New 7 Day Impoundment Legislation

On December 1st, 2010 new Highway Traffic Act Offences were implemented that have to do with the impoundment of motor vehicles for various offences.  The new sections come under the umbrella of the Road Safety Act, 2009 (Bill 126) and are administrative suspensions.

The sections allow for vehiclesto be impounded for 7 days when the people driving them have committed the following offences:





1.) A driver who's licence has been suspended for any reason, including default of family support (with the exception of unpaid fines or medical reasons) is caught driving. Section 55.2 HTA

2.) A driver who is required to have an ignition interlock device and are found driving without one. Section 41.4 HTA
3.) A driver caught with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 0.08 or who fails/refuses to comply with a demand made by a police officer under section 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada.  Section 48.4 HTA

OK, so that is the legal stuff. Here is what it all really means and what is important for you to remember.

All these offences identify high risk road users.  Those people who have a disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of all of us.

Drivers receive suspension for several reasons.  Most commonly for breaking the rules of the road to such a degree that the punishment handed down by the courts is a suspension.  Some offences come with mandatory suspensions and you can bet that those are the offences that are high risk behaviours that compromise the safety of everyone.  (Impaired driving, stunt driving, multiple demerit point accumulations, etc) = High risk road user.

For a driver to be required to have an ignition interlock device, they have had to have broken the law in terms of drinking and driving.  Part of their conviction is the order that they must have the device installed on any vehicle they drive.  It is a requirement on their licence. = High risk road user.

Anyone charged with over 80 or refusing / failing to comply with the demand, naturally =  High risk road users.

Like I said...the vast majority of us never have to worry about these things.  It is only those drivers who have been self identified as high risk road users.  Self identified? Yes, they are the ones in control of their behaviours and their actions on our roads.

They are the ones who have completely missed section 31 of the Highway Traffic Act:

Driving a privilege

The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

31.

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions.  1993, c. 40, s. 1.

No one has the right to drive.  It is a privilege and one that if you don't comply with or abide by the rules and regulations, that privilege is taken away from you.

Back to the impoundments...

The legislation doesn't say the vehicle of the driver...it says the vehicle that is being used by the driver. 

So parents...are you willing to part with your car for seven days because of the behaviour choices of your children?  This is something that you really need to discuss with them so that they understand the importance of good choices.

Friends...are you willing to lose your car for seven days because you loaned it to a friend?  Make sure they have a licence, they aren't required to have an ignition interlock device and they aren't going to be drinking.

These are just a few of things that you have to consider.  Also, the bill for the towing and impoundment doesn't go in the name of the driver...it's in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle.  

Hope this help to educate a few people. 

Remember, RIDE is out there all this month.

People argue to be able to drink and drive!

Why do people still insist on driving after they have been drinking? Why do drivers speed at ridiculous rates through residential neighbourhoods, or anywhere else for that matter?

I had the misfortune today of attending a fatal crash in North York this morning. A car was travelling at a high rate of speed and was T-boned in an intersection on a quiet little side street.

The debris field was huge. 2 cars absolutely destroyed. 1 person dead and 4 sent to hospital. One of the drivers was arrested for an alcohol offence related to driving. The car he was driving was the one that the deceased person was in, that was allegedly speeding and allegedly went through a stop sign.

Between Twitter and Facebook there were lots of messages condemning drinking and driving and aggressive driving. That led to some conversation about the new 21 and under law. Surprisingly in some of that conversation stream, people were willing to chastise the new law for being age discriminatory or unacceptable on some level because of a Zero BAC requirement.

WHAT??? Why in the world would people argue to be able to drink and drive. I mean that's really what it comes down to. That is what you are arguing for...to defend your desire to drink and drive. Think about it. If you argue against a zero BAC, or the newer "Warn Range" Suspensions being too restrictive, or the legal limit being too low, you are arguing in essence to be allowed to drive a 2000 pound weapon with an an intoxicant in your system!

How about supporting the notion of someone drinking while walking down the street with a loaded machine gun.

I had a number of people ask my opinion on the law and what I believe. Some asked if I believe it should be just 21 and under or all drivers. Well, you probably know me well enough by now to know what my answer was:

IF YOU DRINK, DON'T DRIVE!

Can YOU stop impaired driving?

According to StatsCan Impaired driving offences have risen for a third consecutive year across Canada. There was a 3% rise from 2008 to 2009. As far as I'm concerned, that is ridiculous.

Governments across the country at both the federal and provincial levels have been making great strides to combat these offences with sanctions, tougher sentences, greater awareness and new laws, but the offence keeps happening!

By and large, the vast majority of us seem to get the fact that it is socially unacceptable to drive impaired. But it seems that many are still doing it. Death, injury, financial ruin, job loss, are things that are very real consequences from such an irrational decision to drive while impaired.

So what's the answer? How do we stop this offence from occurring? The police have their ideas, courts theirs and governments their own...but what about you? What do you think is the answer to curbing this stat from continuing it's upward climb? Here is your chance to voice your thoughts.

Let me give you some numbers to think about: 2009
Total Arrests in Canada for Impaired: 88,630
Total Arrests in Toronto: 2253
Per 100,000 in Canada: 263
Per 100,000 in Toronto: 90

As you can see, Toronto is doing very well compared to the rest of Canada, but very well just doesn't cut it when we are talking about life changing implications such as permanent disability and death because of a preventable, selfish criminal act.

And let's be realistic...2253 people that were caught while driving impaired. How many slipped through that we have no idea about? How many think that they will get away with having 'one for the road'?

What do you think should happen to those people that endanger all our lives. What could be an effective deterrent to stop the people that are willing to sacrifice the lives of our children, our spouses, our parents, our friends?

Its obvious that the threat of a criminal record, licence suspension, death and injury don't stop some of the population...so what will?

I would love to hear what you think. Get creative, be genius...who knows maybe your collective thoughts will send a clear message to our law makers, our courts and most importantly to those people who just don't get it.

Here are a couple of suggestions that I've heard in the past to get the ball rolling;Life time driving ban.
Special licence plates.
De-criminalize low alcohol limits and provide huge fines with long suspensions.

So do me a favour. Please take some time, and let me know what YOU think. Tell me YOUR ideas. Between this blog, Twitter, Facebook and anything else I can think of, I know there is a gem out there that has not been given enough consideration and you could be the person or group responsible for reducing collisions, injuries and death, not just here...but everywhere!

Warn Range Suspensions

I felt like I needed to do a blog post this week but wasn't sure what it was going to be about. There are so many topics to choose from in the world of Traffic Safety. Then the topic was provided to me.

I came into work this morning and received a notice that the Toronto Police Service issued it's first 30 day suspension under the Province's Bill 203 Legislation. That means this one driver, a 30 year old male from Scarborough, has been issued two previous suspensions for registering in the warn range for alcohol in his system while driving.

That's the legislation that recognized driver's who operate a motor vehicle under the legal limit but with alcohol in their system had to be recognized, tracked and made more accountable for their poor choices. As far as all police are concerned, if you drink the choice is simple...DON'T DRIVE!!

Let's review.

The legal limit to operate a motor vehicle under the Criminal Code of Canada is .08. In normal terms that means there are 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood of the tested subject. Anything over that warrants a charge of Drive Over 80 mgs.

The warn range is the area between .05 and .079.

Prior to May 1, 2009 the suspensions were 12 hours and you could pick up your licence at a police station after the 12 hours passed. On May 1st last year, Bill 203 took effect which created sanctions for those persons who registered readings in the Warn Range.

For a 1st time instance in that range, you will receive a 3 day licence suspension. Your licence is forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation.

For a 2nd instance: driver suspended for seven days and must undergo remedial alcohol education program

Third or subsequent instance: driver suspended for 30 days, must undergo remedial alcohol treatment program and have ignition interlock condition on their licence for six months.

This legislation, agree with it or not, is extremely important to the protection of the public and forwarding road safety measures.

Benefits of Bill 203 (The drinking and driving part of it)

First, it allows for the tracking of drivers who have registered breath readings in this area. Those drivers who choose to drink and drive are considered high risk road offenders in that action alone. Now, we can get a better picture of how many of those drivers continue to put all of us at risk with their potentially deadly choices.

Second, it allows for a measure of prevention. I know I don't want to risk losing my licence for 3 days, let alone having that on my divers abstract...did I mention that? Sorry, each time that you register in that range, it goes on your drivers abstract...can you imagine what insurance companies think about drivers who are considered high risk?

Finally, the legislation makes it possible to educate those people who not only self identify as high risk road users, but creates an opportunity for those persons to be educated as to the dangers of their choices.

Now, before you start talking about the government and the police are taking away all your fun, remember, it's not illegal to drink if you are of legal drinking age. It's not even illegal to drink before driving. It is illegal to drink too much before driving. You are your own liquor control board. So the choice is 100% up to you.

Our message is simple if you want to drink, go ahead, but if you are going to be driving have a plan not to drive and stick with it. Public transit, cabs, designated drivers, hotels are all great options and a lot less expensive than defending yourself against criminal charges, tow bills and the real price that would be paid if you kill or injure yourself or others.

What do you think? Do you like the legislation, feel it's too harsh or maybe that it doesn't go far enough. Let me know.

For more information on Bill 203 click here.

How Much Can I Drink And Be Safe To Drive?

I have been asked, like many police officers, “How much can I have to drink and still be ok to drive?”

The traffic safety officer in me says, “None. As soon as you take a drink you have started to compromise several of your bodies necessary needs to operate a motor vehicle.”

The realist, everyday person, husband and father says, “Are you stupid? Why do you want to drink and then drive? There is no amount that is safe dumb a….! My kids play road hockey on the street. We are driving coming home from dinner or shopping. Don’t you dare risk our lives with your stupidity!!”

You see, it comes up around this time of year, Super Bowl Sunday, Victoria Day Weekend (Memorial Day), Labour Day, New Years, over and over…”But just one or two is ok right?

Sure it is. No one wants to ruin your good time. No one has ever said don’t have a drink. Many of us can go out and have drinks and there is absolutely no problem….as long as you aren’t driving afterwards.

Public transit, taxi’s, limo’s, car pooling with a designated driver, getting a hotel room, phone a friend/parent/child/sibling…there are many, many options.

On the flip side, having your car impounded, losing your license, getting arrested and having a criminal record, risking hurting someone else or yourself, maybe even death…is the one or tow drinks worth that? What if you got into a collision that wasn’t your fault, but the collision report says…had been drinking. Explain that to your insurance company.

What about the breath devices that you can use in a bar, or devices you can buy at the drug store. How about BAC calculators that tell you what your alcohol level is? There is even an App for that and a device you can add to your iPhone/iPod.

Do you want to trust your license, livelihood and life to a $45 dollar device that is never calibrated to scientific measurements that police use? Does it not seem suspicious that a bar that by nature sells alcohol would offer a device to tell you to stop drinking?

Here is the simple answer…NONE!!!!! IF YOU DRINK, DON’T DRIVE.

What caued 2 cars to crash into this house

Jack Lakey
STAFF REPORTER - Toronto Star
Once may be an accident, but when two vehicles sail through an intersection and slam into the same house in three weeks, there's a bigger problem than poor eyesight or too much to drink.
It was good news-bad news early Sunday for the residents of 42 South Kingslea Dr.: A vehicle crashed through a front window of their bungalow and stopped in the master bedroom. But the couple had moved out after the same thing happened 20 days earlier, so they were in no danger of being struck by a car while in bed.
A 25-year-old man driving north on Park Lawn Rd. failed to come to a stop where the street ends at South Kingslea, soared through the intersection and ended up in the house, police said. He has been charged with impaired driving.
The occupants, a couple in their 40s, were forced to move after structural damage was caused Feb. 2 when a car driven by a man in his late 80s also hurtled past the stop sign and crashed through a window just after the homeowner had walked out the front door.
Area residents say the accidents have a lot to do with a reconfiguration of the intersection of Park Lawn and South Kingslea a few years ago.
Sandra Girasoli, who lives beside the intersection at 351 Park Lawn, said vehicles have often knocked over the stop sign just north of her laneway since the spot where Park Lawn meets South Kingslea was moved several metres to the west. Standing at the intersection and looking across at the battered house, it seems impossible to steer a vehicle into it, unless it was deliberately targeted.
Park Lawn descends a hill as it approaches South Kingslea, then curves to the right just before the intersection. Even if a driver didn't stop, he'd have to make a 90-degree right turn onto South Kingslea, proceed a few metres east, then crank the wheel hard to the left to run a vehicle at the house.
It would require a level of precision beyond all but a stunt driver, never mind the elderly or drunk.
Curving the north end of Park Lawn more to the west would seem to make it harder for drivers to collide with houses on South Kingslea, which makes two such accidents in a few weeks even more baffling.
Toronto transportation services officials are no less flummoxed, so much so that Allan Smithies, manager of traffic planning in that area, met with us at the scene to figure out why it's happening.
Until the reconfiguration, Park Lawn curved gradually to the east where it met South Kingslea, said Smithies, allowing drivers who blew the stop sign to cross the street more directly, making it easier to crash into the house.
The reconfiguration made it more of a T intersection, he said, but the construction also lengthened the Girasolis' driveway.
We accompanied Smithies part way up the hill on Park Lawn, so we could look down toward the intersection from the same vantage point as drivers approaching it, where he worked out a theory about the cause of the accidents.
"It's nighttime, it's dark and you're probably coming down the hill towards the stop sign too fast," he explained. "You look and see a stop sign with a big patch of asphalt to the right of it," which is the Girasolis' driveway but could easily be mistaken for South Kingslea.
To a driver who believes the driveway is actually South Kingslea, they might also conclude the stop sign is in a traffic island in the middle of the intersection and swing to the left of it – towards the driveway – when they're supposed to come to a stop with the stop sign on their right, said Smithies.
It makes sense, and squares with Sandra Girasoli's observation that other drivers have mowed down the stop sign by crossing the end of her laneway instead of curving to the left, as they're supposed to.
For now, cement barriers will be put up on in front of the house, but Smithies said the intersection will be re-examined with a mind to making it more visible to drivers.