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?
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"?
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…