Printable View
Changes to the impaired driving laws in Canada just got pretty scary. If you are visiting be aware of them and consider if you are convicted here you will not be allowed back into Canada because it is a criminal code offense conviction. The impaired charge is enforceable for any motor vehicle, boat etc, anywhere in Canada on public or private land.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...cid=spartandhp
Bob
Thats pretty crazy. Getting a little carried away i think.
Reasonable suspicion is for pansies! Jackbooted thugs need absolutely NONE.
Sh!t reminds me of the movie, V for Vendetta. I had no idea it would take so little time to get "there."
It is pretty Draconian and the part about testing 2 hours AFTER driving is surely going to be tested in court as soon as someone is charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedster
In the mean time, Yanks leave your guns at home and drive sober if you plan to cross the border.
Who needs guns when one has hammers, baseball bats and knives? Oh yeah, you can get run over with a car or truck also as happened in France!Quote:
Originally Posted by DZEC
Mike
Maybe they could set up a safe place for people to drink. Like they do for the heroine users. Sterile cups. Certified booze. A doctor to check you before you imbibe. Free taxi to make sure you get home safely.
Thats a good one!
As long as you have your guns with you they would have s harder time enforcing! Oh well I’m not into impaired driving. I like to stay at a house when enjoying my whiskey.
That is true but it does not help when guns are smuggled in and used, usually by gangs, in a lot of the shootings in Toronto.Quote:
Originally Posted by mglindo
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...to-canada.html
You don't need to go to Europe to be run over either.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...north-toronto/
As for the changes to the impaired drive laws, I think somebody lost their ever loving minds. I hope it is thrown out as unconstitutional in a court action. The old laws were tough enough imo.
Bob
That's nuckin futs!
Home for 2 hours having a drink or 20 and they can come in and arrest you because you drove within two hours beforehand?
AND pot is legal! :beer1:
Dang old Big Brother! He knows how to control folks! Attachment 300735
Great point about the mixed message Tom!
:tu
Impaired driving laws cover impairment by drugs and lack of sleep as well as alcohol. Don't worry, Canadian police are trialing drug testing gear. Chances are you won't be safe there either.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharptonn
The trick with the 2 hours after bit apparently is that you have to prove how much you had before arrival home and after not the police proving you were impaired while driving previous to arriving home. Can you imagine the cost of hiring a certified expert to testify what your blood alcohol level was while driving pervious to arriving home. The onus is on the accused now not the police as before.
Bob
................https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PLC_cBJwk4&app=desktop
A frog in a pot of heating water... keeps coming to mind.
At what point will it be too late to jump out? These types of encroachments come slow and steady, but usually not enough to excite action.
And then we are used to it, and ready for more restrictions.
Errr no, not restrictions that's too 1984, I meant to say guidance! Hehehe
TBH, I hope a tool to be used when a plate comes-up in a hit and run or reckless driving complaint comes-in.
Hopefully that is it. Your car did this as if you were impaired....Same thing here, really.
They CAN do pretty much what they want. When they want. Like it or not.
Yup, I have seen that happen with another subject that can't be mentioned here. That slow change took about 40 years to get to where it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT
The same thing has happened with impaired driving laws over about the same period of time. In both cases it is a matter of taking a good thing and going one step too far imo. People just don't seem to know at what point doing more of the same is counter productive. That is giving people the benefit of the doubt.
Bob
Forget about that naive book 1984.
Did any of you read yesterday about Amazon Ring allowing all its employees unfettered access to ALL of its customers Ring feeds? Co-workers even used customer's Ring cameras to spy on fellow co-workers dating and other childish fun. All Ring video feeds are stored unsecured. You only need one bad actor to turn this into more of an actual scandal. And wait 'til they get the facial recognition developed so that they can sell some wonderfully advanced products to the military or to the goons in blue.
And any of you running Alexa devices in your home while viewing your 23-and-me results? It just gets better and better....
:gaah:
I don’t mind giving police the ability to test drivers. It’s that after the fact testing that is problematic. No one should have to prove their innocence in a democracy.
It is hard to understand how the wording of the legislation made it through multiple readings of the bill in both Houses of Parliament without raising red flags - the lawyers in those seats must have been having lunch. It seems a no brainer that it will be challenged on constitutional grounds, but some poor soul will have to foot the bill and go through the process and it will likely take a year or longer.
The police have always had the power to demand a breathalyzer but they needed reasonable and probable grounds to demand one. They now can make that demand without having any suspicion that you are impaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by DZEC
In a democracy police need a valid reason to stop you when on foot or driving from continuing on your lawful way unimpeded. They no longer need to have a valid reason. It could be considered a form of "carding" because of that. As always, failure to comply with a demand for a breath sample carries the same penalty as being impaired so refusing to do basically means an automatic criminal record. The 2 hour bit is the icing on that cake.
Bob
Almost forgot that it is likely this change was included in an Omnibus Bill when it was presented to Parliament. That is that it was probably buried in a Bill that contained many other changes to a variety of unrelated subjects.
It was written in 1949. Hardly naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedster
When I was 13 my friend's brother was killed by a drunk driver when he was driving (sober) home from his high school grad. My sister and brother-in-law were very nearly killed by the town drunk outside Virden MB. Several friends have either been injured or have lost family members to drunk drivers. So I have 0 sympathy for anyone who's enough of a fuckwit to get behind the wheel after drinking. If you're going to drive, don't drink. If you're drinking, plan not to drive. It's simple.
That having been said, parts of the new legislation are just plain weird.
Now I have to add Canada to the list of countries where I can't safely travel, and all this time I was worried about being killed in Mexico :shrug:
Nah, it ain't that bad. Most of the incidents I made reference to happened quite a while ago. Our rates of impaired driving have thankfully fallen dramatically in recent years thanks to increased awareness and social pressures. So come on up! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Haroldg48
Now, if we could just get folks to stop driving while using their phones...
Yes, since the 1980s or so when drunk driving laws were gradually beefed up through more enforcement and higher fines, jail time and drivers licence suspensions up to and including lifetime the rates of drunk driving have fallen drastically. IIRC the rate is about a third of what it was in the 1980s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cangooner
They will have to do something similar about people who use their cell phones while driving. In Ontario distracted driving causes more deaths than drunk driving. The penalties and enforcement should be at least that for drunk driving.
https://globalnews.ca/news/2926240/d...riving-deaths/
Bob
I’m guessing this would be a no go in Canada now.
Attachment 300753
I do remember fondly the drive through beer store in Barrie on the 400 northbound.
Nothing finer on a weekend drive..
:tu
Only problem, only molson products....
As consumers, we are buying products to use in our daily lives that put us under constant surveillance not from some gov't entity -- like Big Brother in the novel -- but instead all manner of companies and corporations. I merely used a (very) contradictory term 'naive' in referring to Orwell's groundbreaking sci-fi novel to make my point. I should have followed up with a smiley I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesman7
Trust me, I know where the novel '1984' stands in terms of prescience. And only 25 more years until '1984' enters the public domain in the U.S. Once again, we have corporate a$$hole$ to thank.
