-
Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
So why should we give a **** about what's happening in Nfld ... because it's part of the trend across the country (my opinion) where each province either catches up to the others or goes one further.
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releas...gs/0930n01.htm
Legislative changes that will be proclaimed as of October 1, 2010 are:
- Authorizing police to use traffic safety stops as a means of determining whether drivers are impaired, driving while suspended or driving without insurance, among other serious offences;
- Increasing the current 24-hour suspension to a minimum of seven days (14 days for a repeat offence) for drivers with a blood alcohol level of greater than 50 mgs;
- Reducing the allowable blood alcohol level to 0.0 per cent from the current .05 per cent, for drivers accompanying a novice driver; and,
- Prohibiting the use of electronic devices such as cell phones, Blackberries and iPhones to send or read text messages, or programming GPS devices while the vehicle is in motion, which can distract drivers from driving safely.
NL now joins PEI in the 7-day .05 BAC penalty club ... so who's next ?? And I guess that parents in NL won't be able to let their novice kid driver drive with them in the car if they're not dry themselves.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
What's your point? Do you disagree with any of this?
Ontario is 0.05 as well.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ritchard
What's your point? Do you disagree with any of this?
Ontario is 0.05 as well.
Ontario has 3-day suspension vs NL 7-day suspension.
Ontario limits 0.05 for the driver in the passenger seat of vehicle driven by novice driver where NL has now instituted zero tolerance for the same (if I read that right).
The first bullet relates to an almost equivalent to the random stops being considered by the feds which has been debated here before.
Point is other provinces and the feds will watch this and may consider to follow (with some MADD lobbying in the background of course) or go even further. Consider the changes that just went into effect in BC just a couple weeks ago. NL just one-upped BC.
So ... 14-day suspension and vehicle impoundment for 0.05 BAC, zero tolerance for all drivers in a vehicle that is driven by a novice driver or is 21 and under, and random stops sound good to you ??
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Sounds good to me.
Don't drink and drive and you have nothing to worry about.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
^^ +1.... having a beer is not a necessary component of operating a motor vehicle.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Most of Europe has zero tolerance regarding alcohol regardless of age, race, gender or level of experience, North America is way more liberal in that sense...
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A.K.
Most of Europe has zero tolerance regarding alcohol regardless of age, race, gender or level of experience, North America is way more liberal in that sense...
Where did you get that info??? Better check again, most European countries have a BAC limit more than zero. Mostly .05.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike100
Where did you get that info??? Better check again, most European countries have a BAC limit more than zero. Mostly .05.
You are right. The part of Europe I know a little better has zero tolerance, but the rest has .5 - .8
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Why would random stops bother anyone? Unless of course you have something to hide? Do you really think that allowing for random stops is going to change anything? If the police in ontario want to pull you over chances are there is a reason for it already. There are thousands upon thousands of people driving in ontario as a suspended driver, for unpaid fines or prohibited due to alcohol. There are thousands upon thousands who operate vehicles that have no insurance. Enacting the law as they have in NFLD has the potential to make the roads you travel safer.
I fail to see any problem with the legislation as posted.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
?spoc
Why would random stops bother anyone? Unless of course you have something to hide?
You think it is OK to for police to stop people randomly without cause. Any more civil rights you want to give up? Perhaps police should not require a warrant to search your house, after all there are lots of grow-ops in the GTA. Why slow the police down.
These kind of laws just invite abuse by the police. If you don't think it can happen then all you have to do is look at the police officers that were found abusing the stunting/racing laws.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
?spoc
... Unless of course you have something to hide?
That sort of faulty logic has done more to cost us our civil liberties than any other single statement ever made.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
I would have no problem in allowing the police to search my home for drugs, firearms, kidnapped children or dead bodies. However while they were doing so would they notice the photocopy of a copywritten recipe, a bootleg CD or fake Rolex and lay charges?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
?spoc
Why would random stops bother anyone? Unless of course you have something to hide? Do you really think that allowing for random stops is going to change anything? If the police in ontario want to pull you over chances are there is a reason for it already. There are thousands upon thousands of people driving in ontario as a suspended driver, for unpaid fines or prohibited due to alcohol. There are thousands upon thousands who operate vehicles that have no insurance. Enacting the law as they have in NFLD has the potential to make the roads you travel safer.
I fail to see any problem with the legislation as posted.
+1 ...bring it on.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike100
all you have to do is look at the police officers that were found abusing the stunting/racing laws.
<insert vague="" and="" inflammatory="" statement="" opposing="" yours="" as="" fact="" here="">(insert vague and inflammatory statement condradicting yours here)
there. cancelled out.</insert>
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sundie
<insert vague="" and="" inflammatory="" statement="" opposing="" yours="" as="" fact="" here="">(insert vague and inflammatory statement condradicting yours here)
there. cancelled out.</insert>
Try this one: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
?spoc
Why would random stops bother anyone? Unless of course you have something to hide? Do you really think that allowing for random stops is going to change anything? If the police in ontario want to pull you over chances are there is a reason for it already. There are thousands upon thousands of people driving in ontario as a suspended driver, for unpaid fines or prohibited due to alcohol. There are thousands upon thousands who operate vehicles that have no insurance. Enacting the law as they have in NFLD has the potential to make the roads you travel safer.
I fail to see any problem with the legislation as posted.
I've got places to be and time is money. when a random check makes me late (one ride check point had traffic backed up 20 minutes, i ended up being 10 minutes late) it becomes a liability to me to try and catch the 1/2 of a percent of trouble makers... we do have a right to go about our business with out unwarranted search and seizure
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sundie
<insert vague="" and="" inflammatory="" statement="" opposing="" yours="" as="" fact="" here="">(insert vague and inflammatory statement condradicting yours here)
there. cancelled out.</insert>
Hardly. Consider all of the objections to "random stops" that appear to target one race, in preference over another. Enabling that sort of behaviour isn't the direction that we should be going.
The comment "if you're doing nothing wrong..." presumes that we have no right of personal privacy. It was used to push The Patriot Act, in the US, and the (for some reason) much less known but similar laws that we have in Canada. It can be used to support virtually any abuse of Charter Rights and is, therefore, a completely spurious argument. If I'm doing nothing wrong then I should have no fear of being stopped for no reason at all, in a free society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike100
And that would be the ONLY one that has come to light, so far, so pluralizing "officers" is a bit of an over-statement. Not that it invalidates the argument but things should be kept in scale, rather than amplifying for the purpose of making a point.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
The "if you have nothing to hide..." argument boils my blood. How stupid can we be?
Think about your damn freedoms, people! If I have nothing to hide Im the perfect candidate to NOT be bothered by the police and I expect to be left alone. This is rudimentary stuff here, folks. Engage your brains for once and protect your freedom and civil liberties now before they vanish forever.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike100
You think it is OK to for police to stop people randomly without cause. Any more civil rights you want to give up?
This is already the law in Ontario. If you're operating a motor vehicle on a public road in Ontario, police have the right to stop you randomly and without cause to verify your license and insurance documentation. Once they have you stopped for that, they can continue on and investigate anything else that comes to their attention during the stop, including vehicle mechanical inspection, possible driver impairment, radar detector on the dash, drugs in plain view on the seat, etc. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the legitimacy of such random stops in R v. Ladouceur.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
I'm all in favour of lower limits of alcohol.The only time a random stop bothers me is getting pulled over and asked for papers in a seat belt check,when i'm on two wheels.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jc100
^^ +1.... having a beer is not a necessary component of operating a motor vehicle.
like having the brains to walk through the life...
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
zeekat
zero tolerance for all drivers in a vehicle that is driven by a novice driver
A novice driver in NF is the same as a G1 here. Should someone who is teaching someone else to drive really be drinking?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Should a sober novice kid be permitted to drive his drunk parent home?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Baggsy
Should a sober novice kid be permitted to drive his drunk parent home?
No.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turbodish
This is already the law in Ontario. If you're operating a motor vehicle on a public road in Ontario, police have the right to stop you randomly and without cause to verify your license and insurance documentation. Once they have you stopped for that, they can continue on and investigate anything else that comes to their attention during the stop, including vehicle mechanical inspection, possible driver impairment, radar detector on the dash, drugs in plain view on the seat, etc. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the legitimacy of such random stops in R v. Ladouceur.
So why are they specifically pushing for random Breathalyzer tests, if this can already be done? It's because it can't. An officer can stop you to verify that you have the proper documentation in order to operate a vehicle, but cannot slap a Breathalyzer on you just because he feels like it. Nor should he be able to, unless there is evidence that you are operating the vehicle while under the influence. This is as it should be.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob MacLennan
So why are they specifically pushing for random Breathalyzer tests, if this can already be done? It's because it can't. An officer can stop you to verify that you have the proper documentation in order to operate a vehicle, but cannot slap a Breathalyzer on you just because he feels like it. Nor should he be able to, unless there is evidence that you are operating the vehicle while under the influence. This is as it should be.
Once the cop has you stopped for the HTA-authorized documentation check, that gives him opportunity to check for signs of impairment while doing the doc check. If he smells alcohol or sees signs of alcohol consumption in the car, that gives the cop adequate probable cause to demand a breathalyzer test.
From the sounds of it, Newfoundland's prior version of their HTA did not permit random traffic stops to check documentation. They could only stop a vehicle of they observed a specific HTA violation.
This has changed with the new legislation. They can now randomly stop vehicles to verify documentation for car and driver. As part of the newly-permitted random traffic stops (which Ontario has had for as long as I can remember), Newfoundland cops now have an opportunity to assess driver condition while checking documentation.
This is where the "getting impaired drivers off the road" part comes in, same as is done in Ontario. Or do you suggest that an obviously impaired driver should get a pass just because he was found to be impaired during a license and insurance check?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turbodish
Once the cop has you stopped for the HTA-authorized documentation check, that gives him opportunity to check for signs of impairment while doing the doc check. If he smells alcohol or sees signs of alcohol consumption in the car, that gives the cop adequate probable cause to demand a breathalyzer test.
From the sounds of it, Newfoundland's prior version of their HTA did not permit random traffic stops to check documentation. They could only stop a vehicle of they observed a specific HTA violation.
This has changed with the new legislation. They can now randomly stop vehicles to verify documentation for car and driver. As part of the newly-permitted random traffic stops (which Ontario has had for as long as I can remember), Newfoundland cops now have an opportunity to assess driver condition while checking documentation.
This is where the "getting impaired drivers off the road" part comes in, same as is done in Ontario. Or do you suggest that an obviously impaired driver should get a pass just because he was found to be impaired during a license and insurance check?
As should have been obvious I was talking about the law in Ontario, not Newfoundland. I made no statement that impaired drivers should be turned loose. Quite the contrary, actually.
To look at the other side of the coin, should we give police leave to do whatever they feel like, despite this being a free country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob MacLennan
As should have been obvious I was talking about the law in Ontario, not Newfoundland. I made no statement that impaired drivers should be turned loose. Quite the contrary, actually.
Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob MacLennan
To look at the other side of the coin, should we give police leave to do whatever they feel like, despite this being a free country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turbodish
Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.
We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
We should be able to use it as a reasonable shield against the invasion of privacy and abrogation of personal freedoms. I have never suggested any more than that.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
thank you, your 100% right cops can pritty much do what they like.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
I'm wondering what sparked this change? Knee-jerk reaction to a parent who lost her kid in an accident, political campaigning, police lobbying for greater authority?... Laws seldom change without someone pushing for it, whatever their agenda. Too often it's a vocal minority who ruin things for everyone else because they can't--or refuse--to think objectively. All it takes is to mash together the words "injury", "death", "children", etc... if you are against a law that can potentially reduce these things then you are a bad person ("how could you!"). If we can maybe save one innocent child from death by reducing the freedom of millions it's worth it? I say no. There is always something we can do to increase safety but it comes at a cost. It's the age old manipulation tactic of robbing people of something by appealing to irrational emotions rather than intelligent discourse. There's a time for such action but it should be reserved for more severe circumstances.
I don't think these new rules are that severe in and of themselves but IMO they are still an unwarranted step in that direction and should be opposed on that basis. I specifically have a problem with the unwarranted searches and the zero BAC for supervising drivers. If you're deemed to be fit to operate a motor vehicle with .05 BAC then by what logic are you deemed unfit to be an observing passenger with the same BAC? I understand the recommendation to be bone sober as a precaution but as a rule it makes no sense whatsoever. Parents who have had a bit to drink but are not legally impaired can no longer choose to do the safer thing and have their sober kid drive them home? Sheesh...
Sorry, I tried to keep this brief. I can go on forever about these things :rolleyes:
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turbodish
Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.
We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
"Canadian law pertaining to.... "
Impaired is a federal offence???
I always thought it was a provincial offence!?
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raginduck
"Canadian law pertaining to.... "
Impaired is a federal offence???
I always thought it was a provincial offence!?
Impaired operation of a vehicle is a Criminal Code offence, under section 253: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...8.html#docCont
There are additional laws pertaining to the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, that are contained within the HTA. That's where the 0.05 BAC nonsense comes from.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob MacLennan
Impaired operation of a vehicle is a Criminal Code offence, under section 253:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...8.html#docCont
There are additional laws pertaining to the operation of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, that are contained within the HTA. That's where the 0.05 BAC nonsense comes from.
Nevermind...
Confusing provincial and federal crown attorneys and who prosecutes what crimes....
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raginduck
I understand that it's criminal offence, but is it a provincial offence or federal? I understand most criminal offences to be provincial...
Criminal Code offences are Federal. Provincial Offences Act charges are Provincial.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rob MacLennan
Criminal Code offences are Federal. Provincial Offences Act charges are Provincial.
See my edit above.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mike100
You think it is OK to for police to stop people randomly without cause. Any more civil rights you want to give up? Perhaps police should not require a warrant to search your house, after all there are lots of grow-ops in the GTA. Why slow the police down.
These kind of laws just invite abuse by the police. If you don't think it can happen then all you have to do is look at the police officers that were found abusing the stunting/racing laws.
The Supreme Court has already decided that it is ok for police to stop people randomly for ride checks.
This is a dead issue, the rest of your post is a slippery slope that doesn't exist. (considering how long these things have been legal)
the law authorizes "traffic safety stops" - That just sounds like the standard ride check road block - this point is up to interpretation tho.
as far as civil liberty impuning laws go. I don't see much of an issue with this one. There is nothing here that really gives more power to the police than already existed. Some people may disagree, but the ride check program has been through every level of scrutiny and has been found to be legal in Canada - and their findings and conclusions are actually very reasonable.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
I just realized this post was from 2010. My bad.
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
is driving
A) god given right
B) birth right
C) privilege
D) both A & B
-
Re: Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by
iFly55
is driving
A) god given right
B) birth right
C) privilege
D) both A & B
You were born into this universe given its constraints which you cannot break, until you find a way to do so and choose to do so.
With no evidence of any god since man discovered science and the burden of proof, is anything now a "right" or a "privilege" or anything at all?
It is what it is, you go for what you want in this life.