Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1 | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Newfoundland Driving Law Changes Eff Oct 1

Should a sober novice kid be permitted to drive his drunk parent home?
 
Last edited:
turbodish said:
This is already the law in Ontario. If you're operating a motor vehicle on a public road in Ontario, police have the right to stop you randomly and without cause to verify your license and insurance documentation. Once they have you stopped for that, they can continue on and investigate anything else that comes to their attention during the stop, including vehicle mechanical inspection, possible driver impairment, radar detector on the dash, drugs in plain view on the seat, etc. The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the legitimacy of such random stops in R v. Ladouceur.
Click to expand...

So why are they specifically pushing for random Breathalyzer tests, if this can already be done? It's because it can't. An officer can stop you to verify that you have the proper documentation in order to operate a vehicle, but cannot slap a Breathalyzer on you just because he feels like it. Nor should he be able to, unless there is evidence that you are operating the vehicle while under the influence. This is as it should be.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
So why are they specifically pushing for random Breathalyzer tests, if this can already be done? It's because it can't. An officer can stop you to verify that you have the proper documentation in order to operate a vehicle, but cannot slap a Breathalyzer on you just because he feels like it. Nor should he be able to, unless there is evidence that you are operating the vehicle while under the influence. This is as it should be.
Click to expand...

Once the cop has you stopped for the HTA-authorized documentation check, that gives him opportunity to check for signs of impairment while doing the doc check. If he smells alcohol or sees signs of alcohol consumption in the car, that gives the cop adequate probable cause to demand a breathalyzer test.

From the sounds of it, Newfoundland's prior version of their HTA did not permit random traffic stops to check documentation. They could only stop a vehicle of they observed a specific HTA violation.

This has changed with the new legislation. They can now randomly stop vehicles to verify documentation for car and driver. As part of the newly-permitted random traffic stops (which Ontario has had for as long as I can remember), Newfoundland cops now have an opportunity to assess driver condition while checking documentation.

This is where the "getting impaired drivers off the road" part comes in, same as is done in Ontario. Or do you suggest that an obviously impaired driver should get a pass just because he was found to be impaired during a license and insurance check?
 
turbodish said:
Once the cop has you stopped for the HTA-authorized documentation check, that gives him opportunity to check for signs of impairment while doing the doc check. If he smells alcohol or sees signs of alcohol consumption in the car, that gives the cop adequate probable cause to demand a breathalyzer test.

From the sounds of it, Newfoundland's prior version of their HTA did not permit random traffic stops to check documentation. They could only stop a vehicle of they observed a specific HTA violation.

This has changed with the new legislation. They can now randomly stop vehicles to verify documentation for car and driver. As part of the newly-permitted random traffic stops (which Ontario has had for as long as I can remember), Newfoundland cops now have an opportunity to assess driver condition while checking documentation.

This is where the "getting impaired drivers off the road" part comes in, same as is done in Ontario. Or do you suggest that an obviously impaired driver should get a pass just because he was found to be impaired during a license and insurance check?
Click to expand...

As should have been obvious I was talking about the law in Ontario, not Newfoundland. I made no statement that impaired drivers should be turned loose. Quite the contrary, actually.

To look at the other side of the coin, should we give police leave to do whatever they feel like, despite this being a free country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
As should have been obvious I was talking about the law in Ontario, not Newfoundland. I made no statement that impaired drivers should be turned loose. Quite the contrary, actually.
Click to expand...

Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.


Rob MacLennan said:
To look at the other side of the coin, should we give police leave to do whatever they feel like, despite this being a free country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Click to expand...

We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
 
turbodish said:
Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.

We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
Click to expand...

We should be able to use it as a reasonable shield against the invasion of privacy and abrogation of personal freedoms. I have never suggested any more than that.
 
I'm wondering what sparked this change? Knee-jerk reaction to a parent who lost her kid in an accident, political campaigning, police lobbying for greater authority?... Laws seldom change without someone pushing for it, whatever their agenda. Too often it's a vocal minority who ruin things for everyone else because they can't--or refuse--to think objectively. All it takes is to mash together the words "injury", "death", "children", etc... if you are against a law that can potentially reduce these things then you are a bad person ("how could you!"). If we can maybe save one innocent child from death by reducing the freedom of millions it's worth it? I say no. There is always something we can do to increase safety but it comes at a cost. It's the age old manipulation tactic of robbing people of something by appealing to irrational emotions rather than intelligent discourse. There's a time for such action but it should be reserved for more severe circumstances.

I don't think these new rules are that severe in and of themselves but IMO they are still an unwarranted step in that direction and should be opposed on that basis. I specifically have a problem with the unwarranted searches and the zero BAC for supervising drivers. If you're deemed to be fit to operate a motor vehicle with .05 BAC then by what logic are you deemed unfit to be an observing passenger with the same BAC? I understand the recommendation to be bone sober as a precaution but as a rule it makes no sense whatsoever. Parents who have had a bit to drink but are not legally impaired can no longer choose to do the safer thing and have their sober kid drive them home? Sheesh...

Sorry, I tried to keep this brief. I can go on forever about these things :rolleyes:
 
turbodish said:
Canadian criminal law pertaining to impaired driving applies to Ontario and Newfoundland (and every other Canadian province or territory) equally.




We don't. To flip the coin once more, should we be able to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute shield against the consequences of breaking the law?
Click to expand...

"Canadian law pertaining to.... "
Impaired is a federal offence???
I always thought it was a provincial offence!?
 
Last edited:
raginduck said:
I understand that it's criminal offence, but is it a provincial offence or federal? I understand most criminal offences to be provincial...
Click to expand...

Criminal Code offences are Federal. Provincial Offences Act charges are Provincial.
 
mike100 said:
You think it is OK to for police to stop people randomly without cause. Any more civil rights you want to give up? Perhaps police should not require a warrant to search your house, after all there are lots of grow-ops in the GTA. Why slow the police down.
These kind of laws just invite abuse by the police. If you don't think it can happen then all you have to do is look at the police officers that were found abusing the stunting/racing laws.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has already decided that it is ok for police to stop people randomly for ride checks.
This is a dead issue, the rest of your post is a slippery slope that doesn't exist. (considering how long these things have been legal)

the law authorizes "traffic safety stops" - That just sounds like the standard ride check road block - this point is up to interpretation tho.

as far as civil liberty impuning laws go. I don't see much of an issue with this one. There is nothing here that really gives more power to the police than already existed. Some people may disagree, but the ride check program has been through every level of scrutiny and has been found to be legal in Canada - and their findings and conclusions are actually very reasonable.
 
Last edited:
I just realized this post was from 2010. My bad.
 
iFly55 said:
is driving

A) god given right
B) birth right
C) privilege
D) both A & B
Click to expand...

You were born into this universe given its constraints which you cannot break, until you find a way to do so and choose to do so.
With no evidence of any god since man discovered science and the burden of proof, is anything now a "right" or a "privilege" or anything at all?
It is what it is, you go for what you want in this life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom