New Ontario Impaired Laws are another cash grab for the Insurance Folks

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,285
480
83
59
Alberta
I'll preface this by saying I don't drink and drive, my license is my trade, but Ontario has gone crazy with its approach to Impaired Driving.

Their new drunk driving laws are absolutely ridiculous.

First of all a first time offender is now required to have an ignition interlock system in their vehicle. Now I know this may seem absolutely acceptable to some, but think of a young person who makes that mistake. First off they pay a heavy fine, (completely acceptable), second they face a suspension of up to a year, (completely acceptable) and now Ontario has ratcheted that up by stating that they must have an ignition interlock system in their vehicle for up to a year. Or they can't drive.

While I am not advocate of drinking and driving and fully support punishing those that break that law I think the Ontario Government has overstepped its authority by introducing provincial laws that skirt Federal Laws regarding drinking and driving. For example. The minimum alcohol blood content is .08, but in Ontario they can suspend your license for 30 days, impound your car and contact your insurance company without any due process if your register between .05 and .08.

A blood alcohol level of .05 is not illegal, they just made this crap up. Guess who benefits from this new law? The insurance companies. Now they can raise your rates without you even seeing the inside of a court room to prove or disprove whether or not you were impaired to begin with.

To sweeten the pot they have added a new twist to their .05 to .08 30 Day suspension. Now they can mandate someone who has had three of these non impaired non convicted suspensions to have an interlock system put into their car. No due process required. Guess who benefits from this.

If it sounds like I'm b!tching about nothing, then stop and think about what I am saying here. It isn't illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of .06, but in Ontario they can impound your car and call your insurance company.

My anger over this is the fact that we are now allowing a provincial government to screw around with existing laws without Federal consultation. If they want the blood alcohol lowered to .05 they should lower it. Doesn't anyone else find this over the top.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
They did the same thing in BC and it was struck down as unconstitutional. A few weeks later it was introduced in Alberta where it is now under challenge in the courts and I expect the same result given the precedent in BC.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Just like the distracted driving laws, the main goal is to save the insurance companies money. That is why they are big proponents of them. Fines also don't hurt the public coffers either so it's not really surprising that this type of thing occurs when politicians and insurance folks meet for coffee.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,285
480
83
59
Alberta
No, not surprising, but it's a garbage approach to a real issue. Unfortunately, it's unpopular to stand up against it, because groups like MADD or advocates of screwing with the laws view any complaints as advocating drunk driving. I wonder if someone will challenge it in Ontario as was done in BC or if the sheep in Ontario will suck this up the same way they did the HST.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
This reminds me of one of the other threads on impaired driving. If you are trying to solve a problem, the first thing you need to do is define the problem. Are drivers with a BAC of 0.05 really a problem? I'm not even convinced drivers below 0.10 are causing much of a problem. At least not one worthy of our over the top response. I could be wrong but as of yet, nobody has shown me any evidence that they are.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
:roll: Still usin' eight-track loop, eh?

Just like the distracted driving laws, the main goal is to save the insurance companies money. That is why they are big proponents of them. Fines also don't hurt the public coffers either so it's not really surprising that this type of thing occurs when politicians and insurance folks meet for coffee.
There's a big LED sign on the Kingsway re: distracted driving. Go figure....;-)
 

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
140
63
Backwater, Ontario.
:roll: Still usin' eight-track loop, eh?


There's a big LED sign on the Kingsway re: distracted driving. Go figure....;-)



The big hotel on the corner distracted me a lot........................long before .08

Nuthin rong with 8 track, cept it's hard to replay.:happy5:
 

ricknu

New Member
Nov 10, 2013
38
0
6
Glad to see you speaking out. I suspect there are more who feel that these laws have become excessive in nature. I have several issues of my own which I feel should be addressed. I am concerned that this may be fueled by special interest groups operating, in many instances, under the radar. I am going to use this thread to deal with each of them.

The Ignition Interlock Device

The Ignition Interlock Device is on the exemption list for handheld devices. This is an example of the hypocrisy evident today with the legislation. Please note the following:

Sadly it is a misconception that the IID is used only to ensure the driver is sober enough to allow the engine of the automobile to be started. When the devices were first manufactured they actually were geared to this end. When it was discovered that upon occasion drivers who had been drinking got a friend to perform the test for them, the manufacturer built into the machine a process referred to as the Random Rolling Retest,

At random intervals while the car is being driven, the driver will be asked by the machine to provide a breath sample. Within a specified interval of time the breath sample must be provided. If it is not, the horn begins to sound off and the lights begin to flash continuously until the automobile is brought to a complete stop.

Should you be in a situation which requires your undivided attention while driving, the manufacturer claims you will have enough time to either clear the scene or pull off the road to a stop.. The time frame for this is not given in the instructional video. Failure to provide a successful sample within a predetermined time will cause the horn to sound and the lights to flash continuously until the car is brought to a complete stop and the ignition turned off. A warning to pull off the road will also be provided should you fail the breath test or fail to complete the test within the time limits allowed by the machine. For example, should you drop the device onto the floor of the car and be unable to safely recover it in time, the results are inescapable.

So what repercussions may result from using this device in a rolling retest?:

The sequence of events involved not only in manipulating the device but providing the correct steps in the right sequence to provide a breath sample, employ a considerable mental and physical effort when blowing into the handheld monitor and driving in heavy traffic. Taken together, all at the same time, this will result in an unacceptable distraction possibly further resulting in an accident.
The time frame for providing a sample for the rolling retest can result in considerable driver distraction if he/she is hemmed in, in heavy traffic and attempting to exit a busy freeway. Stress levels may rise unacceptably. Improper lane changes and the like can be extremely hazardous. This has the potential to cause an accident.
If a driver fails a rolling retest (for a reason which may be totally unrelated to a sample failure) the resulting cacophony of horn blaring and lights flashing almost surely will cause increased stress levels and distraction inside the vehicle for both driver and passenger(s) and for other drivers in the vicinity. This has the potential to result in an accident.

(This might be dated but it would seem that the study was a valid one and should hold true for today). "Dramatic findings in a recently released study by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) show that interlock devices had no statistically significant effect in preventing subsequent drunk driving convictions, but they increase their users' general crash risk by up to 130%".
American Beverage Institute | Study Finds Ignition Interlocks Increase Auto Crash Risk By Up To 130%

One other point of note is that upon attempting to follow past research paths the author has noted that since posting the original website from which this blog is derived, manufacturers seem to have either played down or removed altogether references to the consequences of either failing or missing a Random Rolling Retest.

In some jurisdictions, the province of Ontario, for example, a new law has come into effect barring the use of handheld devices while driving. This law seems to be specifically geared towards the use of cell phones but is broad enough to include many other activities. It would seem to be hypocritical, that in the list of devices arbitrarily decided to be exempted by the Dept. Of Transportation that the IID be included.

You can put away a cell phone in a heartbeat. You cannot ignore the IID in a Random Rolling Retest.


In the same vein, the IID is mandated for DUI convicted drivers who wish to or have an urgent need to return to driving possibly, for example, for maintaining one's career. The penalties for dui are extremely harsh under the guise of re-education. (Is this a valid judgement call? - Perhaps the only one truly qualified to put forth a valid judgement call is the founder of MADD, Candy Litener. With the extremes of legislation subsequently fomented under the powerful lobbying efforts of MADD she quit in disgust claiming that she had never intended the movement to go so far. At this point in time she has disavowed any connection to this organization as it is today.)

Personally this author does not wish to be driving in the vicinity of any driver required to take a Random Rolling Retest in heavy traffic.

Note the following:

Just as a further note an additional study was done in 2004 by the California Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Please note the quote from the conclusion section of that study:

AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF IGNITION INTERLOCK IN CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN ACCORD WITH ASSEMBLY BILL 762
CHAPTER 756, 1998 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

September 2004​



"The relationship between IIDs and crashes changes when crashes are examined for
offenders who installed an interlock device. Surprisingly, the two analyses that
examined this both showed that the risk of crashes was higher for offenders installing
an interlock."


There is no question that these devices should be considered hazardous and should be removed from the exemption list, But I suppose optics and the influence of the lobbying by powerful special interest groups will continue to put us all at risk until perhaps a horrific accident occurs as a result of the usage of these devices. The Random Rolling Retest should be ordered to be disabled in all IID's. Will someone have to lose a cherished family members before a public outcry occurs?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
Well the whole point of this program is to enhance government coffers and hopefully buy a few votes from the do gooders that would normally left.
 

ricknu

New Member
Nov 10, 2013
38
0
6
Just to clarify. I have checked extensively. Manufacturers vary slightly in vehicle reactions to failed random rolling retests but basically most are as described above. I have searched extensively for information on how the random rolling retest works in Ontario. I have not been successful. Dare we say this is a deliberate attempt to mask the truth. What do you think?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,591
2,336
113
Toronto, ON
Given that the interlock system is only mandaded for 1 year, I am ok with that being an additional restriction on a drunk driving charge.

I do not support any punishment given out without court order aside from short 24 hour suspension for .05 --> .08 which is current. The new .05 restrictions are stupid and will likely be struck down.

Insurance companies don't work on court results right now either. If you are hit, they have a table of outcomes and if A hit B in this way, A is at fault regardless if A is found not guilty in a court of law.
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
I believe that this is 100% acceptable. My ONLY concern with this is that the law does not require an ignition interlock PERMANENTLY.

There is simply NO EXCUSE for driving while impaired. None what so ever. Anyone that is guilty of doing that should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They are taking out a ton or more of vehicle, that they can not properly control. They could easily kill someone.

Personally, I would like to see lengthy jail sentences, ad a total ban on having a registered vehicle at the residence of, any person convicted of a 2nd such offense. And, if they drive someones vehicle, and are caught, that vehicle should be confiscated.

Society has excused this kind of behavior WAAAAAY to long. It's really past time to take this crime seriously for a change.

It's VERY simple to not have this done. Have a designated drive, who is NOT allowed to drink any alcohol, or take public transportation.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,285
480
83
59
Alberta
I believe that this is 100% acceptable. My ONLY concern with this is that the law does not require an ignition interlock PERMANENTLY.

There is simply NO EXCUSE for driving while impaired. None what so ever. Anyone that is guilty of doing that should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They are taking out a ton or more of vehicle, that they can not properly control. They could easily kill someone.

Personally, I would like to see lengthy jail sentences, ad a total ban on having a registered vehicle at the residence of, any person convicted of a 2nd such offense. And, if they drive someones vehicle, and are caught, that vehicle should be confiscated.

Society has excused this kind of behavior WAAAAAY to long. It's really past time to take this crime seriously for a change.

It's VERY simple to not have this done. Have a designated drive, who is NOT allowed to drink any alcohol, or take public transportation.

Let's just take them out and shoot them.

Show of hands. Anyone here in their past ever driven while impaired. Be honest.

I'll start. I did when I was a kid. I was never busted, but I was lucky.

Sometimes people make mistakes.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
I believe that this is 100% acceptable. My ONLY concern with this is that the law does not require an ignition interlock PERMANENTLY.

There is simply NO EXCUSE for driving while impaired. None what so ever. Anyone that is guilty of doing that should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They are taking out a ton or more of vehicle, that they can not properly control. They could easily kill someone.

Personally, I would like to see lengthy jail sentences, ad a total ban on having a registered vehicle at the residence of, any person convicted of a 2nd such offense. And, if they drive someones vehicle, and are caught, that vehicle should be confiscated.

Society has excused this kind of behavior WAAAAAY to long. It's really past time to take this crime seriously for a change.

It's VERY simple to not have this done. Have a designated drive, who is NOT allowed to drink any alcohol, or take public transportation.

This isn't about being impaired. The legal limit is .08. In a cash grab some provinces have decided to hand out fines for being over .05 In BC where we have socialized insurance your insurance goes up as well. The total bill for being BELOW the legal impaired limit but over what MADD deems acceptable is about $5000.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,285
480
83
59
Alberta
This isn't about being impaired. The legal limit is .08. In a cash grab some provinces have decided to hand out fines for being over .05 In BC where we have socialized insurance your insurance goes up as well. The total bill for being BELOW the legal impaired limit but over what MADD deems acceptable is about $5000.

The same people that would bitch about cameras and privacy are willing to hand it all over to the government when it comes to their pocketbook. This is another Provincial Liberal Legacy.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
This reminds me of one of the other threads on impaired driving. If you are trying to solve a problem, the first thing you need to do is define the problem. Are drivers with a BAC of 0.05 really a problem? I'm not even convinced drivers below 0.10 are causing much of a problem. At least not one worthy of our over the top response. I could be wrong but as of yet, nobody has shown me any evidence that they are.

It was provided time and again by LG and others - You refused to accept it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
And what do they do for swabs that test for drugs on the spot? What's acceptable, what isn't?

April 1 hundreds of store front Medicinal Cannabis shops open up across Canada.

If weeds stops a nervous shake, or muscle cramp, back disc, hip, shoulder or neck pain and you are able to drive after dosing with cannabis are you impaired?
 

ricknu

New Member
Nov 10, 2013
38
0
6
I believe that this is 100% acceptable. My ONLY concern with this is that the law does not require an ignition interlock PERMANENTLY.

There is simply NO EXCUSE for driving while impaired. None what so ever. Anyone that is guilty of doing that should be charged with attempted manslaughter. They are taking out a ton or more of vehicle, that they can not properly control. They could easily kill someone.

Personally, I would like to see lengthy jail sentences, ad a total ban on having a registered vehicle at the residence of, any person convicted of a 2nd such offense. And, if they drive someones vehicle, and are caught, that vehicle should be confiscated.

Society has excused this kind of behavior WAAAAAY to long. It's really past time to take this crime seriously for a change.

It's VERY simple to not have this done. Have a designated drive, who is NOT allowed to drink any alcohol, or take public transportation.

Just a point or two here:

My first question is, What are you going to tell the young mother whose baby is killed by a sober but distracted driver performing a Random Rolling Retest? According to studies which have been done this a distinct possibility. I would be willing to bet that she would not be pleased with your callous disregard for safety. If you support the use of this device as it operates now, then I suggest you rethink the issue. You see I would have no issue with this device if they restricted its use to simply starting the automobile.

I do agree that anyone who is impaired and I mean by impaired, disoriented, and actually handling an automobile out on the street should be charged. It is reckless and irresponsible. But that is a far cry from charging an individual who is asleep in a sleeping bag on the front seat of his car with his keys in his possession with a dui. This actually happened by the way under the legislation governing Care and Control. You see I am a believer in section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (innocent until proven guilty of actually committing the offense) rather than the use of section 1 of the charter to pull an end run.There are several other variations on this theme.

By the way, society has never excused or let slide the issue of true drunk driving in the real sense of driving drunk. I do not support this either.

There are a couple more issues I shall be introducing here in the near future. These will deal with further excesses. One thing for sure is that I do pride myself in having a realistic and in depth approach rather than sounding like a back woods redneck.