The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread | Page 284 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread

Impaired driving is one of the very few things that I think warrant punishment, of a sort, prior to conviction. Impaired drivers are demonstrably not in any condition to be handed back a vehicle when they are stopped. They famously don't learn from being caught. The worst of them don't care, at all, about thew sanctions that have already been placed against them and they continue to drive afterwards.

By comparison someone who has been caught while "stunt driving" (speeding) is already no longer speeding.
That car will never be driven again by anyone. There is zero risk with handing it back to that driver. I am inclined to be on your side for a traffic stop but in this case, the impound is a punitive penalty before trial with zero societal benefit.
 
I still hate it. Drunk drivers can go to hell but penalties should be after conviction. I have no problem with huge penalties once the crown has been able to get a JP beyond reasonable doubt.
The DUI is a special case. Unlike a stunt charge where, if we had judges with balls, the stunter would drive away, ticket in hand and tail between his legs because he knew he was in deep crap with both his licence and insurance.

Let them know they're going to be hammered with a fine, suspension after judgement, pushed back to D-2 or even D-1, no plea deal and facility insurance.

A DUI can't drive away and the car can't be left blocking the road. Give the drunk a phone call to a licensed, sober friend and a half hour to have them move the car. If it isn't moved by then, tow it to the drunks home.

The family of a drunk has enough problems without possibly losing the family car for a week or two. Kids may have to go to school and mom or dad to work. What if there is a dependent down the chain. Let granny starve???

What if it's a company service vehicle full of service equipment?
 
Impaired driving is one of the very few things that I think warrant punishment, of a sort, prior to conviction. Impaired drivers are demonstrably not in any condition to be handed back a vehicle when they are stopped. They famously don't learn from being caught. The worst of them don't care, at all, about thew sanctions that have already been placed against them and they continue to drive afterwards.

By comparison someone who has been caught while "stunt driving" (speeding) is already no longer speeding.
See my post. Punish the drunk all you want. Treat a breathalyzer as a judge. It is factual and non racist, non sexist. It isn't a call by the police thinking they thought they saw the front wheel lift.

Don't punish the car. It may be needed to support the rest of the family, already under duress from living with the slob.
 
That car will never be driven again by anyone. There is zero risk with handing it back to that driver. I am inclined to be on your side for a traffic stop but in this case, the impound is a punitive penalty before trial with zero societal benefit.
What if the car was borrowed or taken without permission. Why punish the owner who wasn't even there?
 
What if the car was borrowed or taken without permission. Why punish the owner who wasn't even there?
It's been a well established fact, for decades, that the owner of a vehicle is also responsible for the actions of someone to whom they have loaned it. The penalties have just been growing over the years, to match the penalties placed on the drivers.
 
It's been a well established fact, for decades, that the owner of a vehicle is also responsible for the actions of someone to whom they have loaned it. The penalties have just been growing over the years, to match the penalties placed on the drivers.
It's funny how people get their shorts in a knot over some internet nonsense scare thing about running away from your car if someone leaves a water bottle on the tire but they totally assume they are free as a bird if they loan out their vehicle and there's a crash.
 
I'm pretty sure you won't be needing the vehicle to get to work.
But if the vehicle is used by other technicians the other technician is out of work and so is that division of the company.

I came close to buying a $10,000 piece of equipment that could not be allowed to freeze. Add collateral damage because the storage yards are unheated in winter.
 
But if the vehicle is used by other technicians the other technician is out of work and so is that division of the company.

I came close to buying a $10,000 piece of equipment that could not be allowed to freeze. Add collateral damage because the storage yards are unheated in winter.

It's no different giving a vehicle to an employee with a bad abstract then complaining when they write off your truck. Feces happens.

I'm guessing 99.999% of companies have clear cut rules about what you can and cannot do with the company vehicle. If you break the no alcohol - period rule, maybe you shouldn't have been given a company vehicle to begin with.

And good luck at the new job.
 
And on today's episode of The Gong Show - Brampton Edition.........


"Neighbours were telling us this is a busy intersection. Quite a few accidents in this area."

Really? Ya figger?
Won't be at all surprised if we hear that someone ran a just-red, resulting in a collision with traffic that had right-of-way. See it frequently there. I don't think there's a red light camera though.
 
In football would that be a false start and offside with the offside getting the penalty?

I wonder about the density of body shops in Brampton.
773 according to yellow pages...
 
Malton. The stories I could tell.
 
Another pedestrian killed in Toronto by a turning dump truck. Eyeball stats say dump trucks make up a freakishly high percentage of pedestrian deaths.


EDIT:
Bonus points to the truck driver for killing the pedestrian in the process of turning left at an intersection where left turns are prohibited.
 
Last edited:
Another pedestrian killed in Toronto by a turning dump truck. Eyeball stats say dump trucks make up a freakishly high percentage of pedestrian deaths.


EDIT:
Bonus points to the truck driver for killing the pedestrian in the process of turning left at an intersection where left turns are prohibited.
Street view Sept 2023 shows three no left turn symbolic signs visible. One on every traffic light.

Agreed, it's a PITA for a heavy vehicle to take an alternate, but consider the cost.

Once off Eglinton or Dufferin all the side streets are single family home areas, many with No Truck signage.

It would be interesting to plot the driver's proposed route with a truck GPS.
 

Back
Top Bottom