LOL Lucky Day For Those In Court W3 At Eglinton!! (Toronto)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

... however drunk driving is completely different...

---

No, it's not. Alcohol related incidents are on a steady decline in the past 20 years. It's not because the legislators are pushing for zero tolerance, mandatory sentencing and other draconian measures that have proven not to achieve anything but fill the jails. You should get your facts straight before calling someone's argument asinine. Here is a Crash course on MADD for starters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

We have a culture of people fighting every ticket tooth and nail to thank for that, not saying its right but its the reason.

---

We have a prohibitionist culture. Why do you think people are spending their time and money fighting seemingly trivial charges? What are you saying is or isn't right, BTW?

It doesn't help that the HTA has that "... when it may affect another vehicle" in the section about the use of turn signals. It's the vehicle that you don't see (the one that's about to overtake, or the one that's momentarily in your blind spot) that needs to know MOST that you are about to change lanes. If I had my 'druthers, I'd rather that those words be struck from the HTA and then the cops write a "failure to signal" ticket EVERY time they see a lane change without signalling ...

In germany if you change lanes without signalling or are driving along in any lane with available space to your right (where you ought to be) and the polizei see you, you're getting a ticket and the evidence will be on video ...

I'm not saying everything is perfect there. Their vehicle inspection laws and procedures are way overboard and beyond anal. (Ours are nowhere near stringent enough.) If you have anything aftermarket on your vehicle, it had better have a TuV certificate, or else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

We have a culture of people fighting every ticket tooth and nail to thank for that, not saying its right but its the reason.

---

True, but there's an argument that this situation exists because some/many of the laws and restrictions and penalties are viewed as overbearing and unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

The answer for this is simple - its about ease of conviction. The amount of garbage that I used to hear in traffic courts about non-speeding tickets was out of control.
However, its extremely difficult nowadays to argue with lasers, radars and cameras (comparatively).

We have a culture of people fighting every ticket tooth and nail to thank for that, not saying its right but its the reason.

---

If the police wanted to enforce other concerns, they could improve their evidence collecting procedures and equpment to improve conviction rates for those, also. The problem is, there is no incentive to do so. The police are very aware that speeding isn't the danger they make it out to be publicly. If it was, their patrol cars would not routinely travel so fast when not responding to emergencies. (Similar arguments about distracted driving where they are about the worst abusers out there). The police are happy to focus on speeding tickets. It generates a tonne of revenue and is easy to do. Simply park a cruiser at the bottom of a long grade where the speed drops 20 kph and ring-a-ding-ding.

I do commend them for the red light infractions, but again, it isn't motivated by safety but about ease of revenue generation.

If the police actually were concerned with traffic safety, they would study the causes of accidents and develop strategies to address them, regardless of revenue capability or conviction rates.

Hmm, I suppose I agree with you, it is all about ease of conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad

No, it's not. Alcohol related incidents are on a steady decline in the past 20 years. It's not because the legislators are pushing for zero tolerance, mandatory sentencing and other draconian measures that have proven not to achieve anything but fill the jails. You should get your facts straight before calling someone's argument asinine. Here is a Crash course on MADD for starters.

---

Yaa.. no

Drunk driving isn't speeding. The comparison is asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian P

True, but there's an argument that this situation exists because some/many of the laws and restrictions and penalties are viewed as overbearing and unreasonable.

---

I view it as more of an insurance issue. I find that most tickets I see are simple speeding, reduced, something that a lot of people wouldn't mind paying probably, but they fight it because of the insurance hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

Yaa.. no

Drunk driving isn't speeding. The comparison is asinine.

---

He's saying that strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety is that same as... strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastar1

He's saying that strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety is that same as... strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety.

---

He said RIDE checks turn average joes into criminals. ya... no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

He said RIDE checks turn average joes into criminals. ya... no.

---

There was a time I would have agreed with you. With the way that a 'warning' has been turned into a punishment, however.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastar1

He's saying that strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety is that same as... strict enforcement of a regulation that has nearly no impact on safety.

---

Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying. The question is not whether driving 200km/h on Gardiner during rush hour or driving anywhere after a twelve beers drank in past hour is dangerous, by anyone's standards. Limits keep getting lowered, tolerances eliminated, sentencing mandated, rights to due process trampled. To what end? Until someone who had a beer last night or is driving 101km/h on the highway is thrown in jail?

Check the latest legislation that was passed largely unnoticed - Omnibus Crime Bill C-10

The issue is much bigger...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlad

Check the latest legislation that was passed largely unnoticed - Omnibus Crime Bill C-10

---

OMG are you siding with the child molesters!?!?!

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fastar1

OMG are you siding with the child molesters!?!?!

:rolleyes:

---

Since I already belong to the most maligned and hated social group in US (it's not that different here, people are just more politically correct which is not always a good thing) "siding with child molesters" may be considered bad for child molesters. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan

There was a time I would have agreed with you. With the way that a 'warning' has been turned into a punishment, however.....

---

RIDE checks are about criminal impairment too, not just 0.05.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

RIDE checks are about criminal impairment too, not just 0.05.

---

I full well realize that. The problem is that through pressure from people like Tim Mulcahy and groups like MADD, it has grown to encompass far more than was originally intended. When we essentially defeat an epidemic, do we then have to create new criminals? Only if you're a politician, who's looking for re-election.

The original point was that laws do not change behaviour. I reject that premise, I haven't seen any data that supports that view and my personal experience suggests otherwise. I never supported particular laws, i simply stated that laws work, whether that behavioural change results in any tangible benefit to society, thats part 2.

Also it was suggested that enforcement of simple speeding and impaired driving was both a cash grab. I reject the idea that the 2 are comparable, in penalty, moral repugnancy, and potential for harm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

The original point was that laws do not change behaviour. I reject that premise, I haven't seen any data that supports that view and my personal experience suggests otherwise. I never supported particular laws, i simply stated that laws work, whether that behavioural change results in any tangible benefit to society, thats part 2.

Also it was suggested that enforcement of simple speeding and impaired driving was both a cash grab. I reject the idea that the 2 are comparable, in penalty, moral repugnancy, and potential for harm.

---

I will not argue that laws don't change behaviour, as it seems to be a rather untenable position to take (the kind that gets you slaughtered in high school debates). Rather I will interject the concept that some behaviour isn't in need of modification as it has negligible effect on society as a whole. TRUE impairment is one thing. Being in the 'warn range' is quite another and throwing a wider net merely criminalizes non criminal behaviour, while being of little or no benefit to society. That goes against the spirit of The Charter, and even its exceptions.

Where we are at an impasse is when 'speeding' becomes 'racing', or when 'having an arbitrary measurable BAC' becomes 'impaired operation.'

Great post, Rob. Another thing.. Getting too nannyish with the legal system, makes one portion of the population resentful of the legal system and always looking for ways around restrictive laws, while the rest (and even some of the original group) start equating legality with morality with all of the caveats of that phenomenon. Neither of those 2 effects is desirable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob MacLennan

IWhere we are at an impasse is when 'speeding' becomes 'racing', or when 'having an arbitrary measurable BAC' becomes 'impaired operation.'

---

without arguing about the current placement of lines, I think the idea of "bright line" tests in law are in general, a good thing, bright lines should not be confused with legal presumptions, which are similar, but not the same thing.

Bright lines create certainty in the system for both citizens and police, and creates efficency in the court system. It certainly does have flaws, but I prefer the breathalizer to having a cop say that I am impaired becuase i wasn't accurate in touching my nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

without arguing about the current placement of lines, I think the idea of "bright line" tests in law are in general, a good thing, bright lines should not be confused with legal presumptions, which are similar, but not the same thing.

Bright lines create certainty in the system for both citizens and police, and creates efficency in the court system. It certainly does have flaws, but I prefer the breathalizer to having a cop say that I am impaired becuase i wasn't accurate in touching my nose.

---

But we have to discuss the placement of those lines because they are becoming successively more blurry, rather than 'bright.' If the Criminal Code is falling short, because realities have changed, then you modify it to meet those new realities. You don't start adding to the Provincial Offences Act, to bring charges under it up to the level of the Criminal Code. Some overlap is inevitable, even necessary for the process of justice, but trying to subsume the one via the other is unconscionable.

You fix problems. You don't overlay more crap over them. It doesn't work in law any better than it does in house painting. The problem areas always end up bubbling to the surface. You also don't reward politicians for pandering to a panicky electorate, but unfortunately the majority of electors don't seem to have worked that bit out yet.

are you talking about 172 or 0.05 ??