Automotive

Jan 1, 2019 - Distracted Driving Fines in Ontario go up - $1000 on your first offense

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 14th, 2019 1:52 pm
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
1479 posts
780 upvotes
Just Moved To Somewh…
Re: https://globalnews.ca/news/4828694/impa ... ts-police/ - Off topic but I will post this to clear the air.

@daivey FYI, if only because I have really no idea of your expertise in these matters and you are only posting a news article that disturbs you.
@jaswest2754 - This is already in effect and has been as long as I remember but Canlii only publishes historical editions of the C.C.C. back to 2003, more later in this post..
@angryaudifanatic Because you stated you have a Law Degree and are an expert in H.T.A. matters (goes somewhat hand in hand with C.C.C. driving matters). Give your head a shake, you and the lawyer quoted in the article.

First off the new provisions specifically reference alcohol AND drug combination. The newest word included is "ceasing to operate a motor vehicle". In reality this has been in effect for alcohol as far back as when I was active, albeit under the provisions of Sec. 254(2) and they are still in effect, albeit the provisions of S. 254(2) reference a 3 hour limit. The police have always been able to demand a sample pursuant to 254(2) and there is numerous Case Law that references this and the reasons for why there is a limit. FYI - Experts have never been able to quantify results and extrapolating those results beyond a 2-3 hour window. As for the subject in the news article, there have been many an impaired driver arrested and charged as a result of drinking the night before and thinking they have "slept off" the alcohol in their system, when in reality they are still over the legal limit.

All this Legislation has done is bring the provisions of Sec. 254(2) into play within Sec. 253. Provisions that were always there but now with one less hour for the police to work with.

Yes, there will be Court challenges but I suspect the challenge will be with the difference in times and that it will be the 3 hour limit in Sec. 254(2) that may be challenged.
“Before one can have a Clue they must first accumulate 10 Inklings. That said, all it takes is one bad post and you erase all Clues accumulated'"
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 9, 2007
9925 posts
4405 upvotes
Toronto
Anyone got hit yet?

WOULD SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
7766 posts
4548 upvotes
Edmonton
alanbrenton wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 10:39 am
Isn't calling/texting usually done in an emergency?

Since when is parking on the shoulder with flasher on an offense? I'm in Ontario not in Alberta by the way.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/ ... .8.0.shtml
Here are some basic parking rules:

Never park on the travelled part of a road. Drive off the road onto the shoulder if you must stop for some reason.
Do you really think all these people talking/texting are doing so "in an emergency"? I don't, personally.

AFAIK, stopping in a no-stopping zone will get you a ticket if a cop sees you, unless you're calling for a tow truck or on 911 with a medical emergency.

Same with parking in a no-parking zone. Putting the flashers on doesn't mean the meter maid is going to say "oh, it's ok... they have an emergency so I just won't give them a ticket".

The first sentence in the link you posted is:
always watch for and obey signs that say you may not stop or limit stopping, standing or parking.
All I'm saying is that if you pull over to the shoulder right beside a no-stopping sign in order to safely call your wife and tell her that you're going to be late for dinner, a cop pulling over with his fancy flashing lights is probably going to give you a ticket at a minimum for stopping in a no-stopping zone, and possibly for using a handheld device while not parked legally.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... -faq.shtml, Q2 in particular

TL;DR: If it's an actual emergency, do what you need to do, and pulling over with the flashers on is safer than driving. But since I'd wager 95% or more of texting and calling while driving wouldn't really be classified by an emergency by a JP, you're taking your chances.

C
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
47557 posts
13241 upvotes
CNeufeld wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 10:53 am
Do you really think all these people talking/texting are doing so "in an emergency"? I don't, personally.

AFAIK, stopping in a no-stopping zone will get you a ticket if a cop sees you, unless you're calling for a tow truck or on 911 with a medical emergency.

Same with parking in a no-parking zone. Putting the flashers on doesn't mean the meter maid is going to say "oh, it's ok... they have an emergency so I just won't give them a ticket".

The first sentence in the link you posted is:


All I'm saying is that if you pull over to the shoulder right beside a no-stopping sign in order to safely call your wife and tell her that you're going to be late for dinner, a cop pulling over with his fancy flashing lights is probably going to give you a ticket at a minimum for stopping in a no-stopping zone, and possibly for using a handheld device while not parked legally.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... -faq.shtml, Q2 in particular

TL;DR: If it's an actual emergency, do what you need to do, and pulling over with the flashers on is safer than driving. But since I'd wager 95% or more of texting and calling while driving wouldn't really be classified by an emergency by a JP, you're taking your chances.

C
I said to park on the side when there isn't any "no parking" or "no stopping" sign.

I know how to read and obey the signs.

You are confusing me with your comments because according to the handbook, it isn't unlawful to park on the shoulder as long as you are not obstructing traffic.

Actually, I'm the least affected here. I don't really add a lot of additional stops while driving toward my final destination. It's just that my smartphone would occasionally hang or reboot. I only have a data only plan because family much less friends ever call me lol.
Last edited by alanbrenton on Jan 9th, 2019 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
7766 posts
4548 upvotes
Edmonton
alanbrenton wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 10:56 am
I said to park on the side when there isn't any "no parking" or "no stopping" sign.

I know how to read and obey the signs.

You are confusing me with your comments because according to the handbook, it isn't unlawful to park on the shoulder as long as you are not obstructing traffic.

Actually, I'm the least affected here. I don't really add a lot of additional stops while driving toward my final destination. It's just that my smartphone would occasionally hang or reboot.
Sorry, I missed the double "no" in your OP. My bad.

C
Deal Guru
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
10033 posts
4472 upvotes
Toronto
Cheapo-Findo wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 10:44 am
Anyone got hit yet?
They wouldn't admit it cause RFD backlash! lol
Deal Expert
User avatar
Apr 21, 2004
47557 posts
13241 upvotes
koffey wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 10:59 am
They wouldn't admit it cause RFD backlash! lol
First, sign up for new RFD account and then the trolling.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 16, 2011
2781 posts
1761 upvotes
The NORTH
alanbrenton wrote:
Jan 9th, 2019 11:00 am
First, sign up for new RFD account and then the trolling.
1 day old account : First Post : Got Tboned making Left by Red Light Runner, Recorded the whole accident on my cell phone cuz I knew he was running the red! Why am I Charged???
Sr. Member
Nov 18, 2015
800 posts
594 upvotes
Unionville, ON
https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impa ... h-samples/
It may sound unbelievable, but Canada’s revised laws on impaired driving could see police demand breath samples from people in bars, restaurants, or even at home. And if you say no, you could be arrested, face a criminal record, ordered to pay a fine, and subjected to a driving suspension.

You could be in violation of the impaired driving laws even two hours after you’ve been driving. Now, the onus is on drivers to prove they weren’t impaired when they were on the road.
Here we go... The slippery slope :D
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 17, 2006
5805 posts
4137 upvotes
North York
wartune123 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 11:38 am
https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impa ... h-samples/



Here we go... The slippery slope :D
just read something similar from http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/po ... &ocid=iehp A windows of 2 hours after you drive.
Under the new law, police officers no longer need to have a “reasonable suspicion” the driver had consumed alcohol. Now, an officer can demand a sample from drivers for any reason at any time.

While many Canadians have heard about that part of the new legislation, lawyers said the two-hour provision has gone unreported.

“The public has completely missed this one,” said Joseph Neuberger, a Toronto criminal defence lawyer.


He described a scenario in which someone has gone home and watches a hockey game, enjoys a few beers, and gets a knock on the door from police, who received a tip about someone in the house who was driving a vehicle suspiciously.

“The person answers the door and they say, ‘Sir, we’ve had a complaint about your driving, we need you to provide a sample," said Neuberger, noting if the person failed to provide the sample it would likely lead to arrest.
If this is true and not an exaggeration, many will fabricate stories to ruin some lives. I can see 'unfriendly' neighbours calling in to falsely report their neighbour enjoying a beer in their home
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 26, 2005
9019 posts
1156 upvotes
Toronto
If only there were more police on the roads. I see hundreds of speeding, careless and dangerous driving every day going to and from work.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
16119 posts
2253 upvotes
Toronto
rfdrfd wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 12:10 pm
If only there were more police on the roads. I see hundreds of speeding, careless and dangerous driving every day going to and from work.
A lot of those are police though. The cops I know openly complain about other cops taking too long to let them go when they're pulled over for speeding and flash their badges. It's the same as those bike gangs who roam around the summer blocking off the highways. There are reasons why they're mysteriously never caught.
wartune123 wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 11:38 am
https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impa ... h-samples/

Here we go... The slippery slope :D
Are you really surprised? This is a country that allows cops to, without any sort of evidence or due process, seize your car and leave you at the side of the highway because a tow-truck driver paid them off. They receive only the harshest of slaps on the wrist for such behavior. The government appears to actively hate the citizens and only works for the government. I hope people like getting their summer barbecues, new year's eve parties, and other social gathering raided.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Deal Fanatic
Aug 14, 2007
9286 posts
985 upvotes
Toronto
konsensei wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 11:46 am
just read something similar from http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/po ... &ocid=iehp A windows of 2 hours after you drive.



If this is true and not an exaggeration, many will fabricate stories to ruin some lives. I can see 'unfriendly' neighbours calling in to falsely report their neighbour enjoying a beer in their home
I can't see them knocking on someones door while at home to demand a breath sample, after that there's no proof you were driving unless what you were wearing when you made a bad decision exactly matches the description.

I highly doubt police are going to be going this far.
Deal Fanatic
Aug 14, 2007
9286 posts
985 upvotes
Toronto
konsensei wrote:
Jan 10th, 2019 11:46 am
just read something similar from http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/po ... &ocid=iehp A windows of 2 hours after you drive.



If this is true and not an exaggeration, many will fabricate stories to ruin some lives. I can see 'unfriendly' neighbours calling in to falsely report their neighbour enjoying a beer in their home
I can't see them knocking on someones door while at home to demand a breath sample, after that there's no proof you were driving unless what you were wearing when you made a bad decision exactly matches the description.

I highly doubt police are going to be going this far.
Member
Feb 22, 2006
424 posts
5 upvotes
angryaudifanatic wrote:
Dec 17th, 2018 11:04 am
This nanny state is real.
You're talking to Canadians here, it's not really surprising they enjoy cucking themselves and not see the bigger picture that comes with these type of laws. Of course enforcement when it comes mobile devices and driving needs to be enforcement, however obscure or broad laws ARE NOT OK.

Just look at the ludicrous drone laws we have on the federal level.
Image

Top