HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7421  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 2:51 PM
milomilo milomilo is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,254
I really don't see what the hysteria over cops being able to breathalyze without reason is. I honestly thought that was already the case and behaved as such. It's not 'police state' it's just a reasonable law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
I can. I've met enough overzealous cops in my life.

It's one thing to catch you in the act, but it's another to be forced to do a breathalyzer test 2 hours after allegedly driving erratically.
This however is ridiculous. Anyone accused this way has the quite easy defense of saying they had a few drinks when they got home, nothing illegal about that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7422  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 2:54 PM
wave46 wave46 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I know a friend whose fiancée’s pa was driving fatigued (not impaired!!) one night. He was apparently driving erratically and got reported. Then cops found him at his house later. My friend didn’t tell me whether his future pa-in-law was asked to provide a breath sample though.

That said, is the consensus that, if people are doing dumb things on the road, they need to be caught in the act, not after the fact? With some glaring exceptions, that is. (I have the massive motorcycle stunt on the 401 in summer 2017 in mind.)
You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that events transpired for criminal charges to stick in court.

That requires either witnesses or some sort of evidence. Generally, this means you have to be caught in the act, yes. Video evidence can suffice sometimes.

In the case of the post-driving breath test, there's a huge window of reasonable doubt:

- doubt you were actually behind the wheel of your car at the time
- doubt that you had consumed alcohol prior to (or during) the operation of a motor vehicle.
- doubt about the veracity of witnesses' claims about erratic driving
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7423  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 2:59 PM
wave46 wave46 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
I really don't see what the hysteria over cops being able to breathalyze without reason is. I honestly thought that was already the case and behaved as such. It's not 'police state' it's just a reasonable law.

This however is ridiculous. Anyone accused this way has the quite easy defense of saying they had a few drinks when they got home, nothing illegal about that.
Breathalyze without reason while operating a motor vehicle, fine.

Breathalyze while not operating (or in care and control of) a vehicle? Thin ice. Presumption of innocence isn't something I'm willing to give up easily.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7424  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 2:59 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,098
I am of two minds about this law as well. On the one hand, I'm not really in favour of people getting charged for driving impaired and then being able to fight the charge based on the grounds of whether or not it was reasonable for the police officer to assume that the driver was impaired before they demanded a breathilizer. This law addresses that problem.

On the other hand, this law does afford police a lot of authority. I've met enough goof police officers over the years to be weary of giving that much authority to police forces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7425  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:20 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Pro Trivia Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 35,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
I am of two minds about this law as well. On the one hand, I'm not really in favour of people getting charged for driving impaired and then being able to fight the charge based on the grounds of whether or not it was reasonable for the police officer to assume that the driver was impaired before they demanded a breathilizer. This law addresses that problem.

On the other hand, this law does afford police a lot of authority. I've met enough goof police officers over the years to be weary of giving that much authority to police forces.
We didn't have to wait too long for an example, with that case in Streetsville and the empties...
__________________
Ah ben là!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7426  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:25 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Honestly, I think the most reasonable thing that cops can do is to set up ride checks in parking lots where a bar abuts. There, they have reasonable ground to suspect impaired driving and can stop it right from the beginning.
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7427  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:27 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 15,120
It's interesting to wonder to what extent the new rules will further reduce impaired driving?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7428  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:30 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
True, but if the cop shows up at your door two hours later asking for a breath sample, and you had consumed beer since arriving home, and were subsequently over the limit, how could any reasonable court decide whether or not you in fact were by definition impaired when you were actually driving????
I think that's the most accurate point. I'm sure the intent of this law is to be able to go after people who are involved in a traffic collision and then flee the scene because they are impaired.

Even in that case though, a prosecutor is still going to have to have a lot of evidence to be able to prove the fact that that driver was impaired at the time of the accident. To be able to prove such a case, a prosecutor would probably need witness statements from a bar or a party to prove that a driver was consuming alcohol before the collision, as well, the breath sample would be probably have to be significantly over the legal limit so that even if a driver claimed to have consumed additional alcohol once they returned home that they can reasonably prove that the driver was impaired earlier.

The police have an incomplete chain of custody, so I think they'd need a lot of evidence for any court to actually garner any sort of conviction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7429  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:34 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
It's interesting to wonder to what extent the new rules will further reduce impaired driving?
Like I said in the other thread, the most reasonable thing for cops to do is to set up ride checks in the parking lot of bars.
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7430  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:36 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Pro Trivia Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 35,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonysnob View Post
I think that's the most accurate point. I'm sure the intent of this law is to be able to go after people who are involved in a traffic collision and then flee the scene because they are impaired.

Even in that case though, a prosecutor is still going to have to have a lot of evidence to be able to prove the fact that that driver was impaired at the time of the accident. To be able to prove such a case, a prosecutor would probably need witness statements from a bar or a party to prove that a driver was consuming alcohol before the collision, as well, the breath sample would be probably have to be significantly over the legal limit so that even if a driver claimed to have consumed additional alcohol once they returned home that they can reasonably prove that the driver was impaired earlier.

The police have an incomplete chain of custody, so I think they'd need a lot of evidence for any court to actually garner any sort of conviction.
I was under the impression that they already had the power to do this, and that if involved in an accident when driving drunk, it wasn't really worth it to flee as you'd get caught and charged anyway. I definitely recall people being convicted in such cases.
__________________
Ah ben là!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7431  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:41 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Not to mention that now the defendant will have to deal with one more charge - failed to remain on scene
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7432  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 3:57 PM
sonysnob sonysnob is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I was under the impression that they already had the power to do this, and that if involved in an accident when driving drunk, it wasn't really worth it to flee as you'd get caught and charged anyway. I definitely recall people being convicted in such cases.
Personally, I don't follow case law for impaired driving charges at all really, so I don't know. I've seen hit and run cases though, and I've always assumed there must be some other reason (whether it be impairment or other criminal activity) for a driver to flee.

There must've been a reason for the text in the law to have been strengthened though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7433  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 5:41 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 7,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
Breathalyze without reason while operating a motor vehicle, fine.

Breathalyze while not operating (or in care and control of) a vehicle? Thin ice. Presumption of innocence isn't something I'm willing to give up easily.
This is going too far and will hopefully be declared unconstitutional soon. We’re not a police state where all civil liberties are to be thrown away in a quixotic quest to eliminate all of the risk from life.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7434  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 11:06 PM
haljackey's Avatar
haljackey haljackey is offline
User Registered
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 2,662
OP here.

This is a thread to discuss highways.

Get yo politics outa here

-----

Here's a pic of a Canadian highway to get us back on the right road.



You know it's Canadian because of the flag.
__________________
My Twitter

My Simcity Stuff
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7435  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2019, 11:12 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Well I just wanted to discuss some new laws about road usage, but sure we’ll just discuss it in the politics thread from here on.

It’s called highway traffic act, not road traffic act in Ontario.

Ps: Or maybe I just have a very loose definition of digression so I almost always tolerate egregious digression under my threads.

Also since you’re from around London, care to show (in pictures) what construction’s been like on the 401 there?
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7436  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 8:51 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
QC 117 between Rivière-Rouge and Labelle

https://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-rele...QYaXDgtaEDHQe8

In short, the study have been continuing and should be done by this winter. Then MTQ determines the best course of action.

I almost thought the project was dead under CAQ until I saw this.

Meanwhile, disappointingly, QC 117 Rouyn-Noranda Bypass, which was supposed to be opened last fall, won’t be opened to traffic until this fall.

Ps: I wonder whether it’s meaningful to officially extend A15 to Mont Laurier. By that I mean actually eliminating all the at-grade intersections and replacing some with interchanges (in addition to the existing ones). If not, perhaps extend it to Rivière-Rouge and upgrade the section from there to Mont Laurier as a 2+1?
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7437  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 8:55 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Pro Trivia Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 35,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
https://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-rele...QYaXDgtaEDHQe8

In short, the study have been continuing and should be done by this winter. Then MTQ determines the best course of action.

I almost thought the project was dead under CAQ until I saw this.

Meanwhile, disappointingly, QC 117 Rouyn-Noranda Bypass, which was supposed to be opened last fall, won’t be opened to traffic until this fall.

Ps: I wonder whether it’s meaning to officially* extend A15 to Mont Laurier. By that I mean actually eliminating all the at-grade intersections and replacing some with interchanges (in addition to the existing ones). If not, perhaps extend it to Rivière-Rouge and upgrade the section from there to Mont Laurier as a 2+1?
The CAQ may be the most pro-highway government we've had in Quebec in a very long time.
__________________
Ah ben là!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7438  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 8:57 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
The CAQ may be the most pro-highway government we've had in Quebec in a very long time.
I thought Legault only supported widening A30 from 4 to 6 lanes and twinning 335.

At least it’s important that the work to twin 185 proceeds as planned.
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7439  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 9:01 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Pro Trivia Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 35,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue View Post
I thought Legault only supported widening A30 from 4 to 6 lanes and twinning 335.

At least it’s important that the work to twin 185 proceeds as planned.
They are also talking about finishing the twinning of A-50, extending A-13 north to the A-50, and as a biggie, building a third link between Quebec City and the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
__________________
Ah ben là!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7440  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2019, 9:11 PM
Dengler Avenue's Avatar
Dengler Avenue Dengler Avenue is online now
Highway Geek
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Denglertown
Posts: 1,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
They are also talking about finishing the twinning of A-50, extending A-13 north to the A-50, and as a biggie, building a third link between Quebec City and the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
MTQ's also widening Henri IV (A73) on the north approach of Pont Pierre Laporte.

If realigning A40 through l'Ancienne Lorette (Ville de Québec) is still on the table, there are 9 projects in total, almost all of which are pretty big. I've always wondered if its realignment will put A540 out of use because, in that case, the city can rejoin a neighbourhood that's been separated.

You're right. That's quite a lot of highway projects for any given quebecois government after the "revolt against highways".
__________________
Q: ON-11 or ON-17, which one should we twin (assuming there's political will)?

A: Hook up a trailer to the back of the pickup truck and get from one Bay to the other Bay. Then you can understand which is more of a better highway to upgrade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.