Impaired Driving Penalty Changes

[ToSlow]

No the drunk should not be on the road. I'm interesting in who is at fault for the accident.
What if son or daughter without a driver license goes for a joy ride in mom's car. While at waiting at the lights. a sober, licensed driver approaching from behind hits the gas instead of the brake and smashing into mom's car. Would it still be the teenagers fault for the accident?

If they stole the car and have no licence, yup the teenagers would be at fault. would the cops also charge the driver of the car that hit them from behind? probably

 

[justride]

There got to be some court cases around what we been chatting about. Very courious about how would denfence lawyer defend such a case!

 

[Evoex]

If they stole the car and have no licence, yup the teenagers would be at fault. would the cops also charge the driver of the car that hit them from behind? probably

Walk me through how they are at fault for the accident, for being hit from behind.

And what would the driver of the car (behind) be charged with?

 

[ToSlow]

Walk me through how they are at fault for the accident, for being hit from behind.

And what would the driver of the car (behind) be charged with?

1 - If they stole the car and have no licence, means not legal for the road
2 - rear hit probably automatic charge, but that one would be debatable

 

[Evoex]

1 - If they stole the car and have no licence, means not legal for the road
2 - rear hit probably automatic charge, but that one would be debatable

Not legal for the road doesn't mean they are at fault of the accident in this situation.

Cop could charge careless, but unlikely. Im sure this situation happens every hour in this city. Doesnt seem serious enough to warrant one.

 

[ToSlow]

Would probably make a good day in court.

 

[Evoex]

Would probably make a good day in court.

I don't think so at all.

They would certainly be guilty of grand theft auto and a slew of driving infractions but not being able to legally drive a vehicle does not make you guilty of the above situation. The driver in the rear has 100% responsibility to not hit other vehicles ahead of them, especially when those vehicles are stationary. It's akin to running into parked cars, no bueno.

What makes you think otherwise?

 

[ToSlow]

I don't think so at all.

They would certainly be guilty of grand theft auto and a slew of driving infractions but not being able to legally drive a vehicle does not make you guilty of the above situation. The driver in the rear has 100% responsibility to not hit other vehicles ahead of them, especially when those vehicles are stationary. It's akin to running into parked cars, no bueno.

What makes you think otherwise?

What i think and what’s the law is two different things,

There can be two rights at the same time

 

[410001661]

Finally something from Douggie that makes sense. Permanently affecting someone else's life because you committed a crime should result in permanent consequences for your life. I'd even be happy if they went further. Make the driver pay until they die and then take a portion of their estate. A permanent and lasting reminder of their bad choices in life.

Impaired drivers who kill a parent in Ontario may have to pay mandatory ongoing child support

The Ontario government says it's looking at new measures that would force impaired drivers to pay ongoing child support if they kill a child's parent or guardian.

toronto.citynews.ca

Until we stop all the bleeding heart BS like saying a killer is not criminally responsible for a crime they committed, laws like this will never stick.