Ticket sort of worked. Driver slowed down 15 km/h.
|
|
|
The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread
- Thread starter Boots
- Start date
So he was likely given a reduced charge (49 over is a dead giveaway), when it should have been stunt driving, then went right back to speeding.
Or he set cruise at 49 over to avoid a 172 ticket and went down to 35 over afterwards (ime, that's still in almost guaranteed ticket territory).
24 yo kills a 16 yo on a minibike in Vaughan at 22:45 last night.
www.cp24.com
"Harnoor Chauhan, 24, of Vaughan, was arrested in connection with the crash and charged with dangerous operation causing death, failure to stop after an accident causing death and possession of a controlled substance.
Police said Chauhan was “bound by a release order” for unrelated offences at the time of the incident."
Driver charged after 16-year-old boy struck and killed in Vaughan
A 24-year-old driver is facing charges after a 16-year-old boy was struck and killed in Vaughan Tuesday night.
www.cp24.com
"Harnoor Chauhan, 24, of Vaughan, was arrested in connection with the crash and charged with dangerous operation causing death, failure to stop after an accident causing death and possession of a controlled substance.
Police said Chauhan was “bound by a release order” for unrelated offences at the time of the incident."
Bold strategy, factoring in the +/- error of standard auto speedometers. Even cruise will vary a klick or two while adjusting for road incline/wind conditions.
I didn't know about this 'policy'...
globalnews.ca
Police chiefs ‘in discussion’ with Ford government over impaired driving downgrades | Globalnews.ca
The policy meant that suspected impaired drivers without aggravating factors like causing bodily harm could plead guilty to non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offences.
globalnews.ca
I like it in theory. If you haven't caused life-changing consequences for someone else, getting a criminal record with the associated life-changing consequences seems excessive for a first time. The second time, hit them hard with everything you've got as they obviously have a pattern. If you change someones life with your choice, sorry, no free pass you get the hard road.I didn't know about this 'policy'...
Police chiefs ‘in discussion’ with Ford government over impaired driving downgrades | Globalnews.ca
The policy meant that suspected impaired drivers without aggravating factors like causing bodily harm could plead guilty to non-criminal Highway Traffic Act offences.
The very high BAC being exempt from this is interesting. It's hard to argue that a slightly drunk person gets a lighter penalty than someone that by definition cannot think properly. Sure the very high BAC is more dangerous to us but they probably have less intent to drive drunk than someone slightly over.
TK4
Well-known member
Here we go again - why is it always Brampton ?
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Its not that uncommon for for a cop to give a heads up to their colleagues down the road. Having a attitude near assures it.
Cop I knew back in the day use to set speed trap on Huntingwood, north Scarborough. Speed limit 50. His partner would set up just down the street. If someone caught a second time, second cop would hand the ticket with a 'didn't learn the first time did ya?' And a warning that maybe more cops down the road. Always good for a laugh for them.
POWERMAN
Well-known member
One of the stupidest ways to setup a trap imo (setting up downhill).
And their reasoning is "you should be in control of your vehicle at all times".
I worked with a guy that got caught three times in two miles on Weston road. He had a lippy attitude towards police and I'm sure the attitude warning traveled faster than Mario to the following stops.
I wouldn't have a problem with purging records after ten years for DUI or personal drug use if the violator did all the right stuff afterwards. I'd even be OK with it in cases where the actions caused life changes but that would be at the mercy of the injured parties. Their suffering can't be swept under a convenient rug.
Hate is like letting someone live rent free in your head.
That's exactly how it works now... Someone can get a pardon after 5 years for summary convictions.. or 10 years for indictable offences.
It used to 5 years for all.. but Karla Homolka getting a pardon brought attention to it and it was changed.
Except a pardon may help in Canada but according to the US, you still have a conviction. You can never be un-convicted and computers don't forget. Sadly, the difference between having a criminal conviction and not can vastly change your life. Once you have one criminal conviction, more barely matter.
It's not just the convictions that matter at the border. I was driving down to visit friends in North Carolina with a friend and his (much younger) girlfriend. I thought that it would be my typical virtual wave-through at the border, being a squeaky clean middle-aged white boy, but we were there for something like 2 hours. My friend had once been charged with assault some years back, for repeatedly striking his landlord in the fist with his face. No, that wasn't a typo. His girlfriend had been charged with shoplifting a few years before (not convicted). Those charges resulted in them being questioned, at some length, as to why they should be permitted entry.
I'm not sure.. but I believe the border services have access to systems that show a lot more than criminal convictions.. like CPIC or similar.. I think they can see everything. If so.. they would see the original charges, the plea deal, etc..
That said.. I don't think a single dui conviction prevents someone from crossing.. multiple would.. so the person would already be outside of that policy when/if they were denied.
A pardon also won't hide someone's record from the more in-depth searches required for working with vulnerable persons, etc..
I thought the question they asked was "Have you ever been charged..." Nothing about conviction.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
CPIC only shows anything active,pending charges probation and such NCIC check is more in-depth for example if charges were ever laid against you regardless of the outcome of the charges.
The question is a courtesy. If they want to know, they know.
|
|
|
|
|