CHAUMONT, N.Y. — Chadwick M. Bruce, 20, of 129 S. Indiana Ave., Watertown, was charged by Jefferson County sheriff's deputies at 5:43 p.m. Wednesday in the parking lot of 12260 Route 12E with driving while intoxicated, leaving the scene of a property damage accident and unsafe backing.
His blood alcohol content was 0.11 percent, deputies said. A BAC of 0.08 percent or greater is considered proof of intoxicated under state law.
He is summoned to appear June 20 in Lyme Town Court.
SOURCE
----
Business owners and entrepreneurs who own any social venue and who are looking to start a cash business can now do there part in the prevention of Drunk Driving. Please visit alcobuddy.com. World's premiere Breathalyzer Vending Machine for more information.
Showing posts with label Driving Laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Driving Laws. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Monday, October 25, 2010
Bars and Restaurants get hit hard because of Tougher Dunk Driving Laws
Business down ‘dramatically’as drivers fear going over limit
By KIM PEMBERTON, Vancouver Sun
Bar patrons are drinking less, or not at all.
Drinking establishments are reporting business is down “dramatically” — anywhere from 10 to 40 per cent since British Columbia’s tougher anti-drinking laws went into effect last week.
The general feeling is “people are being very cautious,” fearing if they go over the .05 per cent blood alcohol level they risk having their car impounded, said Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Association.
“People are scared. They don’t know what it takes for them to reach .05, so while they might go out they won’t drink or certainly not as much. It’s impacting restaurants in terms of sales,” said Tostenson, adding that how much revenue is down as a result of the new law won’t be known for another month.
To try to deal with a drop in business, some pubs and restaurants are either offering a shuttle service or considering it.
Woody’s on Brunette Pub in Coquitlam is considering a pilot project to provide a shuttle service after seeing business drop 10 per cent in the first week, said owner Gordon Cartwright.
“It’s definitely impacted our business. We’ve noticed a slowdown in our day business and after work business [as a result of the new anti-drinking laws],” he said.
“The public is just trying to figure out how much they can drink without worrying about it — knowing their limits.”
At Fox’s Reach Pub and Grill, owner Todd Arbuthnot said he plans to buy two vans for his pubs in Ladner and Maple Ridge to drive people home after they have been drinking.
“It’s especially needed in Maple Ridge because there isn’t much housing there so we don’t get walk-in traffic. People are having to drive 15 to 20 minutes home. It’s frustrating because no one knows where they stand. It seems everyone knows a friend who had their licence suspended after two beers,” he said.
Arbuthnot said he noticed a “dramatic” drop in alcohol consumption of about 30 per cent a day since the new law took effect.
“People aren’t ordering [alcohol] any more. They won’t take the chance because in Maple Ridge everyone needs to be able to drive to work or to get their kids to school.”
Attorney-General Mike de Jong said the threshold of .05 has been in place for more than three decades — it’s the penalties that have changed.
New penalties start with a three-day driving ban and $200 fine for anyone caught with a blood alcohol concentration of more than .05 — up from the previous 24-hour suspension.
Those who blow more than .08 face a 90-day driving ban, a $500 fine and mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device — regardless of criminal charges that may be laid.
Repeat offenders can expect heavier fines and longer suspensions.
“Two weeks ago, if you drove a car after drinking and had an alcohol level over .05, you could be issued a temporary suspension. What’s new is the seriousness of the penalty, no doubt about it,” said de Jong.
The attorney-general added that “it’s clear that people are talking about this. The potential loss of your vehicle and loss of your licence has registered with the public — and that is what was intended. Too many people have been getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming too much alcohol.”
In Port Moody at the Golden Spike Pub, managerial partner Cheryl Semenuik said she especially noticed the decline on week nights when sports teams stopped coming in for a drink after their games and the after work crowd stopped coming as well.
“It’s been rough across the board in the industry. We’ve seen our liquor consumption down 30 to 40 per cent,” she said.
“It’s a big cut. People are scared. Everyone has a story. We heard of one neighbourhood pub where 22 people were arrested on a weekend right after closing. A guy in our sports pool said his secretary had one glass of wine with a salad at lunch and she got pulled over after doing a U-turn. They made her blow and she lost her car [for a three-day impoundment].”
She said at her pub she’s noticed the parking lot is now two-thirds full first thing in the morning because patrons are opting to go home by taxi and pick up their vehicles later.
And while the Golden Spike Pub always offers a shuttle service on New Year’s Eve, they too are considering purchasing a full-time shuttle van to try to encourage patrons to start drinking more again.
At the St. James’s Well in Port Moody, general manager Mike Read said while he hasn’t noticed a dramatic drop in business, because most of their regular patrons live within walking distance, he has a 20 per cent drop in “people just popping in for one or two after work.”
“I might have had one beer after work myself but even I won’t do that any more because I don’t know where I sit in terms of 0.5 per cent,” he said.
Read said while he appreciates the new law makes people think more about how much alcohol they’ve consumed before driving, he called it “a little draconian.”
“It’s almost saying zero tolerance,” he said. “There’s a perception that there’s a certain percentage of people who will be over 0.5 per cent with a single drink.”
Shark Club, in downtown Vancouver, hasn’t seen a decrease in business because their patrons are generally coming in after a game downtown.
Assistant general manager Christine Cairns said they’ve already made arrangements to get home safely after driving or taking the SkyTrain, which is nearby their restaurant.
“There’s a lot of buzz in the industry and it’s something to be aware of that one drink could put you over the limit if you’re not eating. “We’re a full service restaurant so the majority of people are having a good meal,” she said.
Her concern is the province has to continue SkyTrain service after 1 a.m. considering most places serving liquor in downtown Vancouver stay open until 2 a.m. and on Granville until 3 a.m.
Source
Small Business Owners Protect your business and make more money today. Learn how with Alco-Buddy: www.alcobuddy.com
By KIM PEMBERTON, Vancouver Sun
Bar patrons are drinking less, or not at all.
Drinking establishments are reporting business is down “dramatically” — anywhere from 10 to 40 per cent since British Columbia’s tougher anti-drinking laws went into effect last week.
The general feeling is “people are being very cautious,” fearing if they go over the .05 per cent blood alcohol level they risk having their car impounded, said Ian Tostenson, president of the B.C. Restaurant and Food Association.
“People are scared. They don’t know what it takes for them to reach .05, so while they might go out they won’t drink or certainly not as much. It’s impacting restaurants in terms of sales,” said Tostenson, adding that how much revenue is down as a result of the new law won’t be known for another month.
To try to deal with a drop in business, some pubs and restaurants are either offering a shuttle service or considering it.
Woody’s on Brunette Pub in Coquitlam is considering a pilot project to provide a shuttle service after seeing business drop 10 per cent in the first week, said owner Gordon Cartwright.
“It’s definitely impacted our business. We’ve noticed a slowdown in our day business and after work business [as a result of the new anti-drinking laws],” he said.
“The public is just trying to figure out how much they can drink without worrying about it — knowing their limits.”
At Fox’s Reach Pub and Grill, owner Todd Arbuthnot said he plans to buy two vans for his pubs in Ladner and Maple Ridge to drive people home after they have been drinking.
“It’s especially needed in Maple Ridge because there isn’t much housing there so we don’t get walk-in traffic. People are having to drive 15 to 20 minutes home. It’s frustrating because no one knows where they stand. It seems everyone knows a friend who had their licence suspended after two beers,” he said.
Arbuthnot said he noticed a “dramatic” drop in alcohol consumption of about 30 per cent a day since the new law took effect.
“People aren’t ordering [alcohol] any more. They won’t take the chance because in Maple Ridge everyone needs to be able to drive to work or to get their kids to school.”
Attorney-General Mike de Jong said the threshold of .05 has been in place for more than three decades — it’s the penalties that have changed.
New penalties start with a three-day driving ban and $200 fine for anyone caught with a blood alcohol concentration of more than .05 — up from the previous 24-hour suspension.
Those who blow more than .08 face a 90-day driving ban, a $500 fine and mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device — regardless of criminal charges that may be laid.
Repeat offenders can expect heavier fines and longer suspensions.
“Two weeks ago, if you drove a car after drinking and had an alcohol level over .05, you could be issued a temporary suspension. What’s new is the seriousness of the penalty, no doubt about it,” said de Jong.
The attorney-general added that “it’s clear that people are talking about this. The potential loss of your vehicle and loss of your licence has registered with the public — and that is what was intended. Too many people have been getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming too much alcohol.”
In Port Moody at the Golden Spike Pub, managerial partner Cheryl Semenuik said she especially noticed the decline on week nights when sports teams stopped coming in for a drink after their games and the after work crowd stopped coming as well.
“It’s been rough across the board in the industry. We’ve seen our liquor consumption down 30 to 40 per cent,” she said.
“It’s a big cut. People are scared. Everyone has a story. We heard of one neighbourhood pub where 22 people were arrested on a weekend right after closing. A guy in our sports pool said his secretary had one glass of wine with a salad at lunch and she got pulled over after doing a U-turn. They made her blow and she lost her car [for a three-day impoundment].”
She said at her pub she’s noticed the parking lot is now two-thirds full first thing in the morning because patrons are opting to go home by taxi and pick up their vehicles later.
And while the Golden Spike Pub always offers a shuttle service on New Year’s Eve, they too are considering purchasing a full-time shuttle van to try to encourage patrons to start drinking more again.
At the St. James’s Well in Port Moody, general manager Mike Read said while he hasn’t noticed a dramatic drop in business, because most of their regular patrons live within walking distance, he has a 20 per cent drop in “people just popping in for one or two after work.”
“I might have had one beer after work myself but even I won’t do that any more because I don’t know where I sit in terms of 0.5 per cent,” he said.
Read said while he appreciates the new law makes people think more about how much alcohol they’ve consumed before driving, he called it “a little draconian.”
“It’s almost saying zero tolerance,” he said. “There’s a perception that there’s a certain percentage of people who will be over 0.5 per cent with a single drink.”
Shark Club, in downtown Vancouver, hasn’t seen a decrease in business because their patrons are generally coming in after a game downtown.
Assistant general manager Christine Cairns said they’ve already made arrangements to get home safely after driving or taking the SkyTrain, which is nearby their restaurant.
“There’s a lot of buzz in the industry and it’s something to be aware of that one drink could put you over the limit if you’re not eating. “We’re a full service restaurant so the majority of people are having a good meal,” she said.
Her concern is the province has to continue SkyTrain service after 1 a.m. considering most places serving liquor in downtown Vancouver stay open until 2 a.m. and on Granville until 3 a.m.
Source
Small Business Owners Protect your business and make more money today. Learn how with Alco-Buddy: www.alcobuddy.com
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on impairment, not alcohol.
Radley Balko | October 11, 2010
Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.
"People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before they'll go to jail," Acevedo told the Austin-American Statesman. "It varies….A person may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don't want them out driving." Acevedo wants to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and he may have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire (D-Houston), chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, told the Statesman Acevedo's plan "might be one way to go," adding, "Some people shouldn't be driving after one drink—probably below the 0.08 limit—and this could address that."
Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agreed. "I don't see how it would hurt," he told the paper. "The level of 0.08 is where we know most people are good and drunk...and there are people who are driving at less than the limit who probably should not be. It might keep some people from driving [drunk] again."
Acevedo, Whitmore, and Lewis are right, although probably not in the way they intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many, while experienced drinkers can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal threshold for presuming intoxication. A person's impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before. Acevedo et al.'s objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication.
The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.
Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.
Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.
Read Full Article Here
Radley Balko | October 11, 2010
Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI), Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of impairment.
"People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before they'll go to jail," Acevedo told the Austin-American Statesman. "It varies….A person may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don't want them out driving." Acevedo wants to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and he may have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire (D-Houston), chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, told the Statesman Acevedo's plan "might be one way to go," adding, "Some people shouldn't be driving after one drink—probably below the 0.08 limit—and this could address that."
Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agreed. "I don't see how it would hurt," he told the paper. "The level of 0.08 is where we know most people are good and drunk...and there are people who are driving at less than the limit who probably should not be. It might keep some people from driving [drunk] again."
Acevedo, Whitmore, and Lewis are right, although probably not in the way they intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many, while experienced drinkers can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal threshold for presuming intoxication. A person's impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before. Acevedo et al.'s objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication.
The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.
Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.
Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.
Read Full Article Here
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)