Automotive

Locked: Must know: new changes to driving enforcement laws

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 8th, 2018 9:01 am
Member
Apr 15, 2014
335 posts
278 upvotes
Toronto, ON
So can we still claim to be a sovereign citizen and refuse the breathalyzer and shout "am I being detained?"
Please respond
Sr. Member
User avatar
Dec 15, 2017
668 posts
140 upvotes
Toronto
konfusion666 wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 1:10 pm
Another thread backfired on "dear micelli" ... Face With Tears Of Joy
What does that tells you? That there are LOTS of clueless sheep in this forum that love to have the government as our nanny.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 17, 2009
1834 posts
619 upvotes
konfusion666 wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 1:10 pm
Another thread backfired on "dear micelli" ... Face With Tears Of Joy
Indeed. I'll wait until people start to suffer the consequences of this new law and then we'll revisit the subject.
Corvus oculum corvi non eruit.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 10, 2013
2302 posts
1560 upvotes
sbutabi wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 12:05 pm
This is a good thing. I did the drunk drive (very short distance) once and it scared the crap out of me. Got lucky and never did it again. Very glad nobody got hurt at the time (some 20 years back). Too bad though that they don't impose the same harsh rules for texting as looking down for even 3-4 seconds can mean a life is lost. Sadly texting people continue to do it with impunity and the cops are not following through as I have seen cops standing around at construction intersections with people texting right in front of them and when I pointed it out they shrugged it off. I guess MADD doesn't care about it either or they would exert the kind of pressure that brings about change for this as well. http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/03/09/text ... l-ontario/
https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acciden ... stics.html
General Cell Phone Statistics
Their job at a construction zone is based on that. They aren't there to ticket or they wouldn't be doing the job they were hired to do.
Smash that like button!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
2808 posts
1827 upvotes
Oakville, ON
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Dec 4th, 2018 3:36 pm
This should be front-page news. Because "dear justin" legalized weed, which is not always easy to detect (absent the smell), they also changed the rules regarding driving enforcement laws. Compulsory breath tests for drivers coming to Canada, in the New Year (2019).

What does that mean to the average person? Here's what:

Today, police require reasonable and probable grounds (RPG) to get you to blow into a roadside screening device. If you deny having drunk anything and don't smell of booze, there would be no RPG, so police cannot make you take the test. Not legally.

Next year, with this draconian rule coming into effect, what you say to the police, does not matter: they don't need RPG. You take the test. If you don't, you're looking at administrative suspension and criminal charges for refusing a breathalyzer sample. If you take it and fail, your own evidence, obtained compulsory against your will, will be used to convict you.

Although they say that police still need a "lawful reason" to pull you over in the first place, they don't mention the RIDE festive program. Our courts have said that RIDE does not infringe on your Charter rights. So, guess what? If you get stopped at a RIDE program, you'll be taking the test, whether you want to or not.

I'm all for taking drunk drivers off the road, but this infringement on people's rights is not good for any of us. How is this any different from carding?
This slippery slope started with the Stunting changes. You get dinged with big administrative penalties and impounded vehicle all occurring pre-trial with the only necessary evidence being the police officer’s word.

I think in both cases they’re well intended but the ends don’t justify the means.

We also didn’t need stiffer penalties and law change for texting either.

Cracking down on Stunting, texting, and DUI could and should all be better managed via increased enforcement of the laws that existed prior rather than trying to do it by eroding our rights as they’re doing here.

However, it seems that the public is willing to allow their rights to be eroded for a noble cause rather than dig into their pockets in order to address the issue the proper way - via enforcement (which costs money).
Deal Addict
May 4, 2014
3431 posts
3200 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Laws like this make sense, it actually gets impaired drivers off the road. If you don't like it, move to the states, then you can hold up your laminated sign and refuse to cooperate without repercussions.
Deal Addict
Jul 30, 2005
1163 posts
2 upvotes
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Dec 4th, 2018 3:36 pm
<snip>

I'm all for taking drunk drivers off the road, but this infringement on people's rights is not good for any of us. How is this any different from carding?
The fact that is applies to all people and not just people of colour. Is that what your problem is, that YOU could be unfairly targeted with this new law? Your lack of interest when it was just PoC targeted is telling.


loserga wrote:
Dec 4th, 2018 4:53 pm
I believe trying to deter people from driving drunk has been as fruitless as Prohibition. People simply want to drink, and simply want to drive. Something needs to be done to accommodate these desires so that less harm is done.
I'm assuming that you're trying to be funny/ironic/trolling with this comment?
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2011
23705 posts
10132 upvotes
Ottawa
Don't drink and drive...simple!
Deal Addict
Apr 30, 2011
2842 posts
304 upvotes
RICHMOND HILL
ThinkOutsideTheBox wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 2:15 pm
...

I'm assuming that you're trying to be funny/ironic/trolling with this comment?
I'm being completely serious with this comment. While countless efforts, money, and resources over several decades have been pulled into discouraging drunk driving, drinking and driving as two separate actions have already been deeply ingrained into our culture as traditions, even habits. Thus it is not surprising that the two would happen together at some point, regardless of how much you try to educate people against it.

Understanding the motivations behind why people drink, and why people drive will go a long way to reducing instances of drunk driving. I don't think people do these things for the reasons that we usually assume, and by actually figuring out the reasons behind these actions, steps can be made toward creating alternatives to drinking along with driving.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
1277 posts
385 upvotes
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Dec 4th, 2018 3:36 pm
This should be front-page news. Because "dear justin" legalized weed, which is not always easy to detect (absent the smell), they also changed the rules regarding driving enforcement laws. Compulsory breath tests for drivers coming to Canada, in the New Year (2019).

What does that mean to the average person? Here's what:

Today, police require reasonable and probable grounds (RPG) to get you to blow into a roadside screening device. If you deny having drunk anything and don't smell of booze, there would be no RPG, so police cannot make you take the test. Not legally.

Next year, with this draconian rule coming into effect, what you say to the police, does not matter: they don't need RPG. You take the test. If you don't, you're looking at administrative suspension and criminal charges for refusing a breathalyzer sample. If you take it and fail, your own evidence, obtained compulsory against your will, will be used to convict you.

Although they say that police still need a "lawful reason" to pull you over in the first place, they don't mention the RIDE festive program. Our courts have said that RIDE does not infringe on your Charter rights. So, guess what? If you get stopped at a RIDE program, you'll be taking the test, whether you want to or not.

I'm all for taking drunk drivers off the road, but this infringement on people's rights is not good for any of us. How is this any different from carding?
Some errors in your post......on reasonable suspicion of alcohol in your blood is required to make you blow at present, which is already a very low standard....example, saw you leave a bar, or you smell of alcohol, or you say you had one drink

If you really think the police are going to be out setting up checkpoints to make sure everyone blows.............yeah not happening

What might change is that if they get a gut feeling that you are lying about not drinking and driving (not reasonable suspicion) they will make you blow.

It is our collective right to not be killed by drunk drivers, so you might get have to spend 5-10 minutes every couple of years at RIDE programs
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 28, 2007
1277 posts
385 upvotes
Micelli_Illuminatti wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 1:49 pm
Indeed. I'll wait until people start to suffer the consequences of this new law and then we'll revisit the subject.
Suffer.........lol

Some people might think twice about drinking and driving, and I guess if that is suffering for them, then I saw let them suffer
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
9815 posts
4189 upvotes
Toronto
Too bad this doesn't apply to distracted driving laws but while I'm all for harsh DUI laws, forcing someone to do something against their will is not actually good for anyone.

I'm against the law/government from forcing me to do something whether they feel I have done something wrong or not. Will they allowed to enter my home without a warrant if they believed I was hiding aliens?

OP has a very valid point/concern. Canada is slowly becoming the new Russia/China.
Deal Addict
Jul 30, 2005
1163 posts
2 upvotes
loserga wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 2:33 pm
I'm being completely serious with this comment. While countless efforts, money, and resources over several decades have been pulled into discouraging drunk driving, drinking and driving as two separate actions have already been deeply ingrained into our culture as traditions, even habits. Thus it is not surprising that the two would happen together at some point, regardless of how much you try to educate people against it.

Understanding the motivations behind why people drink, and why people drive will go a long way to reducing instances of drunk driving. I don't think people do these things for the reasons that we usually assume, and by actually figuring out the reasons behind these actions, steps can be made toward creating alternatives to drinking along with driving.
I mean -- if someone is intoxicated, they cannot safely operate a vehicle. That is why alternates like taxis, carpooling, public transit, etc. exist. If people continue to drink and drive, the penalties should be as harsh as possible. Further analysis of the reasons why may facilitate future alternatives but for now, the public risk element demands that a hard stance is taken.

This hard stance is why drinking and driving related accidents and deaths have declined.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Feb 25, 2015
935 posts
298 upvotes
York Region
CardinalComb wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 1:27 pm
So can we still claim to be a sovereign citizen and refuse the breathalyzer and shout "am I being detained?"
I love those "sovereign citizen" youtube videos Face With Tears Of Joy
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 6, 2010
9815 posts
4189 upvotes
Toronto
bacalhau4me wrote:
Dec 5th, 2018 3:49 pm
I love those "sovereign citizen" youtube videos Face With Tears Of Joy
lol, never heard of them, thanks! First one I find in this compilation is from Waterloo. lol

Top