100% proof it is very possible to follow all laws while operating a motor vehicle, do you have any idea how many " 3 city blocks " that is?

2nd is your other comment,

"When a bunch of Occifers gather up at the bottom of a hill on the highway, just past the unreasonable 80 sign, plucking random motorists out of a crowd of 100km/h+ traffic on a sunny day - its one thing."

Here is the proof I talk about where drivers "Choose to DONATE" their money for no reason what so ever. Just because your "Opinion" the speed limit is unreasonable, in now way gives you the "RIGHT" to break the law. Doing so is your choice to not only risk getting a ticket, but your choice to ignore safety and risk the lives of law biding drivers & their passengers. The weather has absolutely  no bearing on if it's "fine in your opinion" to speed, you somehow think because it's sunny that makes it OK, very wrong attitude & nothing to do with safety, but instead proof of you being an uneducated and uncaring selfish driver. The laws of the road apply to all drivers regardless of your opinion, if you feel a speed limit or some law is incorrect, then rally the  government to get them changed, not just make your own laws as you go as driving is a privilege, not a right. There is always walking or transit if you can't handle following all the laws, see how "unreasonable" that 80 km/hr sign seems then :-)

Proof? What proof?

"look at my almost 39 years and 5 million km's not one photo radar ticket or moving violation"

Sure, I'll take a look, post a link. Absent a link...:

Its easy to preach from a high-unicorn position, but unicorns do not exist and neither does a driver that committed no offenses in 5 million km's. And even if it did appear to happen that no tickets or infractions what-so-ever have ever been recorded against your license(s), do not expect anyone to believe that arguably you have never miscalculated a point of no return and blew through a red light, or that your speedometer needle has never-even been north of the number corresponding to the speed limiting sign applicable to a given section at the time (even by 0.5km/h), or that your choice of speed was always appropriate to the adverse meteorological conditions from the perspective of a leo that simply wasn't there to give you a ticket.

The rest of your unconscionable tirade that uses you and your in relation to me and mine - portraying something that you have no credible evidence to state one way or another - is nonsensical and is considered 'mauvais ton' in polite company.

Here's a video of a law professor explaining in-part the cant-do-the-time-dont-do-the-crime sentiment.

2017/04/29: YouTube advises that the video has been removed due to a copyright claim.

So your calling me a Liar.

Just because you can't comprehend the correct lawful way to operate a motor vehicle may make it hard for you to believe, but that sounds like a personal problem to me.

What reason would I have to lie on social media? No I have never run a red light or for that matter ever caused a crash and yes I always adjust my speed to road conditions, mother nature is the boss. And from 4 wheels to 30 wheels on the ground I have never had a ticket. Rant away all you like about unicorns, it won't change the "true facts" and neither will not believing me. Who on this planet can produce a "link" to their entire driving history? That's laughable, the best I can even offer my employers is a drivers abstract that has always just stated " Nothing to Report" Something I'm proud of and your "Opinion" can't change.

But keep trying to make feeble excuses for your lack of driving knowledge and trying to justify breaking the law & receiving tickets is somehow the "Norm", When something like knowledge & paying attention can eliminate. Choosing to speed, not follow the laws & DUI are ALL 100% Avoidable, go ahead and try and argue that point.

Liar does what a liar does

If you have submitted your driver abstracts to employers, and if you tout such an amazing record, it is not unreasonable to assume that you have kept records (for instance - I still have a scan of my original knowledge test score-sheet - since I only got 1 question wrong - for a 98.5% score - I was quite proud of it at the time and saved it into my e-mailbox). A driver abstract covers a span of 7 years, it would only take 6 historical snapshots to substantiate your 39 year claims.

A link to Imgur album would be sufficient, name and license can be redacted - dates have to correspond - you'd go viral as the best driver ever (better than Chuck Norris even). Absent such concrete proof your claims are wild and unbelievable simply on the perceived value of your statement or rather how wildly it differs from the opinions publicly expressed by the many traffic enforcement officers - i.e. "if you follow somebody for a few blocks - you'll have a legitimate reason to pull them over" - just like the 28 year veteran enforcer states in the video I posted, just like Cst. Tim has alluded in their own career, just like is confirmed by multiple respondents on BlueLine, etc.

Your truth is simply too far from the conventional truths that ordinarily orbit the topic.

Seeing how you confirm nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations - shifting some sort of merit-less claims as to me and mine or my habits - you are in the least a hypocrite and at the worst a liar, a blusterer and a fraud.

If your claims of 5 million kilometers ticket/offense free saint-like driving turns out to be true - I will be first in-line to the City Hall to nominate you to the driver/citizen of the past 4 decades award!

Extracting perceived authority from a concoction of unsubstantiated statements will never be accepted by me or any other reasonable and prudent corespondent in an open discussion. I would refrain from continually making such claims without concrete proof as to not appear belligerent or untrustworthy. At best you can make claims to a 7 year span that you purport to be able to prove.

So you can't answer.

And instead just turned this into a personal attack on my record, as far as I know Tim being a retired police officer could check my record to see if in fact I am telling the truth, and he definitely has my permission if he can or knows someone that can. I will go to the motor vehicle branch tomorrow and see how far they can go back, if there is a way to go back more than what they do on an abstract I will for sure get that info. But you can keep your awards, my self satisfaction is more than enough, and the farther I drive is even more reason for me to keep a perfect record, the no tickets are a bonus, but the biggest part I'm proud of is I never caused a crash and caused other families to suffer from my inattention, law breaking or speeding.

I have been followed for more than a few blocks and haven't been pulled over, but that's because I follow the law so what can they pull me over for? I would have no problem being computer tracked, I have nothing to hide, what is it that I "denyed everything" as you claim? And I'm not refraining from telling the truth, if you or others don't believe me, I could care less what you think, it only matter to me that I know for a fact it's true in the long run. the other reason I won't lie is certain RCMP know who I am on this sight from e-mailing & talking to them, I have invited them to check my comments, and unlike your opinion, theirs I do value :-)

I see your avoiding questions after your claims of calling police issuing tickets a "Tax Grab" though. "Choosing to speed, not follow the laws & DUI are ALL 100% Avoidable, go ahead and try and argue that point." You put the blame on police for drivers that choose to break the law, that is the "Topic" your excuses like it was sunny or unreasonable speeds shows your lack of proper driving knowledge, that is not accusations, as you claim, that is just the facts.

Personal attack?

Review the thread, you started with the personal attack on me and mine and you have done so to other reasonable corespondents in other threads on this site.

You claim a position of authority that you derive from your supposed record - the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your position. I am not the one claiming that I know better than anybody else here because "I have 250 years of average driver's experience. I drove  5 million kilometers over 39 years with no tickets or offences" - you are.

"So you calling me a liar", "You must be a troll", "So you can't answer"

- are all deflections and red herrings, and are the tell-tale signs of pathological liars.

If I do not buy your perceived authority and reasonably require proof to accept your high and mighty position - why would I engage in any further discussion derived from the same unproven premise.

I am now fully convinced that you are a liar, a blusterer and a fraud, anything else you say is non-sequitur until your very incredible record materializes.

In-fact I am so convinced that you are full of hot air about your supposed innocence, that in absence of records (that you don't want to supply) I will put my money where my mouth is and I will pay CompetentDrivingBC for a driver evaluation package (a $100+ value) on your behalf, if CompetentDrivingBC will accept you as a customer. I will accept the word of CompetentDrivingBC that indicates that as a result of the driver's evaluation your claim of an incredible achievement over the last 39 years is plausible. And you will get a formal letter of evaluation from a credentialed instructor that you can use to support your employment applications in the future. I don't care about the details of the evaluation - that's between you and the instructor. Having previously done an evaluation with CompetentDrivingBC myself I will believe 100% a simple yes or no from him.

P.S. It blows my mind that a person as senior as you would continue to argue in bad faith the way you do - just another argument against your trustworthiness.

Thanks for proving you can't answer.

  1. You made totally false claims about police handing out tickets for no more than a "Tax Grab" You continue to avoid backing up your comments that I pointed out as being totally false as that is the topic on this thread.

But instead you continue your attack on me because you can't believe I'm telling the truth. "(that you don't want to supply)" Funny my very comment before you claim this lie, is I said I'm going to see if I can get my record and gave permission to Tim if he is able too. ICBC told me today they can only go back 5 years, they delete everything else, please check yourself as you don't believe anything I say. I even pointed out other RCMP have read my comments by my request, but you still insist I'm a liar. So think what you must, I know the truth and that is all that really matters.

As far as CompetentDrivingBC, you believe him even though he teaches and argues contrary to the law, he teaches by ICBC's made up out of thin air rules rather than MVA 165, as one reason I had RCMP read my comments, to make sure I was correct in my understanding of the law. RCMP confirmed the MVA applies to all motor vehicles, there are no exceptions for commercial vehicles in how they finish right or left turns at multi lane intersection. I'm still waiting for a reply from Suzanne Anton as to why ICBC can make it's own rules & why a commercial driver would get 3 points & $109 ticket when ICBC teaches & Grants commercial licenses contrary to the law & they would fail to obtain a commercial license everywhere but BC.

So out of respect for the site owner Tim, and as your never going to believe me, even after all I have said & posted, and I know you can't prove me wrong as I am telling the truth and don't need to justify that truth to you, there is no point taking this up with you on this site as you won't answer questions on the topic of the thread, and that is the point of this site.

It is useless to provide any answers to you

As the above well expanded and unilaterally reasonable discussion highlights, anything that you say about your record, knowledge or experience can only be backed up to a 5 year period. And therefore, by extension of you making wild claims, any other argument you present is by default preposterous and answering any of them forces the correspondent to accept the above standing uproven premise.

There is no point of engaging in any discussion on any aspects of your ramblings before a reasonable process of discovery absolves your miraculous claims of any doubt because that resets the tone of the discussion from preposterous to plausible.

I highly doubt that any RCMP member current or retired would put up their professional word to back up your original claim. But even if what you claim is the god-given-truth, the way you go about setting your arguments is in bad spirit and not in-line with the most humane, democratic and balanced process of truth discovery known to man.

Sir, as long as you belligerently and aggressively insist on bludgeoning your corespondents to accept your fairy tails you are what you are - an unreasonable/unwelcome participant to any discussion between self-respecting people in any medium what-so-ever - white noise.

Nothing but a Tax Grab?

In light of today's revelation in this article by Michael Mulligan of Mulligan Tam Pearson that ICBC admits it does not have any credible statistics to support their often repeated claim that the Immediate Roadside Prohibition scheme, introduced in 2010 to combat impaired driving, has saved hundreds of lives, I would have to conclude that sadly, in this case, the label tax grab seems appropriate.

The government has consistently brushed aside legitimate concerns over the law's fairness and it's severely limited review process for drivers who believe they are innocent, by claiming that lives have been saved and that outweighs any fairness concerns.  After all, who can argue with lives saved, however that's accomplished, right?  

Well now, according to this ICBC report, it appears the government has really had no idea all along if this law has actually been effective, and hasn't even tried to collect proper statistics.  But no matter, they're making millions from extra fines, the towing companies are making millions from towing and impound fees and ICBC is making millions from the extra penalty points assessed to convicted drivers.  

I expect this particulr law to remain in place, whatever the questions, and the millions will keep rolling in to the beneficiaries.  Are the people of B.C. being protected from impaired drivers by this draconian law as claimed?  The government doesn't appear to have any way of knowing the answer to that all important question.  At least I thought that was the all important question.  It is to me.

What a sad outlook on reality.

The amended MVA allows DUI, careless & dangerous drivers including excessive speeders, drivers with no licenses or insurance taken off the road immediately.

So because ICBC can't come up with an "Exact" number of people that have been saved, even though fairly accurate estimations can be made, you call this a "Tax Grab" How sad you can think that way :-(

Then you claim the government is unfair for allowing these drivers to be taken off the road, wow really? You suggest leaving them on the roads to take lives & injure other humans, because that is a proven fact every single day. And the multi millions of dollars they cost innocent drivers & humans in insurance increases and lost productivity and suffering.

Yet as it is their "Choice" to break the law and risk/kill & injure innocent drivers & pedestrians, your more concerned with what it costs these law breakers in fines and label it a tax grab. How very sad your outlook on reality is so one sided, and on the side of the drivers that create all the problems & grief.

Impaired Driving

I'm not going to take issue about ICBC and credible statistics, but I will take issue with impaired drivers. They know damned well when they get behind the wheel that they should not be there. If that is their choice, well too bad when the IRP jumps all over them. Drive sober and it won't happen.

Impaired Driving

I would agree with your statement completely if it weren't for the fact that the IRP system relies largely upon evidence provided by roadside screening devices, which are not to be confused with the far more sophisticated and accurate breathalyzer device.  A breathalyzer test is admissable in a criminal trial, whereas the test of the far simpler and less accurate screening device encountered at a roadblock is not.

The IRP system functions this way because it doesn't charge drivers criminaly and can't becasue the evidence used would never pass muster in criminal court and the government knows it.  A few months ago B.C.'s police forces quietly replaced all of their alcohol screening devices with new models becasue they were experiencing such a high malfunction and failure rate.  When I approach a police roadblock I know there is no alcohol in my bloodstream, but I have no confidence that the equipment used by police will demonstrate that fact, and I have no confidence in the unacceptably limited appeals process now in use if should I be wrongfully charged.  It's all well and good to say just don't drink and drive and you've nothing to worry about, but the reality of the IRP system is very different and should not have the confidence of anyone who does a little of their own research, rather than just accepting the "facts" in government press releases.

I want impaired drivers off of our roads as much as anyone and make no excuses for them, but I want to  have confidence that we are making a serious effort to only punish those who we are very sure are guilty of an offence, not those who only might be guilty.  Punishing the guilty along with the innocent becsue we can't be bothered to do the hard work of sorting them apart just isn't good enough.  I don't adhere to the "just shoot them all and let God sort it out" method of law enforcement.  B.C. can do better than that.

Facts Missing

Well, I can only speak for experience from using and calibrating the Alcolmeter SL2 and the Alcosensor IV DWF screening devices and operating the Breathalyzer 900A and BAC Datamaster C instruments. You have not quoted anything to the contrary, and I have knowledge of the fact that the Alcosensor and the Datamaster were equally accurate. The screening devices are not acceptable for criminal prosecution directly because the federal government has not designated them as approved instruments for the purposes of the Criminal Code. They could be.

Do you replace worn out equipment in your household or business when it begins to wear out? Do you do mandatory routine maintenance on your equipment? This is the case for screening devices and the evidentiary equipment as well.

I am quite confident that if I had not been drinking and was tested within the guidelines of the IRP I would not have any trouble. If I had not been drinking and was required to submit to testing under the Criminal Code I would have issues with the officer's ability to do his or her job. They require a reasonable suspicion that I have alcohol in my body before they can demand a test.

With the IRP

As far as DUI goes, if the officer has reasonable suspicion a driver has been drinking, the driver gets to blow in 2 separate devices as well if I'm not mistaken.

But this New Years Eve, I had an officer stop me to see if I had been drinking, I clearly had not been as he couldn't smell any, so after chatting for a bit he didn't even submit me to a breathalyzer, so not having any alcohol I find it very odd someone would not feel confident being stopped in a road check.

Submitted by E-Mail

why don't they put computer in cars & trucks so we cannot speed. They can make cars that you don't drive. So I think the reason is they don't want to lose the income from fines.

At least two reasons come to mind.

Putting a governor in vehicles to cap their top speed seems like a simple solution; some car rental companies in the US experimented with this back in the 50s or 60s; unfortunately, it resulted in some nasty crashes when drivers on two-lane highways pulled out to pass a slower vehicle ahead, and just when they needed all the power available to complete the overtaking maneuver and get back over to their own lane, the motor would go pffffhhht.  Car rental companies don't do that no more.

Besides, if vehicles were to be equipped with a maximum speed governor, then it would have to set to the maximum speed permitted in the jurisdiction where they're licensed and registered.  In BC, that would be 120 km/h.  So it would have no effect on those who speed on roads with lower limits (which would be most of them).

As to the computerisation issue, and cars that you don't drive, I suggest you read the current news on this.  Google's claims to have been operating  'crash free' for zillions of kilometers without human interference have been proven false and one of their cars was recently pulled over by police in California for driving too slowly. Incidentally, those interested in how well cars with semi-autonomous features actually function would do well to read the February 2016 issue of Car and Driver magazine, and their article 'Going to the Dogs'.  If nothing else, it should convince drivers that they should keep their hands on the wheel and their attention on the road; because the cars are far from capable of doing this properly.

The other thing to realize, is that a computerized system that didn't simply govern the top speed of the vehicle would be wholly dependent on feedback from the roadway in use as to the rules in place.  Given the questionable quality of much of our infrastructure already - tunnels and bridges in particular - I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for governments to find the massive funding necessary to put this in place.

"Drive sober and it won't happen"

In response to "DriveSmartBC"s comments....

We have judicial procedures in Canada for a reason.  It isn't supposed to be legal to meet out justice without proper procedures even when people are found committing serious offenses.

Our society has.... sorry, had, decided that for all offenses there should be checks and balances before someone is convicted of a crime.  That was until the BC Liberal party got some "bright" ideas.

"Drive sober and it won't happen", I would say is the same as "Don't drive while impaired, or over the legal limit".

So the grandfather who was intoxicated BUT was a passenger in his own car, being driving by his grandson, who had had absolutely nothing to drink ?  He was victimized by the system that allowed an RCMP officer who had no clue of the law or how to interpret the law and as a result lost his driver's license and vehicle wrongly.

The reliability (or lack of) of breath testing instruments has nothing to do with the IRP.  The IRP was created to cut legal corners, to allow police to be crown witness, crown prosecutor and judge all at the side of the road.

The "fail safe" is also a joke.  A person found guilty at the curb can then appeal his/her roadside conviction to a non-judge administrator, and do so only by being required to comply to rules that make a joke out of the Charter of Rights.

Oh, that's right it's not an "offense", it's just a "administrative sanction".   You can call it anything you like, it's still wrong.

and, yes it works to some degree.  So would linching drinking drivers from the nearest tree.

Let's say the testing was 100% accurate, to get that evidence in front of a court of law to convict a person of criminal drinking and driving (Impaired or over 08) would require reports and the documentation of evidence, that would take TIME, and hey when the fish are biting you don't stop to clean each one.

BUT (the biggie that nobody picks up on) the rule was that the IRP was only going to be used for non-collision events.  Because if a driver is not charged with a criminal offence their liability insurance will still cover them.  And except for hit and run if a driver is not charged criminally they even get their own car fixed at ICBC's expense.

It's happening all the time.

And the ignorant masses we call the public what do they say "well I don't care I don't drink and drive, so it won't affect me"

Tell that to grandpa, the passenger.

Google Ads