0.05 BAC Automatic 3 day suspension?

[turbodish]

yup and owe $300 for the tow. oh, and the fee to have the license reinstated. More roadside justice at the discretion of cops. amazing. .05 drivers aren't killing people because they are intoxicated. DRUNK DRIVERS ARE. But hey, it's an extra 150 bucks for the gubment each time, so whatever eh?

Define "drunk". There are plenty of studies out there that show impairment to judgment and functional ability begins long before the point at which most people think that a person is "drunk", and with that comes a correspondingly higher risk of crash.

MANY riders here complain about drivers on cell phones as being a menace to others on the road. Many studies have found that cell phone use while driving results in driving impairment comparable to driving with .05 BAC. If so, why is cell phone use considered "bad" by people here, yet driving with BACs 05 to 08 is acceptable?

http://www.intoxikon.com/Pubs/Facts%...AIRED_ver2.pdf
http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topic...ed-062304).pdf

[Splash]

Define "drunk". There are plenty of studies out there that show impairment to judgment and functional ability begins long before the point at which most people think that a person is "drunk", and with that comes a correspondingly higher risk of crash.


http://www.intoxikon.com/Pubs/Facts%...AIRED_ver2.pdf
http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topic...ed-062304).pdf

there's many studies that shows that SOME people are not impaired even after 0.08 so what's your point?

[Splash]

There's how things are supposed to be, and there is how things really are.

.

ya it would be nice... It's even on the MTO site. So if he pulled over on a side street where you are allowed to park then the cop was out of line and should be reported.

You will not be able to drive home.
If you are with a sober passenger who is licensed and fit to drive, he or she may drive the vehicle. If it is a safe location, you can choose to leave the vehicle at the roadside, or the police will have the vehicle towed at the vehicle owner’s expense.

[kellen]

Define "drunk". There are plenty of studies out there that show impairment to judgment and functional ability begins long before the point at which most people think that a person is "drunk", and with that comes a correspondingly higher risk of crash.

MANY riders here complain about drivers on cell phones as being a menace to others on the road. Many studies have found that cell phone use while driving results in driving impairment comparable to driving with .05 BAC. If so, why is cell phone use considered "bad" by people here, yet driving with BACs 05 to 08 is acceptable?

http://www.intoxikon.com/Pubs/Facts%...AIRED_ver2.pdf
http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topic...ed-062304).pdf

oooh, oooh, can I google studies to make a point for myself too???

[turbodish]

oooh, oooh, can I google studies to make a point for myself too???

I made my point, then I backed it up with supporting evidence.

Now, feel free to do the same, if you can that is.

[Rob MacLennan]

Define "drunk". There are plenty of studies out there that show impairment to judgment and functional ability begins long before the point at which most people think that a person is "drunk", and with that comes a correspondingly higher risk of crash.

MANY riders here complain about drivers on cell phones as being a menace to others on the road. Many studies have found that cell phone use while driving results in driving impairment comparable to driving with .05 BAC. If so, why is cell phone use considered "bad" by people here, yet driving with BACs 05 to 08 is acceptable?

http://www.intoxikon.com/Pubs/Facts%...AIRED_ver2.pdf
http://www.ctclearinghouse.org/topic...ed-062304).pdf

Actually there are a number of studies that show functional impairment, while using a cellular phone, is well in excess of an equivalent of 0.05 BAC.

There are also studies that show a lack of rest has more effect than 0.05 BAC.

[eastcoast_gsx]

There are also studies that show a lack of rest has more effect than 0.05 BAC.

Hard to study the effects of the following on driving:
- Consumed by thinking about your wife screwing your brother.
- Trying to figure out a way to get around your "a**hole boss"
- Constantly thinking about how you will make your next mortgage payment
- How in the world are you going to tell your wife you just got fired
- Excited about your old fling coming to town for a good weekend romp

There are SOO many distractions to driving, and most in your head, how many cars are rolling down the road with the drivers completely oblivious to their surroundings, I would say most of that, is as, or more dangerous then a .05 to .08 person. But that is impossible to attack.

The only message that the public should receive about driving is that is is SUPER DANGEROUS, and if you think the government or police or MADD can protect you, you are greatly mistaken.

Keep your damn wits about you, you can avoid the accident with the drunk or distracted driver if you treat every intersection as if one is barreling through.

[matt123]

The McGinty's have for the last few years been trying change our behavior(THEIR OWN WORDS) with impositions on our rights.The smart meters,the stunting law,the eco tax,and giving the police the right to randomly pull you over for a breathalizer and more.Personally i think most of us are missing the bigger picture and thats the loss of our basic rights which i find very sad.With any luck the fiberal party will be out next election and we will regain the right to think for ourselves again..None of these imposed sanctions except the smart meters affect me personally but i do find current political climate very disturbing.The last government that tried this was the NDP of the 90's and they are just begining to see the light of day now.

[Rob MacLennan]

The Breathalyzer issue is Federal, not Provincial. The racing and stunting law was passed by all sitting members of The Legislative Assembly, not just the Liberals. Eco fees are handled by an arms-length organization, Stewardship Ontario, and were simply an expansion on an existing list. The roll-out was poorly controlled and a general screw-up.

I agree that government is slowly cutting down our perceived rights but it's important that we maintain focus on the truth, rather than letting other politicians and "media outlets" steer our perceptions.

[AdRath]

The McGinty's have for the last few years been trying change our behavior(THEIR OWN WORDS) with impositions on our rights.The smart meters,the stunting law,the eco tax,and giving the police the right to randomly pull you over for a breathalizer and more.Personally i think most of us are missing the bigger picture and thats the loss of our basic rights which i find very sad.With any luck the fiberal party will be out next election and we will regain the right to think for ourselves again..None of these imposed sanctions except the smart meters affect me personally but i do find current political climate very disturbing.The last government that tried this was the NDP of the 90's and they are just begining to see the light of day now.

ALL parties have contributed to screw up this province. It has more to do with the seperation of politicians from the average person than any single political ideaology.

What is wrong with smart meters? I'd much prefer the option to try and do certain activities off peak hours at a cheaper rate than have to pay an increased rate at all hours of the day.

[mma01]

Still no mandatory impound. Dad could have gone to the tow yard and retrieved the car immediately if the yard office was open.

But still the inconvenience and expense of an unwarranted towing fee to contend with. In practice, the officer has the ability to order a tow for blowing over .05 if he simply doesnt like you despite the absence of safety or illegal parking concerns. One would be hard pressed to argue that a tow was required in my friends situation given that the car was on a quiet side road in a subdivision (where street parking is legal in case you were wondering) and an able driver was readily available.

[Rob MacLennan]

What is wrong with smart meters?

Only two things: Cost and execution.

[matt123]

Well the difference is minimal from peak to off peek and in effect small customers will never see a payback thats you and me.The papers have had annalists who say the rate will increase over 200% by 2020, already up 30% and people can't afford it now.No other governments have instituted changes to our daily lives in anyway comparable to how the liberals have.Who are they to change my behavior?
I work in the field and I know it's been tied in Europe and was abandoned.The plan is to sell extera power to the US while the infrastructure is paid for by the Ontario public.We are building turbines in the thousands and smart meters are how we are paying for it Don't tell me you haven't heard that the liberals want to take 6 billion off the cost 10% over the next 5 yrs and defer it the next genration.I effect making our kids pay for their mistake with interest.No one can figure out what they are doing not even themselves.The contracts are signed and the deal is done.I will be borrowing to pay my hydro bill in a few years just as the liberals are now



Sorry to the op for getting of topic I'll leave it alone now

http://www.windsorstar.com/those+hyd...132/story.html

http://windconcernsontario.wordpress...cost-of-mcguin

http://www.windsorstar.com/story_print.html?id=3858970&

http://www.hydrorates.ca/index.php?p...ectricity_news

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...ectricity.html

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/co...35896-sun.html

http://dan.matan.ca/Smart-Meters-Ont...-Rates-Per-kWh

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edito...-power-problem

[Rob MacLennan]

Actually it's even easier than you have laid it out, and you can bet that the Liberals know full well what they are doing. Here's how it works:

Step 1 - Increase the cost of power by 10%, over the next 5 years, to a total of 50% over what it is now.

Step 2 - Borrow money, so that you can rebate 10% each year, to subscribers. This, in effect, simply delays each increase by one year while simultaneously increasing Provincial debt-loads.

Step 3 - Profit; by which I mean throwing up a big enough smokescreen that the average voter doesn't understand what's going on.

Please note that I'm a realist, not a Liberal supporter.

[PLau]

Sooo... Where does the 0.05BAC law apply?.. When writing the test would the answer still be 0.08 as the book states or would it be 0.05 O_O

[Rob MacLennan]

Sooo... Where does the 0.05BAC law apply?.. When writing the test would the answer still be 0.08 as the book states or would it be 0.05 O_O

The 0.05 BAC applies across Ontario. As to the test, it depends on what question is asked; Criminal Code limit or HTA limit?

[GVH]

Still no mandatory impound. Dad could have gone to the tow yard and retrieved the car immediately if the yard office was open. Here's a hint - if you can, pull over into a mall or gas station parking lot. Then there is no argument about whether or not the car must be immediately towed on the grounds of safety or illegal parking location on the street.

Unless you have written permission to park on the private lot you will be towed. The officer or more specifically the police are responsible for the safety of your vehicle and it's belonging once they remove you from it. Having an contracted towing company tow the vehicle moves the responsibillity to the tow company. It also gives the police reason to go through your car to "check" for valuables

As I understand it the 3 day suspension turns into a 7 day if the person is caught again with in 5 years and then it is a 30 day plus mandatory driver reeducation classes if your caught for a 3rd time in a 5 year period

[turbodish]

Unless you have written permission to park on the private lot you will be towed.

Police cannot "assume" that permission would be withheld if requested. Unless the owners or agents of the owners of that private lot specifically deny permission to park at the time, the car can be properly left in that private lot without any liability to the police.

Even if the lot is signed as being a no parking during certain hours, being private property it then becomes a local bylaw enforcement issue, and in most of the GTA that is the domain for bylaw enforcement officers to follow up on.

Police have no HTA authority to tow vehicles from private property unless the vehicle was involved in an impoundable offence out on the street.

See http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc...010onca100.pdf

[3] On March 3, 1999, P.C. Churkoo was on foot patrol in the Eglinton Ave. and Keele St. area of Toronto. He observed a rusted Pontiac vehicle that appeared to be in poor condition and did not have a front licence plate. He instructed the driver, Mr. Waugh, to stop and pull over. In response to a request to do so, Mr. Waugh was unable to produce either a driver’s licence, a valid vehicle permit, or proof of valid insurance.

[4] The officer believed (correctly, as it turned out) that the vehicle was uninsured. He advised Mr. Waugh that the vehicle would be impounded and a tow truck was summoned. A CPIC search by another officer revealed that Mr. Waugh had three previous convictions for operating a vehicle without insurance.

[5] Mr. Waugh refused to get out of the car. Instead, he locked himself in and asked that a supervisor be called. This was done and, while they were all waiting, P.C. Churkoo served Mr. Waugh with several provincial offence notices. Shortly thereafter, while still waiting for the supervisor to arrive, Mr. Waugh started the car and began to drive away. Pursued by the police, he ultimately turned off the road and parked the car in a private laneway about 150 to 250 metres away from the point where he had been stopped. Because the vehicle was parked on private property and not on a highway, the police were unable to tow it away.

[6] Mr. Waugh was then charged with the offence of obstruct police on the basis that he had failed to follow the police instructions not to move the vehicle and had prevented them from properly towing the uninsured vehicle.

[FiReSTaRT]

Next time you get 172'd, make sure you stop on private property

[GVH]

As of December 1, 2010 this new impoundment law came into effect. 7 days for the car at a secure compound.

http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2010/1...d-drivers.html

"End Of The Road For Suspended And Impaired Drivers

December 1, 2010 6:00 AM

McGuinty Government Protecting Ontario Families
Starting today, new measures will help keep suspended and impaired drivers off Ontario's roads. This change will also provide added enforcement against people who have had their driver's licences suspended for consistently not paying family support.

Individuals can have their vehicles impounded for seven days on the spot if they are caught:

■Driving with a blood alcohol concentration over .08 (beyond the legal limit) or for failing/refusing to provide a breath sample
■Driving while under certain Highway Traffic Act licence suspensions including chronic non-payment of family support
■Driving without an ignition interlock device when one is required.
The seven-day vehicle impoundment program changes are part of the Road Safety Act, 2009 and will make Ontario's roads safer. "