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

[petros]

What took ON so long? Majority of Provinces are just as harsh. A driver with a learner or novice status has a zero tolerance clause. 1 drink and license yanked.

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.

No it wasn't struck down in BC. 0.5 will get you 3 days suspension, impounded vehicle and ICBC administration fees out the yin yang. $481 without adding tow and impound fees.

 

[JamesBondo]

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.

The feds have defined an electric bicycle as "not a motorvehicle" so by default, any province the references the federal definition must now treat them as bicycles. However, it is still legal for provinces or municipalities to create their own definition and laws for electric bicycles.

I guess what I am saying is each type of government has it's own way of regulating things, and in this case, I believe they used to suspend and tow your vehicle at .08( using their provincial authority and a federal definition for impaired). so this might really be a question of whether the province has the right to redefine the .08 limit into something that that they want, such as .05.

I think they have that right.

In my opinion, I'm ok with what they are doing.

 

[Johnnny]

:roll: Still usin' eight-track loop, eh?


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

Wasnt there a Harveys there at one point in that spot?

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

What took ON so long? Majority of Provinces are just as harsh. A driver with a learner or novice status has a zero tolerance clause. 1 drink and license yanked.

No it wasn't struck down in BC. 0.5 will get you 3 days suspension, impounded vehicle and ICBC administration fees out the yin yang. $481 without adding tow and impound fees.

It came in in 2013. This is an old thread.

 

[pgs]

Simply, drunk driving is a police concern because alcohol increases the risk that drivers will get in traffic crashes and kill or injure themselves or others. Alcohol impairment is the primary factor in traffic fatalities. 1 In the United States, where drunk driving is among the most common types of arrest made by police, the number of alcohol-related crash deaths is roughly the same as the number of homicides. 2 In addition, vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in young people ages 15 to 20; many of these are alcohol-related.The young people ages 15 to 20 than goes to rehab or Texas dui classes.

I think you are missing the latest stats regarding distracted driving .

 

[relic]

I believe that all the talk about punishment for impaired drivers is kind of irrelevant, because your average goomer that props himself up behind the hoop KNOWS he's not going to get caught or run over a kid or wrap his Buick around a tree.

 

[Machjo]

If you really want to nip drunk driving in the bud:


Make the consumption of alcohol a fineable offense. That way, it doesn't matter how much alcohol the person consumed, if he doesn't want to pay a fine, then don't drink and drive at all. But it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he consumed alcohol. I don't trust the police.

 

[MHz]

Perhaps very high insurance rates are part of a move to make driving too expensive for most people. That being said that opens the market for e-scooters as they are insurance free and will get you around town but not from city-to-city. That demand would spur development of e-motors and controllers and batteries as well as the scooters themselves.

If you really want to nip drunk driving in the bud:


Make the consumption of alcohol a fineable offense. That way, it doesn't matter how much alcohol the person consumed, if he doesn't want to pay a fine, then don't drink and drive at all. But it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he consumed alcohol. I don't trust the police.

You could always lower the content so the drinker was full before he was legally drunk. 1% beer anyone??

 

[captain morgan]

You could always lower the content so the drinker was full before he was legally drunk. 1% beer anyone??

Add a shot of rye whiskey to that 1% beer and you'll have an actual drink

 

[Johnnny]

They are being steep in their choice to make the limit so low. And to be honest it doesnt stop people. Take my city for example along with Thunder Bay we're the worst drinkers and drivers around and they the popo's have to be heavy handed. Its not uncommon to hear of someone getting run over by a drunk who tried to flee. People are fed up

 

[JamesBondo]

The province is basically saying it is a driving offense long before it is a criminal offense. What is so wrong with that?

 

[Remington1]

I believe in consequences when breaking laws, especially those that harm innocent people. What I don't believe in however is using money to penalize people. The only people benefiting from fines is the Government, cash grabs don't deter drunk drivers. Completely stopping drunk driving is impossible, unless technology can get advanced enough for the car door or steering wheel to be capable of detecting alcohol in your hands or breath (reasonable level, then the car could conk for 24 hours.

 

[JLM]

I believe in consequences when breaking laws, especially those that harm innocent people. What I don't believe in however is using money to penalize people. The only people benefiting from fines is the Government, cash grabs don't deter drunk drivers. Completely stopping drunk driving is impossible, unless technology can get advanced enough for the car door or steering wheel to be capable of detecting alcohol in your hands or breath (reasonable level, then the car could conk for 24 hours.

Yes and no- fines are definitely not equable, BUT still fair in a sense, if you can't afford the fine no one is forcing you to break the law. I have more sympathy for the victims than the perpetrator, like the A$$hole in Ontario who killed 4 children and their grandfather. I would agree to impounding the car for a year for everyone convicted of impaired driving. It's fair and it would go a long way toward putting a stop to it. AND it wouldn't be long before it starts to save the tax payer lots of money.

 

[Johnnny]

Just remember folks that it's not actually 1 hr but in facet 2 hrs that your body needs to process 1 drink.

 

[JLM]

Just remember folks that it's not actually 1 hr but in facet 2 hrs that your body needs to process 1 drink.

OF course "I drink" means different things to different people- a guy explaining it to the cops could mean a 20 oz. mug, in which case it probably takes about 3 hours to pass through the system. (depending on a multitude of things, like weigh, amount previously eaten and when, etc. etc.

 

[Cannuck]

The province is basically saying it is a driving offense long before it is a criminal offense. What is so wrong with that?

The problem is the motive.

Our current drunk driving laws are designed with the intent of making money for insurance companies. There's no statistical evidence that a driver with a BAC of 0.1 is a hazard on the road. What there is is evidence of slower reaction time. So what? Seniors have slower reaction times as well. Since seniors do not represent a significant portion of accident participants, there is clearly more to the issue than reaction time. In fact, I read a study done a number of years ago that indicated accident rates went down as BAC increased until the level hit 0.1, then trended upwards. One possible reason could be that, like seniors, mildly impaired drivers compensate by altering their driving (ie. driving slower).

The point is that we are using a big stick to try and solve a problem that doesn't really exist and it's so the insurance companies can make a buck.

Set the rate at 0.1 and throw the book at those that go over. Leave the rest of the people the fack alone.

 

[taxslave]

Yes and no- fines are definitely not equable, BUT still fair in a sense, if you can't afford the fine no one is forcing you to break the law. I have more sympathy for the victims than the perpetrator, like the A$$hole in Ontario who killed 4 children and their grandfather. I would agree to impounding the car for a year for everyone convicted of impaired driving. It's fair and it would go a long way toward putting a stop to it. AND it wouldn't be long before it starts to save the tax payer lots of money.

Depends on who the registered owner is.

 

[MHz]

The solution is an effective treatment for alcohol addiction, all addictions need solutions. For driving in particular a realistic VR program where they get as drunk as they were when ticketed and the simulation will present emergency situations as well as skill testing and at the end the person reviewing the results should feel ashamed at how f*cked up he was and the descsion to drink or drive would have to be made as both is not an option.

 

[JLM]

Depends on who the registered owner is.

An excellent reason for being selective about who you lend your vehicle to!

 

[Cannuck]

The solution is an effective treatment for alcohol addiction...

Solution to what? Most people that gets suspensions and impaired driving charges aren't alcoholics