Manitoba Hits Drunk Drivers With Harsher Laws ($2,000 Breathalyzer)

Manitoba hits drunk drivers with harsher laws

www.cbc.ca...

Starting this weekend, there will be harsher punishment for drunk driving in Manitoba.

Justice Minister Andrew Swan says as of Dec. 15, anyone convicted, even for the first time, will have to pay to install an ignition interlock device in their car at a cost of $2,000.

The alcohol-detection device is wired directly into a vehicle's ignition system and uses technology similar to that of breathalyzer tests.

A driver must blow into the device, which prevents the vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected.

Currently, only repeat offenders and those convicted of the most serious impaired-driving offences must have ignition interlock systems installed.

"We think that the ignition interlock is a very useful tool and we don't think that other Manitoba taxpayers or other drivers should have to pay for the bad decisions somebody has made," he said at a news conference on Thursday.

"We think it's reasonable that drivers pay that cost."

The proposed legislation was first introduced in May.

Currently, here in BC, tax payers must pay for the installation of Breathalyzers in vehicles. So if Manitoba now moves impaired drivers with the responsibility of installing it into their own cars at their cost, this would be a tax savings to the public.

I am all for it!

I don't drink and drive. If I drove myself to where alcohol is, I either have pop or water. If I was passenger, then drinks away. If I am at home, I drink at home.

I don't have mercy on those who drink and kill others, or risk to kill others, while driving intoxicated.

Kudos to Manitoba for stepping up!

This is a reasonable response to a real problem. It punishes the offender for his/her actions instead of punishing the group. Laws should be more like this. Punish the criminal not the populace.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


Awesome.

Personally I think if you receive a legitimate DUI, then you should have your license revoked, minimum 5 years. Then you must re-do the entire licensing program, drivers ed, beginners then full license.

Nobody has the right to operate a death trap like a vehicle under the influence and endanger the lives of everybody on the road.

~Tenth

Bang on!

If you drink and drive you deserve all you get.

I myself wont drive after just one beer, it's not worth someones life. that's what taxi's are for.

Hey guys...

Here is a helpful link....

B.A.C Calculator

That is an american site but i got below limit info from the Ministry Of Transportation (Ontario)

sometimes you will have couple of beers with friends when you are not expecting it or not plan to.... it happened to many of us.

Anyway...

below < 0.05 = Safe...

0.05-0.08 = "Warn Range" : First Time: Vehicle towed, license suspended for 3 days, $150 fine, Penalty increases as offensive is repeated.

Over > 0.08 = Criminal Offence.

An estimation... a 200 pound guy could drink 2 beers and 2 shots over 2hour duration...which would bring him to 0.0497.
Disclaimer: value may vary according to type, brand, consuming speed and duration of the alcohol. Please drink responsibly.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


Awesome. Finally the punish the person not the people.

You people crack me up. Deny ignorance? If you are awake for 24hrs it is perfectly ok to kill someone with your car. Taking prescription meds or over the counter meds that affect your driving and it is alright to kill someone with you vehicle. Have a couple of beers and you are a criminal, fined, jailed, and hated but smoke something illegal and it is alright to kill. Drive like a idiot and it is alright to kill and maim. How about just having the police ACTUALLY do their jobs and ticket those who are driving erratically whatever their reason? The actual reason there are DUI laws is MADD made it ok for the government to NOT do their jobs by concentrating on something they can make money on.

Police departments are PAID extra money by the federal government for arresting drunk drivers, not drivers that are dangerous, and you people fall for it letting the government make extra money while leaving the streets dangerous. For you it is a feel good thing, not a real thing. I have no problem with anyone who is a accident getting punished for drunk driving IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT yet people have their lives destroyed while NOT AT FAULT for what happened and you folks cheer.

For those who are about to flame. I have never had a DUI in my life. I do not drive drunk. However I HAVE been in several accidents where I was not at fault. The other drivers would have gone to jail if they were DUI but as they were not drunk they were let go. It seems you are allowed to kill people with your vehicle so long as you do not drink before you do it. Anything else is just fine. Oh and by the way. DUI checkpoints have nothing to do with catching drunk drivers. It is nothing but a cash cow for not wearing seatbelts, not having insurance, or anything else. Just for having them though the police department gets extra money.

Open your eyes folks. Get the wool out of them.

To my American friends.....

Keep in mind this comes from a country that routinely releases sex offenders, murderers, rapists, child killers, etc.

Canada also seems to be proud of giving "day passes" to all those types mentioned above.

Canada has a legal system, but certainly no justice.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


Statistics don't lie...try this on for size from MADD:

Estimating the Number and Cost of ImpairmentRelated Traffic Crashes in Canada: 1999 to 2008

www.madd.ca...(2008%20Stats%20Report)_FINAL.pdf
Published: January 2011

Notes:
PDO = "Property Damage Only Vehicles"
BAC = "Blood-Alcohol Concentration"

The BAC data suggests that for every 1% of crash deaths that are alcohol-related, 0.5% of crash injuries and 0.3% PDO vehicles are alcohol-related.

In other words, if alcohol-related crash deaths went up 10%, alcohol-related injuries would go up 5% and PDO vehicles would go up 3%. Again, using these ratios, one can estimate from the number of alcohol-related fatalities the number of alcohol-related injuries and PDO vehicles.

Finally, studies on drug and alcohol-related crashes indicate that where there is a positive BAC, about 75% of the cases involve alcohol alone and about 25% also involve drugs. In addition, there are another 10% of crashes that involve drugs alone.

Between 1999 and 2008, traffic crashes involving alcohol and/or drugs resulted in an estimated 12,100 deaths, 713,845 injuries and damage to 2,359,190 vehicles in property-damage only (PDO) crashes alone. It is also estimated that there were 10,083 fatal impaired driving crashes, 487,952 injury-only impaired crashes and 1,552,097 PDO impaired crashes, totaling 2,050,132 crashes.

Using a social cost model, these deaths, injuries and PDO crashes cost Canadians an estimated $205.3 billion. Based on a population of 33 million people, that represents a cost of about $6,221 per Canadian.

Given the relative stability of the impairment-related crash deaths, injuries, PDO crashes and costs during the ten-year period, it seems reasonable to express the statistics in terms of an annual average.

In an average year, impairment-related crashes resulted in an average of 1,210 deaths, 71,385 injuries and damage to 235,919 vehicles in PDO crashes a year. On average, there were 1,008 fatal impaired driving crashes, 48,795 injury-only impaired crashes and 155,210 PDO impaired crashes a year, totaling an average of 205,013 impaired driving crashes.

These deaths, injuries and PDO crashes cost Canadians an estimated $20.53 billion, or about $622 per Canadian.

In 2008, the most recent year for which there is data, impairment-related crashes resulted in an estimated 1,162 fatalities, 68,538 injuries and damage to 226,522 vehicles in PDO crashes. There were a total of 196,845 crashes, costing an estimated $21.6 billion.

From a citizen, I look at the fatalities and especially costs burdened on society. If there are a lot of accidents in any one year, the cost of insurance increases as well. Why should I pay more for insurance? Already the rates increased this year alone by I believe 20% across the board!

Moreover, the less impaired people on the road the better. This includes over medication and drug use. If the police can catch these criminals before they cause an accident the safer it will be for me to drive.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


It sounds like a good device to use around disney world.
But in the real world you would pay 5 bucks for some one else
to breath into the device and vroom!

Originally posted by Robbo2006
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

It sounds like a good device to use around disney world.
But in the real world you would pay 5 bucks for some one else
to breath into the device and vroom!

Try Las Vegas instead There you would need breathalyzers along the sidewalks

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
You people crack me up. Deny ignorance?

If you are awake for 24hrs it is perfectly ok to kill someone with your car. Taking prescription meds or over the counter meds that affect your driving and it is alright to kill someone with you vehicle.

Have a couple of beers and you are a criminal, fined, jailed, and hated but smoke something illegal and it is alright to kill. Drive like a idiot and it is alright to kill and maim. How about just having the police ACTUALLY do their jobs and ticket those who are driving erratically whatever their reason? The actual reason there are DUI laws is MADD made it ok for the government to NOT do their jobs by concentrating on something they can make money on.

Police departments are PAID extra money by the federal government for arresting drunk drivers, not drivers that are dangerous, and you people fall for it letting the government make extra money while leaving the streets dangerous. For you it is a feel good thing, not a real thing. I have no problem with anyone who is a accident getting punished for drunk driving IF THAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT yet people have their lives destroyed while NOT AT FAULT for what happened and you folks cheer.

For those who are about to flame. I have never had a DUI in my life. I do not drive drunk. However I HAVE been in several accidents where I was not at fault. The other drivers would have gone to jail if they were DUI but as they were not drunk they were let go. It seems you are allowed to kill people with your vehicle so long as you do not drink before you do it. Anything else is just fine. Oh and by the way. DUI checkpoints have nothing to do with catching drunk drivers. It is nothing but a cash cow for not wearing seatbelts, not having insurance, or anything else. Just for having them though the police department gets extra money.

Open your eyes folks. Get the wool out of them.

Spot on Kudos.
Its like those clowns trying to find a cure for cancer.
Stop the cause and you don't need a cure. Likewise with impaired driving!
Will this new breathalyzer cure the problem? NADA chance.

reply to post by TFCJay


I'm Canadian and I'm not proud of our justice system. Don't blame the people for unjust laws. We don't make them. The corrupt politicians do. I don't know which part of the country you're from friend, but where I'm from you kill someone with your car you go to jail. Of course there are exceptions that prove the rule like he/she jumped in front of you car or something like that, but if you're tired, they'll tell you you should have pulled over. If you're medicated that is automatic DUI. "Driving under the influence" This means it can be booze, Sudafed and everything in between. I'm not flaming you, I'm just pointing out that where ever these things happened to you, accidents do happen. Several of them? Maybe you were not with out fault. After I had my first accident I was a bit more vigilant, looking in my mirrors a little more often checking my blind spots better. You know little things like that. I avoid quite a bit by doing so. But I most definitely do agree about the cash cow thing 100%.

reply to post by Mister1k


Drinking and driving is stupid and anyone who drinks and drives is stupid. They should lose their license immediately and I dont understand how one could argue against that?

I am pretty sure most people who drive know there are other morons and other hazzards like people who drive and text and the police do their best to keep traffic flowing, at least where I live. Drinking and driving imo takes the cake for driving stupidity which is why its so frowned upon.

reply to post by Slickinfinity


Drunk driving is unacceptable. Texting and talking on the phone either but I've often seen police text, talk on their cells, work on their cruiser lap top all while driving. Police not putting on their turn signals. Passing me in residential areas to get to breakfast with the boys in blue faster. I've seen it all. They should be held accountable as well. Just my opinion.