Increased Fines for Careless Driving | GTAMotorcycle.com

Increased Fines for Careless Driving

R

ReSTored

Well-known member
As the Globe article points out, seldom does the fine exceed $1000. and no one gets jail time. I doubt increasing the penalty will change that without minimum sentencing.
 
Roadghost said:
As the Globe article points out, seldom does the fine exceed $1000. and no one gets jail time. I doubt increasing the penalty will change that without minimum sentencing.
Click to expand...

IIRC JP's are not bound by precedent. One that is annoyed with the system could hand out the 50K fine to make news. It would probably get lowered on appeal, but it would definitely hit the papers the first time around and hopefully stick in peoples minds.
 
Also license suspension for texting and driving.
 
It also requires that the charge actually be used, and we know that isn't always the case. How many times does careless causing death, turn into improper turn or lane change etc.
 
Look at all these guys here happily promoting more government bureoucracy and fines, wait until they apply this to you guys for splitting lane or riding a little too spirited.
 
Pegassus said:
Look at all these guys here happily promoting more government bureoucracy and fines, wait until they apply this to you guys for splitting lane or riding a little too spirited.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the increased fines are for careless driving causing death right? If you are lane splitting or riding a little too spirited and kill someone, I have no problem with penalties that hurt you very deeply.
 
The problem I see is defining reasonable care.

We have all made misjudgments and nothing happened because there was no one there to hurt.

To be somewhat fair shouldn't the driver's track record be taken into account?

If the driver had a history of minor tickets shouldn't he/she be held more responsible?

However our current enforcement cash grab doesn't go after the sloppy driving offences as they don't generate enough coin. The present system actually enables careless driving by neglect.

I don't see how the new fines will change the mindset of the typical driver. People go about their businesses assuming nothing bad is going to happen. If nothing bad is going to happen what difference does the price make?

How many people after eons of neglectful traffic enforcement are going to think "You know, those sloppy turns, rolling stops, the tailgating I've been doing are going to cost me. I'll become a better driver."?

Careless is a common charge for a tailgating bumper bender but how do you not tailgate on the 401 without impeding traffic?

Why only "causing death"? crippled or comatose for life gets a slap on the wrist?

Does the victim's family get any of the coin or just Auntie Kathy?

Smoke and mirrors BS.
 
Skyway6 said:
recently in Vancouver

"A distracted driver in Vancouver accumulated not one, but two $368 tickets for using an electronic device while driving on Wednesday. And it all went down within an eight minute span, just six blocks apart."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...-in-fines-in-8-minutes-caught-twice-1.4300418
Click to expand...


She says she's in the wrong, but only going to pay one ticket........ The thing with electronic and non real time monitored recording devices is that they don't communicate with each other and they treat each infraction as a separate event, which frankly, they are. If you run a stop sign at one intersection and then run another one 5 minutes later should you get one ticket or two? IMHO you get two. If you get stopped for speeding and are given a ticket, then 15 minutes later same or another cop stops you again for speeding you can't say "You just gave me a ticket a few minutes ago, so I'm covered off for speeding for the balance of the day, so buzz off".

The revised regulations can't cover off all people and all situations, but I think that for many people potential financial consequences do modify behavior. Think about all the people who have modified drinking habits and never drink and drive or limit themselves to just one drink with a meal when they are out. How about people who are now very aware of HTA 172 and ensure that they never go 50kmph over, even on that far off back road where you'll likely never see a cop.

Of course, there will always be idiots out there who never think of consequences and they are not going to change. So fine them and get them off the road to the extent possible. A drivers license is a privilege, not a right.
 
speaking of your HTA172 and 50 over. Here we have a similar but it is 40 over. (big time insurance penalty. Fines. Impound 7days. License suspension 1week)
Last weekend cruising around on the bike. On a limited access hwy that has a speed limit of 80kph. As usual i was going around 20 over. Came to a light and moved to left lane
to pass a 18wheeler. Went around truck and then a car. As i was doing this an ****** was behind me riding my ***. I moved to right lane as soon as possible (doing about 105kph)

My ****** took off in left lane. He quickly disappeared. Had to be going at least 150kph. Shortly after he disappeared i saw a black Ford Explorer keeping pace with him. Saw 3 antenna at the rear
so i was sure it was a cop. Sure enough i come up to mr ****** pulled over. I hope he liked the long walk home. The cop may have taken pity and not hit him with the 40 over but i hope not.
 
Benny! said:
Also license suspension for texting and driving.
Click to expand...

That might interfere with telecom cartel profits--and Liberal campaign donations.
 
Benny! said:
Also license suspension for texting and driving.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hit them as hard as an HTA172 in my opinion. Huge fine, instant impound.

To protect the potentially innocent, it would need to be on video (from the cruiser, or body cam on the officer).
Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_h_ZCseHCc
Absolutely no denying it.
 
BigEvilDoer said:
Agreed. Hit them as hard as an HTA172 in my opinion. Huge fine, instant impound.

To protect the potentially innocent, it would need to be on video (from the cruiser, or body cam on the officer).
Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_h_ZCseHCc
Absolutely no denying it.
Click to expand...

The third guy in the video didn't notice the flashing light or siren toot. Cop had to knock on his window. I'd call that distracted.
 
This problem and HTA172 shouldn't be conflated. Given that distracted driving is now more dangerous than drunk driving, treat those found having their driving being impaired by one or more "devices" as if they were over the legal limit: DWI (driving while impaired):

jl7oUVU.jpg


Since we cannot realistically interlock phones, first-time offenders lose their license for one year, period; no asterisk...

Multiple offenders will spend time in jail, lose their licences for much longer periods of time.

If the chance of killing someone isn't deterrent enough already, a $50,000 fine won't do ****. The only way to protect people -- pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and other drivers -- from these zombie addicts behind the wheel is to stop them from driving before they kill or maim someone. That means police in and amongst traffic picking off these sociopaths.
 
Blackfin said:
This problem and HTA172 shouldn't be conflated. (snip)
Since we cannot realistically interlock phones, first-time offenders lose their license for one year, period; no asterisk... (snip)
Click to expand...

I can see that they shouldn't be conflated, but, until proven guilty in a court of law, they suffer the same effects as HTA172. Fine. Impound. Temporary loss of license.
If convicted, they suffer the full consequence of DWI.
If innocent, no fine, impound fees returned.

Again, to keep this law somewhat contained and free from abuse by overzealous officers, it would require video evidence, which could be played back road-side for verification before any charge is laid.

Only thing is, people would scream and cry at the top of their lungs if it was ever passed as law. Political suicide for the party to bring it in.
 
BigEvilDoer said:
I can see that they shouldn't be conflated, but, until proven guilty in a court of law, they suffer the same effects as HTA172. Fine. Impound. Temporary loss of license.
If convicted, they suffer the full consequence of DWI.
If innocent, no fine, impound fees returned.
Click to expand...

That sounds great to me. :thumbup:

Only thing is, people would scream and cry at the top of their lungs if it was ever passed as law. Political suicide for the party to bring it in.
Click to expand...

Maybe. As long as the politician said "We're thinking of the children..." they'd get the votes. That line always works :)
 
DUI vs Distracted can't be compared side by side. Although distracted is or has outpaced DUI as a crash source consider the relative number of offenders. A few more distracted crashes when there are a lot more distracted drivers. If there were as many drunks on the road as there are texters there wouldn't be enough undertakers to handle the carnage.

Don't get me wrong. The distracted driving has to be nailed or we become collateral damage.

Seizing a DUI vehicle is different as well. A distracted driver can come to his / her senses as soon as they see the flashing lights. A drunk will take some time to sober up.

Once they are legally dealt with in court I'll hold the judges coat while he throws the book at them.

Also needed is some front page exposure to the charges and convictions. Let the public hear about the bad news.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom