You would think that it would be that easy, but The Crown must prove that a reasonably prudent person wouldn't do the same thing under the circumstances. Couple that with a difficult to see single track vehicle and you can generate some doubt.
|
|
|
My (and your) life is only worth $85 + $9
- Thread starter WoBblyCaT
- Start date
You would think that it would be that easy, but The Crown must prove that a reasonably prudent person wouldn't do the same thing under the circumstances. Couple that with a difficult to see single track vehicle and you can generate some doubt.
Would love to hear.
In my Case she was eating & driving.
*shakes head*
Sent from my tablet using my paws
Let's just say that I'll risk 172, rather than becoming a pancake because someone thinks it's funny.
dasiffy
Well-known member
the words 'and' , 'or' , 'may' , and 'shall' have very specific meanings. Anytime you see an 'or' you can stop reading, because everything after is treated like a new rule. Every time you see an 'and' you have to keep reading, because everything after is to be included. 'May' means optional. 'Shall' means must.
race is defined as "3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ..."
stunt is defined as "8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or ...."
that's it. that's all you have to read, for that point.
HTA 172 at its best. He could have been charged for the lane blocking but since you outaccelerated him you're the goat.
Let's take a step back and look at this objectively.
Accidents happen, preventable accidents happen, stupid people drive, and will continue to drive; whether they get caught or not.
You're upset that she: paid a small fine, and got a minor conviction which won't hurt her insurance as much. So what happens if she didn't plead down from whatever she got (careless probably?)? She pays a big fine, not to you, and pays more for insurance, not to you. What you're desiring here is revenge. You want to make her life a bit harder. Why? You take to the road acknowledging a risk, and drivers have insurance to mitigate that risk. Traffic violations really have nothing to do with you; you get your benefits from insurance, and move on (sometimes you don't...sometimes you die or get disabled from an accident, that's a risk of driving)
The bottom line here: Everyone's upset you didn't get revenge on her pocketbook, and that's childish. Insurance paid out? You're back on the road? Great, you can both move on with your life, and learn from the experience.
Accidents happen, preventable accidents happen, stupid people drive, and will continue to drive; whether they get caught or not.
You're upset that she: paid a small fine, and got a minor conviction which won't hurt her insurance as much. So what happens if she didn't plead down from whatever she got (careless probably?)? She pays a big fine, not to you, and pays more for insurance, not to you. What you're desiring here is revenge. You want to make her life a bit harder. Why? You take to the road acknowledging a risk, and drivers have insurance to mitigate that risk. Traffic violations really have nothing to do with you; you get your benefits from insurance, and move on (sometimes you don't...sometimes you die or get disabled from an accident, that's a risk of driving)
The bottom line here: Everyone's upset you didn't get revenge on her pocketbook, and that's childish. Insurance paid out? You're back on the road? Great, you can both move on with your life, and learn from the experience.
The problem here is that this sort of dangerous behaviour should be what eventually leads to someone losing their license but pleading it down means that it will take longer, and possibly more/greater injuries, before that happens. This, while arguably less dangerous behaviour that has not resulted in injury is prosecuted heavily.
A thorough review of our faulty system would include factors such as:
Is this a one time event or a pattern of behavior.
How long it takes to alter a persons behavior (if possible). Our present penalty system is like a flash diet, sort of works in the short term but no long term lifestyle changes are made.
How many people would be able to keep their licenses if they had to undergo an evaluation similar to one used for certain types of gun permits? More people are killed by cars than guns.
If a vehicle defect kills one person or injures a few the manufacturer recalls millions of vehicles at a cost of 100s of millions. If the nut attached to the steering wheel is defective nothing happens.
Government quality control approved the nut for service. Where is the oversight?
And you know that how???
You would be better off asking GM at the moment. Or maybe check this list:
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/7/vrdb-bdrv/search-recherche/menu.aspx?campaign
Now jaded from my own experience, this does not surprise me, but it does anger me.
Summary: A man driving a BMW car kills one biker and injures 3 other riders that now have lifelong injuries. Phone records show his cellphone received four phone calls during the drive and one text message near the time of the crash. Verdict? He (the driver) walks away from court a free man.
Summary: A man driving a BMW car kills one biker and injures 3 other riders that now have lifelong injuries. Phone records show his cellphone received four phone calls during the drive and one text message near the time of the crash. Verdict? He (the driver) walks away from court a free man.
Barrie Examiner said:
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Objectively? If it only costs $85, chances are, she will do it again.
The point of hurting her wallet is precisely that she learns a lesson and never does it again. Is it childish to wish for that? I don't think so myself, it is the way fines work (as a deterrent).
Dude separated shoulder!, is not fine, you aren't going to get those ligaments back. lol. I went thru the same thing my shoulder is 100% separated can't bench press for **** hear cracking all the time. Should go after her in civil court. whos going to pay for your shoulder physiotherapy. lose of work while arm heals.
but Im glad your alive and still on the bike.
Cheers!
The fine is far from the biggest deterrent, we all know that (insurance). Money means different things to different people, and fines hardly act as a deterrent. The difference between a $1000 fine and $600 for a paralegal+fine really isn't much, and even a $3000 fine isn't going to make someone re-evaluate their choices. It does one thing: makes them poorer. Perhaps our point system is too lenient, but the only way to make an impact is to impact the license, which only happens after a *lot* of points, and even then within a short period. 2-3 points wouldn't have made a huge difference in this case.
Claim forgiveness means that if this is her only ticket, a minor, then she isn't likely going to see any impact on her insurance rates.
What's really needed are things that have been happening in some US states; minimum penalties for being at-fault in collisions involving injury or death.
Doesn't matter if the driver was on the phone, or fiddling with the radio, or was just ignorant of right-of-way rules, and as a result, it doesn't matter what the cell phone records show or what excuse they give. If a driver is at fault in a collision resulting in injuries ... then there is a set minimum fine and a set minimum driver's license suspension period. I would add that in right-of-way-violation situations, the driver shouldn't just get their driver's license back after the suspension, they should be sent back to square one as if they were a new driver, and go through the whole testing procedure again (forces them - as best we can - to re-acquaint themselves with the rules).
Ideally, s. 172 should go away, and the penalties transferred to this.
Doesn't matter if the driver was on the phone, or fiddling with the radio, or was just ignorant of right-of-way rules, and as a result, it doesn't matter what the cell phone records show or what excuse they give. If a driver is at fault in a collision resulting in injuries ... then there is a set minimum fine and a set minimum driver's license suspension period. I would add that in right-of-way-violation situations, the driver shouldn't just get their driver's license back after the suspension, they should be sent back to square one as if they were a new driver, and go through the whole testing procedure again (forces them - as best we can - to re-acquaint themselves with the rules).
Ideally, s. 172 should go away, and the penalties transferred to this.
Love this idea.
motoride777
Well-known member
is OP suing the driver in civil court yet? if not, why not?
|
|
|
|
|