http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/538115 I watched a 1-hour interview with Mr. Mulcahy on Legal Briefs with Lorne Honickman a few weeks ago. I felt terrible for him because he lost his 18-yr.old son at a very young age. When I listened to his pleas for "no tolerance" legislation with regard to drinking and speeding, I really did sympathize with him but knew legislation would never be passed based solely on his emotional recommendations. Of course, I was wrong. We can't ignore the number of drinks this 18-yr.old quickly consumed, then ripped down the road at a blistering pace (as confirmed by his surviving girlfriend). But we already have plenty of harsh laws prohibiting such behavior. Mr. Mulcahy suggested that if his son had lost his license to the two speeding tickets he had received months earlier, he would not have been able to be driving that night and would still be alive. With all due respect, this is nonsense. I just can't see how speeding tickets relate to drinking and driving. And not just drinking, but drinking a ridiculous amount (my kids would use the word "s**tfaced). All these new laws are going to do is harshly punish rural families. It seems that most legislation comes from leaders familiar with big cities such as Toronto or Ottawa. They say things like, "maybe riding the bus for a few months will teach them a lesson". Well guess what gentlemen, many of Ontario residents don't HAVE bus service. many of use live over 20 miles from the nearest town. Taking the license from a kid in this situation (for one speeding ticket) will surely spell the end of his/her job and place undo pressure on the parents. Is this really what our government wants? To punish parents for raising a child that has the gaul to rack up ONE lousy speeding ticket?? Perhaps, instead, we should be THANKED for instilling in our children that it is NOT OK to drink yourself stupid and fly down the road. Maybe that speeding ticket isn't a clear indication that a kid is going to go out a kill someone. Maybe it's just what it is... A SPEEDING TICKET! As much as I feel for Mr. Mulcahy, I don't see why he feels he must punish me and my kids with "zero-tolerance" legislation. To suggest "we" cannot stop at one or two drinks is an unfair statement. Everyday, thousands of young Ontarians stop at one or two drinks without ANY difficulty! Yet now they're going to be slammed for acting in a mature, self-controlled manner! Possible Scenario: - Take my oldest boy who's 6', 200lbs. - He spends the day helping me with yard work. - After a hard days work, I thank him over barbecued steak and a beer. - He then hops in his car and heads over to his girlfriends. - On the way, he's stopped and relieved of his license due the the single beer that has NO effect over his abilities behind the wheel. Is this really how we want to live our lives in this Province?
Theoretically the demerit point system is supposed to do that. As drivers "gather" more points they clearly exhibit an inability to drive eventually leading to a license suspension. People should not be penalized for their youth. The assumption that young people have no maturity and therefore we need to enact laws to protect them is nuts. These politicians should be at the airport welcoming home our combat troops and then explain to them why they are not mature enough to drive without "protective" legislation.
Radar Identified wrote:
Would rather see re-testing & higher standards put in place than anything else. Some people get really good at driving; others learn, barely pass their driving test, then continue to get worse, bumping and crashing into things constantly without realizing that they are inspirations for public transit, so they continue to drive. (Like Michael from CWD2.) Subsequent re-testing might get some of them, who are disasters waiting to happen, off the road.
Theoretically the demerit point system is supposed to do that. As drivers "gather" more points they clearly exhibit an inability to drive eventually leading to a license suspension.
People should not be penalized for their youth. The assumption that young people have no maturity and therefore we need to enact laws to protect them is nuts. These politicians should be at the airport welcoming home our combat troops and then explain to them why they are not mature enough to drive without "protective" legislation.
Last edited by ticketcombat on Sat May 02, 2009 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Theoretically... but in practice? We have motorists who have been in 40+ collisions and are still licensed. I think the demerit point system and enforcement should a "backstop" to ensure safe driving, not the primary method. Besides, I think most people could use refreshers/pointers on driving every now and then. Doesn't mean that the re-testing has to be 100% perfect, but a driving examiner could, in a post-test de-brief, point out the poor driving tendencies that some of us have. Driving on Lawrence Avenue & Mount Pleasant earlier today made me think of that. :x I think there's a balance, but I'm afraid that Ontario has gone so far to restrict young drivers that we may actually see our collision and death rates go up. Give a person no responsibility and they'll never be responsible. Some have suggested "raising the driving age." What will that achieve? A person with 0 years of driving experience at 16 has the same amount of driving experience as someone who's 25 and has 0 years of driving experience. The difference is, as you start getting into your 20s, it becomes harder to learn things, particularly visuo-spatial/psycho-motor things like driving, so it would take longer for people to learn how to drive properly, and they'd probably crash their cars more. I think the drinking & driving rules we had for young/new drivers was fine. Maybe just take Bear's suggestion: "G" driver must be at least 19 yrs of age.
Theoretically... but in practice? We have motorists who have been in 40+ collisions and are still licensed. I think the demerit point system and enforcement should a "backstop" to ensure safe driving, not the primary method.
Besides, I think most people could use refreshers/pointers on driving every now and then. Doesn't mean that the re-testing has to be 100% perfect, but a driving examiner could, in a post-test de-brief, point out the poor driving tendencies that some of us have. Driving on Lawrence Avenue & Mount Pleasant earlier today made me think of that.
I think there's a balance, but I'm afraid that Ontario has gone so far to restrict young drivers that we may actually see our collision and death rates go up. Give a person no responsibility and they'll never be responsible. Some have suggested "raising the driving age." What will that achieve? A person with 0 years of driving experience at 16 has the same amount of driving experience as someone who's 25 and has 0 years of driving experience. The difference is, as you start getting into your 20s, it becomes harder to learn things, particularly visuo-spatial/psycho-motor things like driving, so it would take longer for people to learn how to drive properly, and they'd probably crash their cars more. I think the drinking & driving rules we had for young/new drivers was fine. Maybe just take Bear's suggestion: "G" driver must be at least 19 yrs of age.
I think parenting makes a far greater difference than some magical 'age of responsibility', which brings us back to education. There is probably a medical reason not to let your 8-year-old get drunk, but once you hit puberty, I think your capacity for reasoning and processing information is about equal to an adult. The only thing lacking is experience. Make it against the law to get that experience, and you just end up with older-looking children. Heck, I first got drunk when I was two years old. Look how I turned out. :D
I think parenting makes a far greater difference than some magical 'age of responsibility', which brings us back to education. There is probably a medical reason not to let your 8-year-old get drunk, but once you hit puberty, I think your capacity for reasoning and processing information is about equal to an adult. The only thing lacking is experience. Make it against the law to get that experience, and you just end up with older-looking children.
Heck, I first got drunk when I was two years old. Look how I turned out.
PK...have to stop doing that.....making sense that is....
PrincessKyle wrote:
I will say again, All this law does is make young adults look more and more like criminals, instead of people who are just trying to make a life for them selves. The law should be changed to this
Under 19 regardless of license class is zero tolerance. 19+ Normal legal limit..
PK...have to stop doing that.....making sense that is....
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Fact is, I don't know how much alcohol intake in how much time will produce 0.04% blood/alcohol level. I am a fairly typical Canadian who rewards myself with a cold beer after cutting the lawn, cleaning the shop, washing the car, etc., etc. Then I'm apt to have another one while barbecuing some burgers. If I run out of BBQ sauce, I'm hoppin' in the car and runnin' down to the store for more. No idea what my blood alcohol level will be. Not gonna' try to figure out the alcohol wheel, I'm just going! I come from a time when impaired driving was tolerated. I know what "real" impairment feels like. I really, really doubt my ability to drive down the road is going to be affected at .04% (or .05%, or whatever the new level is). Also: Stats show a disproportionate number of accidents are caused by new drivers. Well, DUH! They're NEW. I would expect to see 99% of all accidents be caused by new drivers. I think it makes a BIGGER statement that so many EXPERIENCED drivers have accidents. What's that all about? ;)
Fact is, I don't know how much alcohol intake in how much time will produce 0.04% blood/alcohol level. I am a fairly typical Canadian who rewards myself with a cold beer after cutting the lawn, cleaning the shop, washing the car, etc., etc. Then I'm apt to have another one while barbecuing some burgers. If I run out of BBQ sauce, I'm hoppin' in the car and runnin' down to the store for more. No idea what my blood alcohol level will be. Not gonna' try to figure out the alcohol wheel, I'm just going!
I come from a time when impaired driving was tolerated. I know what "real" impairment feels like. I really, really doubt my ability to drive down the road is going to be affected at .04% (or .05%, or whatever the new level is).
Also:
Stats show a disproportionate number of accidents are caused by new drivers. Well, DUH! They're NEW. I would expect to see 99% of all accidents be caused by new drivers. I think it makes a BIGGER statement that so many EXPERIENCED drivers have accidents. What's that all about?
Bookm....think we did this beer ratio thing before. Good quick guideline. (weight, sex will affect it, but this is a standard average) 1 drink (beer, glass wine, 1 shot) = 15 mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. 2 drinks = 30mgs 3 drinks = 45mgs 4 drinks = 60mgs etc Body Eliminates 15mgs of alcohol per hour.
Bookm....think we did this beer ratio thing before.
Good quick guideline. (weight, sex will affect it, but this is a standard average)
1 drink (beer, glass wine, 1 shot) = 15 mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood.
2 drinks = 30mgs
3 drinks = 45mgs
4 drinks = 60mgs etc
Body Eliminates 15mgs of alcohol per hour.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth. Way back in Bookm's day (1903?), you could be impaired and drive down the road without meeting too many cars (limits the input you have to process and decisions you have to make). If you were impaired enough to crash, chances are you would drive into a ditch and maybe hit a tree. Now, streets are always busy and that ditch has become a busy sidewalk. That "tree" might now be a bus stop. The margin for error becomes very small, though for more rural places like Stratford and even off-season Orillia, all these new strict guidelines seem ridiculous. So once again, we can blame Toronto for being so crowded and making the rest of us suffer. 8) Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment? The most "impaired" I get is after two beers while fixing the car, then taking it for a test drive around the block. Face is a little red and might seem happier than usual, but my reaction times are okay. Decision making might be affected, so I don't go far or into busy areas. Even being a svelte 200 lbs, I would not be able to drive with four beers (assuming about 1-1.5 beers per hour). 4-6 beers is the area where I just sit on the couch and tell funny (to me) stories. At that rate, CAA's online drunkered meter puts me at just 0.0384 BAC.
I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth. Way back in Bookm's day (1903?), you could be impaired and drive down the road without meeting too many cars (limits the input you have to process and decisions you have to make). If you were impaired enough to crash, chances are you would drive into a ditch and maybe hit a tree. Now, streets are always busy and that ditch has become a busy sidewalk. That "tree" might now be a bus stop. The margin for error becomes very small, though for more rural places like Stratford and even off-season Orillia, all these new strict guidelines seem ridiculous. So once again, we can blame Toronto for being so crowded and making the rest of us suffer.
Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment? The most "impaired" I get is after two beers while fixing the car, then taking it for a test drive around the block. Face is a little red and might seem happier than usual, but my reaction times are okay. Decision making might be affected, so I don't go far or into busy areas. Even being a svelte 200 lbs, I would not be able to drive with four beers (assuming about 1-1.5 beers per hour). 4-6 beers is the area where I just sit on the couch and tell funny (to me) stories. At that rate, CAA's online drunkered meter puts me at just 0.0384 BAC.
Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened.
Squishy wrote:
I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth.
Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened.
Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened. But the reason why it has become such a social taboo can still be linked to population growth, as the one act of driving drunk starts to affect more people. At least, that's my theory.
Radar Identified wrote:
Squishy wrote:
I think it's mostly to do with all this population growth.
Could be also due to shifting attitudes toward drinking and driving. "One for the road" used to be a literal expression, people would grab a beer and drink it as they drove to their destination. Now we shake our heads at the gall of someone who would stop in traffic, look over at the cop next to them, and proceed to crack open a cold one and chug the beer in front of the officer. And yes, that has happened.
But the reason why it has become such a social taboo can still be linked to population growth, as the one act of driving drunk starts to affect more people. At least, that's my theory.
We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is: 1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed. 2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)
Squishy wrote:
Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment?
We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is:
1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed.
2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is: 1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed. 2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..) My eyes a green and they stay that way......or do you mean bloodshot??
hwybear wrote:
Squishy wrote:
Bear, do you think BAC is a good measure of the level of impairment?
We are speaking of 2 different things there. There is:
1) Driving with more than 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood. This is the total amount a person has consumed.
2) Impaired driving - if the symptoms and signs are there after 1 drink, theoretically one could be charged with impaired driving. This is how a body has reacted/ been influenced by alcohol (speech, eye colour, face, reaction time, stability etc..)
My eyes a green and they stay that way......or do you mean bloodshot??
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
I used this before to explain something to some one... this is to show how dumb it is to say that such a high number of young drivers get into accidents, Vs people over the age of 22... if there is a city with 100 drivers in it.. 90 are 21 and under, and 10 are 22 and over, Then it stands to reason that 80% of accidents in that city will involve a young driver no? Thats why the same for males insurance being higher that young females. Because there are more young male drivers on the road than young female drivers, Just like there are more honda civics on the road that other models of cars, and bla bla bla bla The sats show convenient numbers, done on test subjects that are taken in convenient demographics... Im just wondering when there is gunna be a kid wearing a hat in an accident and then that will become a new law too... As some one said on here once before.
I used this before to explain something to some one...
this is to show how dumb it is to say that such a high number of young drivers get into accidents, Vs people over the age of 22...
if there is a city with 100 drivers in it..
90 are 21 and under, and 10 are 22 and over, Then it stands to reason that 80% of accidents in that city will involve a young driver no?
Thats why the same for males insurance being higher that young females. Because there are more young male drivers on the road than young female drivers, Just like there are more honda civics on the road that other models of cars, and bla bla bla bla
The sats show convenient numbers, done on test subjects that are taken in convenient demographics...
Im just wondering when there is gunna be a kid wearing a hat in an accident and then that will become a new law too... As some one said on here once before.
- What ever happened to "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?
I have a problem and not sure what the hell to do about it. Few days ago I was stopped on a street going westbound against blinding afternoon sun following the flow of traffic. I drive a taxi for living in Toronto and have ACZ driver's license. I have a perfect record both for professional as well regular demerit points. I haven't been pulled over as a matter of fact in some 15 years for…
I have recently gone to court for a speeding ticket issued by an OPP officer. As it stood, the officer forgot to sign the ticket. So at my trial, before I made a plea, I pointed this out to the justice of the peace and asked that the ticket be quashed. I was asked to produce my copy of the ticket, which I gave and the JOP then agreed with me and dismissed the case. Before he did so, the…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
So here's my situation, any advice would be appreciated.
On June 26, 2013 I received a ticket for 25 over in a 60 zone
In early October I received my notice of trial (Feb 25, 2014)
In early January I sent in my request for disclosure
In late January I received a letter to pick up my disclosure, however when I picked up my disclosure it wasn't typed (I had requested it to be) and I needed…
Is there a legal requirement to report an accident to the insurer?
Scenario
- 2 vehicle accident
- each vehicle has less than $1000 damage
- each vehicle has damage roughly equal to insurance deductible
- a police Accident Report was completed
In this scenario the drivers decided to repair their own damages. But are they legally bound to report the accident and damages to the insurer? ...and out of…
I will be representing my wife at her speeding trial next week. Mostly everything is pretty much run of the mill but since she wasn't speeding we will be having her take the stand. Since this opens up the opportunity for the prosecutor to cross examine, I am just wondering if anyone here knows what kind of questions we should expect from the prosecutor in order to best prepare.
i got pulled over by a cop this morning in my kids's school zone for failure to stop at a stop sign. i am thinking of fighting this ticket, but i noticed that on the ticket itself it only says "disobey stop sign - fail to stop" and there is no mention of the demerit points. a co-worker mentioned to me that a ticket should state how many demerit points i am being docked. i know the Highway Traffic…
Alright, so this happened back awhile ago on June and I haven't appeared in Court. However, I would like some inputs and advice before I get into this battle.
Back in June I got a Speeding Ticket claiming I was going 100km/h on Blackcreek going south towards Lawrence. The Speed Limit there is 70km/h.
At this point of time, it was roughly traffic hour around 4-5PM. Coming off of the Highway, and…
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
My son was returning from school and was just entering the driveway when another vehicle hit the rear end. Police writes a ticket "fail to yield from private drive" 139(i). He is going to fight this ticket and made an application for disclosure. The trial is next week and he still hasn't received the disclosure.
He checked with the court last month and they said that they will call when disclosure…
i was travelling on the 401 (posted speed 100km/h) in the far left lane, when i caught up to a vehicle going ~110km/h. I patiently waited for the vehicle to move over a lane, but they did not. The vehicle behind me moved to the center lane to pass, but because he was a safe distance behind me, i moved into the middle lane ahead of him to pass the slower moving car. When I accelerated, i…
So I was returning from my honeymoon in Montreal, and was cruising down the 401 just inside the Ontario/Quebec border. I was passing one of the Onroute stations and saw an OPP cruiser. I checked my speed and I was doing 120. A few kilometers up the road the cruiser pulled me over and told me I was clocked doing 132 by the aircraft. I was a little surprised to see the ticket was for the full…
I made a right turn during prohibited hours (7am-6pm) in Toronto. I was ticketed by a COP who was specially watching for that trap.
After I've received the ticket HTA144(9), I discovered one of the seven digits of my license plate was incorrectly written on my ticket. I was thinking about to make a First Attendance at the court office to see the prosecutor for a reduced charge...any advice or…
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
I am not sure if my case is really a case of " mis-use parking permit" and need some advises on whether i should fight the ticket. Here is what happened:
During the labor day long weekend, I took my parents to diner at a local shopping mall. (my father's hip was broken in 2016 and he's been on wheelchair since, the permit is in his name and I been using the permit to help him for doctor's…
I have a court date coming up where I need to subpoena one of the officers that was present when I got my ticket. The issuing officer didn't include the fact that the second one was present at the time in his report (disclosure) but did give me the second officers name and badge number after the judge told him to do it.
What I'm looking for help with is the process of me getting to…
I got pulled over on a 4 lane section fo Highway 7... Thank god I didn't get a stay at home ticket as well or my car impounded.
Officer clocked me at 156 km/h he decided not to impound my car and give me a 149 km/h since it was my first offence and he said I was polite and respectful. I would give this officer a 5/5 review if I could, very polite and respectful.
Long story short, I was driving from Toronto to Ottawa and around Napanee with my friend in two separated cars, the officer was parked on uturn. He followed us turn his light on and got between us and pulled us over, he told me that i was running at 152 km/h without showing me his LISAR. they suspended my and my friends license and impounded the two cars for 7 days. This was a Friday in January…
I'm unsure on what to do here. I was under the impression that I could request a stay on the day of trial because disclosure was not given to me in an adequate time. I requested disclosure 2x by fax, 5 months ago.
I read on ticketcombat that I had to file a motion 15 days prior to the trial to request a stay of proceedings.
Does anyone else get blinded by fog lights on rural roads? I don't seem to have a problem with them on lighted streets, but the badly aimed fog lights or ones with a poor cutoff really get to me when driving the Escort. I just came back from a 20-minute drive, and every single pickup truck had fog lights on, and forced me to focus on the bottom right of the road. My windshield is clean and…
