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
Impaired Driving Penalty Changes
- Thread starter GreyGhost
- Start date
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
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.
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
Well-known member
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.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
While I agree in principle of the changes and support them, one of the unintended consequences will be that now (even more so) there is a higher risk v reward of running after an accident.
Not only should there be an increased fine/penalty for the drinking and driving (accident or not) but the penalty for running should 2x or 3x the charge and penalty / jail time.
Currently if you have an accident (sober or drunk) and then run, by the time the cops find the guilty party they are most likely sober and can't be proven to be drunk without a shadow of a doubt.
Running should carry the higher penalty than the drunk driving. Together they should be MANDATORY jail time, and especially so for repeat offenders.
How many times do we read about drunk driving with X previous offences and taken away license in the news?
It's a revolving door.
Not only should there be an increased fine/penalty for the drinking and driving (accident or not) but the penalty for running should 2x or 3x the charge and penalty / jail time.
Currently if you have an accident (sober or drunk) and then run, by the time the cops find the guilty party they are most likely sober and can't be proven to be drunk without a shadow of a doubt.
Running should carry the higher penalty than the drunk driving. Together they should be MANDATORY jail time, and especially so for repeat offenders.
How many times do we read about drunk driving with X previous offences and taken away license in the news?
It's a revolving door.
410001661
Well-known member
I agree but our entire criminal management system (ex) judicial system is a revolving door
Sadly I have to agree.
John4852
Well-known member
In the case of the teenager, I heard of a similar incident in the States where the lawyer argued that the, "teenager," shouldn't have been on the road at all and therefore the accident wouldn't have happened if not for them.
I guess the principal is that if you're doing a crime and something wrong happens to you then the law only protects the lawful, not the lawless. It's not there to defend criminals in the act.
I guess the principal is that if you're doing a crime and something wrong happens to you then the law only protects the lawful, not the lawless. It's not there to defend criminals in the act.
LOL.
Maybe I could see the shred of logic if the teenager was at fault. But the teenager got rear ended, in every version of our reality in this situation the person behind is at fault.
