Safety on the road is imperative. I was a Fire Officer for over 30 years and had my share of incidents where careless driving left many people messed up or dead. I am a supporter of all emergency services. When you need one of the 3 services of police, fire or ambulance...you are grateful. However, I live safety and fairness, so I submit the following:

While the Ministry of Transportation oversees licensing, there is much they don't or can't do and these inabilities affect YOU.

Immigrants to Canada often have never seen snow. The MTO expects these new drivers, to manage ice and snow on the road, which proves difficult for drivers who have lived here all their lives. That's grossly unfair to ALL drivers and pedestrians, that may be hit as a result of the new drivers inexperience. I have personally taken skid control classes thru my previous career and its well worth the money. Not only should we all have that kind of training, the MTO is careless and I would say responsible for putting drivers on the road that they know can't handle the winter driving conditions. Note to MTO: Budget to train all drivers in skid control. 'We the North' have different driving conditions than those in Arizona. I will add, that I have seen many a driver that can't handle the size of vehicles or traffic at all, but thats another story.

Winter rated tires. How does the Ministry of Community Safety OR the Ministry of Health justify not having winter tire laws in place like Quebec does? Its insane, that ANY driver can be expected to control a 2000 lb car safely in icy snowy conditions, the very conditions these tires are made for. Get a grip Ontario! This being mid November 2019, we all have seen numerous crashes on the road. Then the news comes up with a 'news flash': Drivers aren't ready for the snow'. Really? Well you either have been asleep living here, or my point is valid, new immigrants aren't trained at all in winter survival driving.

I'm going to submit a view point recently given me. I'd like to hear opinions on this.

Now lets look at laws. What makes a law? The truth is, it appears Canada doesn't have a enacted Constitution. In short, a country has to have a Constitution to be a country, and to make laws, the Constitution must be in place. On June 9, 1893, Queen Victoria un-enacted the British North America Act..BNA, 26 years after she formed it. The Dominion of British North America was removed by the queen with Statute Law Revision Act of 1893. This has been hidden since then, and most reading this do not know this fact. In 1982, Pierre Trudeau cleverly re-named the BNA (though not in place) to the Constitution Act. The Queen went along with this, PROVIDED Quebec agreed to item no. 59 of the Act, which had to do with french language and education. Well Quebec's pride got in the way and they have never accepted the language of the defunct Act. Even the Govenor General from 2001-2007, Iona Campagnolo said "I am supposed to be signing these documents (some laws) into law, but I am not, and therefore there is no law".

People this is HUGE. It sounds like a big shell game the authorities have over us. The Supreme Court demands that authority must be shown. The courts can be asked to show authority and when they claim the BNA, you can tell them it was un-enacted, its defunct. So the courts are betting on ignorance, and this approach (I'm told) is stopping judges in their tracks. They can't tell you what authority they work under. When Quebec accepts item 59 from the Constitution Act, its my understanding it will come back into force legally. Official opinions help... The Canadian Bar review, (I quote) the 'organ' of the Canadian Bar Association, had this to say over the BNA not being officially in place. "This odd group of amendments to our constitutional law provides another argument for those that believe that Canada should acquire a new constitution of her own - a single, complete, independent document superseding all previous statutes and deriving its authority solely from the assent of the Canadian people. UNTIL that occurs, we shall not have a Canadian constitution, nor a full sense of national status."

Now onto traffic laws. I'm pissed that police, who normally do a tough job well, have sometimes issue traffic tickets carelessly. Case in point. The cell phone distraction law, item 78.1, Highway Traffic Act. I agree with not looking at the cell phone, but some tickets are proving just plain aggressive or stupid. Section 78.1 of the Act (page 202) somehow justifies that you can't drive with a screen visible to the driver (what is a GPS screen?) BUT, you can use the following:

* a global position device - isn't that a cell phone?

* a hand held wireless communication device that is prescribed for the pupose of subsection 78.1(1)

* a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes

* a collision avoidance system

* an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide info to the driver about vehicle systems

Avoiding stupid distracted driving tickets.

Firstly, keep your hands off your cell phone while in your moving car. Next to unbelievably careless pedestrians who get run over because THEY are on their phones, watching your phone is seriously irresponsible. However, people are getting tickets for really unworthy causes. Case in point. If you honestly are just moving your phone from your lap to the other seat, that is NOT a legal charge of distracted driving. Case law proves this. Page 204, Ontario Highway Traffic Act - R. v. Kazemi, 2012, ONCJ 383, 2012 Carswell, Ont.

Decision: Moving the phone from the floor to the passenger seat while at a stop light when it was safe to do so, resulted in a momentary handling which did NOT fall into the meaning of "holding". Police, be so advised and please use common sense. All others, put down the cell phone. One more for pedestrians: When you are on the cell phone for a totally unimportant reason while crossing a busy intersection, do you REALLY believe all drivers can see you, have great driving skill or aren't impaired in some way?? Is your life worth that useless phone call?

More: Page 203 - Section 78.1 (4) Does not apply to Police, Fire or Ambulance- I get that point, but after 30 years as a first responder, I have seen some pretty bad emergency response drivers, that didn't get well trained. The public is not made aware of all the crashed Fire, Police and Ambulance are involved in each year. So it doesn't matter what the driver of a speeding or not speeding emergency vehicle is holding and using in their hand? Can the authorities tell us these drivers WONT cause a preventable crash? No they can't.

Speed limits. These are important, but are being misused by some Police and other services. Page 296, Section 128 (8.1) (13) Speed limits do not apply to Fire, Police or Ambulance. Okay. However, I know from my career it at least was a law that to speed, you had to observe all traffic signs and use lights and sirens. The Police part here states..can speed in the lawful performance of duties. POLICE..I think when you are speeding it requires lights and sirens, MEANING, you can fly by traffic risking lives to get to the Tim Hortons where you get free coffee and donuts! Lets use a little common sense. I see non emergency police cruisers speeding in non emerg mode very often. Discussion welcome. I am not anything but a supporter of Police, I am asking for common sense.

That's it for my first post. I welcome any and all comments. If I have read the Highway Traffic Act incorrectly, please tell me how.

Be safe.