Reply With QuoteWhat's your point? Do you disagree with any of this?
Ontario is 0.05 as well.
|
|
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.
What's your point? Do you disagree with any of this?
Ontario is 0.05 as well.
"Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines."
General "Buck" Turgidson, (George C. Scott)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
2007 R1200GS with an identity crisis.
Ontario has 3-day suspension vs NL 7-day suspension.Originally Posted by Ritchard
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 ??
Sounds good to me.
Don't drink and drive and you have nothing to worry about.
^^ +1.... having a beer is not a necessary component of operating a motor vehicle.
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...
Flat black '08 DL650A
Where did you get that info??? Better check again, most European countries have a BAC limit more than zero. Mostly .05.
-----------------------------------------
2006 FZ6
2005 DL1000
2005 Vulcan 500 - Sold
You are right. The part of Europe I know a little better has zero tolerance, but the rest has .5 - .8
Flat black '08 DL650A
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.
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.
-----------------------------------------
2006 FZ6
2005 DL1000
2005 Vulcan 500 - Sold
Moderator
That sort of faulty logic has done more to cost us our civil liberties than any other single statement ever made.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
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?
+1 ...bring it on.
05' 600RR - SOLD
07' 600RR - SOLD
11' VEGAS Stage 2
12' GT500 Shelby
(insert vague and inflammatory statement condradicting yours here)
there. cancelled out.
1972 Triumph Daytona
1978 XS650 Standard (Now with more cc's and an uneven firing order!)
2010 BMW K73
Try this one: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_34954.aspx
-----------------------------------------
2006 FZ6
2005 DL1000
2005 Vulcan 500 - Sold
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
x
Moderator
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.
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.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
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.
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.
Moderator
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.
"If ya want me,I'll be in the bar"
Ric Waterloo
1800 Goldwing
2009 1100S Hypermotard (for sale)
944 Ducati track the "Blueberry Muffin"
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks