Accrington Web - View Single Post

Eric · 23-09-2014, 13:54

It's taken a long time, but folks seem to be getting the message that driving while impaired is not really a good idea ... This is a positive change. One used to hear drivers saying that they don't drive after drinking (or toking) because they don't want to face the legal consequences of their stupidity: suspension, fine, higher insurance rates, impound fees, jail time, etc. Now, many have reached what I believe is the correct conclusion: Driving while drunk is just plain [deleted]ing dumb. This is definitely a change for the better.

In Ontario, distracted driving is a violation of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act ... (things are different here; Provinces have different laws.) Impaired driving is a Criminal Code offence which carries higher penalties. Maybe folks would sit up and take more notice if the offence was moved into the Criminal Code.

There have been some positive moves by, believe it or not, the major insurance companies, which are starting to sit up and take notice, and increase insurance rates, dramatically in some cases, for drivers convicted of distracted driving. There is, of course, the temptation to drive without insurance; but the minimum fine in Ontario for this offense is $5,000.00, impounding the vehicle, and licence suspension ... second offence gets you jail time.

And there's an irony goin' on with distracted driving: people just don't seem to see it as a crime. They do, however see impaired driving as a crime. And the irony, of course, is that distracted driving has become responsible for more deaths and serious injuries than impaired driving. The message is getting through to the drinkers, but not the texters.

In a recent interview on local tv, an officer from the O.P.P. offered the opinion that texting is responsible for more accidents and near collisions than the figures show. If there is not solid evidence, the cause of the accident is put down as something like "unsafe lane change" or "driving without due care and attention." He wouldn't come out and say it, but his body language told it all: "We know damn well that the asshole was using his phone; but there is no definite proof ... and we can't ask him 'cause he's smeared all over the 401."

23-09-2014, 13:54	#51
Eric God Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada Posts: 9,290 Liked: 2347 times Rep Power: 58528	Re: She asked for it ... It's taken a long time, but folks seem to be getting the message that driving while impaired is not really a good idea ... This is a positive change. One used to hear drivers saying that they don't drive after drinking (or toking) because they don't want to face the legal consequences of their stupidity: suspension, fine, higher insurance rates, impound fees, jail time, etc. Now, many have reached what I believe is the correct conclusion: Driving while drunk is just plain [deleted]ing dumb. This is definitely a change for the better. In Ontario, distracted driving is a violation of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act ... (things are different here; Provinces have different laws.) Impaired driving is a Criminal Code offence which carries higher penalties. Maybe folks would sit up and take more notice if the offence was moved into the Criminal Code. There have been some positive moves by, believe it or not, the major insurance companies, which are starting to sit up and take notice, and increase insurance rates, dramatically in some cases, for drivers convicted of distracted driving. There is, of course, the temptation to drive without insurance; but the minimum fine in Ontario for this offense is $5,000.00, impounding the vehicle, and licence suspension ... second offence gets you jail time. And there's an irony goin' on with distracted driving: people just don't seem to see it as a crime. They do, however see impaired driving as a crime. And the irony, of course, is that distracted driving has become responsible for more deaths and serious injuries than impaired driving. The message is getting through to the drinkers, but not the texters. In a recent interview on local tv, an officer from the O.P.P. offered the opinion that texting is responsible for more accidents and near collisions than the figures show. If there is not solid evidence, the cause of the accident is put down as something like "unsafe lane change" or "driving without due care and attention." He wouldn't come out and say it, but his body language told it all: "We know damn well that the asshole was using his phone; but there is no definite proof ... and we can't ask him 'cause he's smeared all over the 401."