Highways in Canada

[milomilo]

I really don't see what the hysteria over cops being able to breathalyze without reason is. I honestly thought that was already the case and behaved as such. It's not 'police state' it's just a reasonable law.

Originally Posted by wave46

I can. I've met enough overzealous cops in my life.

It's one thing to catch you in the act, but it's another to be forced to do a breathalyzer test 2 hours after allegedly driving erratically.

This however is ridiculous. Anyone accused this way has the quite easy defense of saying they had a few drinks when they got home, nothing illegal about that.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I know a friend whose fiancée’s pa was driving fatigued (not impaired!!) one night. He was apparently driving erratically and got reported. Then cops found him at his house later. My friend didn’t tell me whether his future pa-in-law was asked to provide a breath sample though.

That said, is the consensus that, if people are doing dumb things on the road, they need to be caught in the act, not after the fact? With some glaring exceptions, that is. (I have the massive motorcycle stunt on the 401 in summer 2017 in mind.)

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that events transpired for criminal charges to stick in court.

That requires either witnesses or some sort of evidence. Generally, this means you have to be caught in the act, yes. Video evidence can suffice sometimes.

In the case of the post-driving breath test, there's a huge window of reasonable doubt:

- doubt you were actually behind the wheel of your car at the time
- doubt that you had consumed alcohol prior to (or during) the operation of a motor vehicle.
- doubt about the veracity of witnesses' claims about erratic driving

[wave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I really don't see what the hysteria over cops being able to breathalyze without reason is. I honestly thought that was already the case and behaved as such. It's not 'police state' it's just a reasonable law.

This however is ridiculous. Anyone accused this way has the quite easy defense of saying they had a few drinks when they got home, nothing illegal about that.

Breathalyze without reason while operating a motor vehicle, fine.

Breathalyze while not operating (or in care and control of) a vehicle? Thin ice. Presumption of innocence isn't something I'm willing to give up easily.

[sonysnob]

I am of two minds about this law as well. On the one hand, I'm not really in favour of people getting charged for driving impaired and then being able to fight the charge based on the grounds of whether or not it was reasonable for the police officer to assume that the driver was impaired before they demanded a breathilizer. This law addresses that problem.

On the other hand, this law does afford police a lot of authority. I've met enough goof police officers over the years to be weary of giving that much authority to police forces.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

I am of two minds about this law as well. On the one hand, I'm not really in favour of people getting charged for driving impaired and then being able to fight the charge based on the grounds of whether or not it was reasonable for the police officer to assume that the driver was impaired before they demanded a breathilizer. This law addresses that problem.

On the other hand, this law does afford police a lot of authority. I've met enough goof police officers over the years to be weary of giving that much authority to police forces.

We didn't have to wait too long for an example, with that case in Streetsville and the empties...

[Dengler Avenue]

Honestly, I think the most reasonable thing that cops can do is to set up ride checks in parking lots where a bar abuts. There, they have reasonable ground to suspect impaired driving and can stop it right from the beginning.

[kwoldtimer]

It's interesting to wonder to what extent the new rules will further reduce impaired driving?

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

True, but if the cop shows up at your door two hours later asking for a breath sample, and you had consumed beer since arriving home, and were subsequently over the limit, how could any reasonable court decide whether or not you in fact were by definition impaired when you were actually driving????

I think that's the most accurate point. I'm sure the intent of this law is to be able to go after people who are involved in a traffic collision and then flee the scene because they are impaired.

Even in that case though, a prosecutor is still going to have to have a lot of evidence to be able to prove the fact that that driver was impaired at the time of the accident. To be able to prove such a case, a prosecutor would probably need witness statements from a bar or a party to prove that a driver was consuming alcohol before the collision, as well, the breath sample would be probably have to be significantly over the legal limit so that even if a driver claimed to have consumed additional alcohol once they returned home that they can reasonably prove that the driver was impaired earlier.

The police have an incomplete chain of custody, so I think they'd need a lot of evidence for any court to actually garner any sort of conviction.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It's interesting to wonder to what extent the new rules will further reduce impaired driving?

Like I said in the other thread, the most reasonable thing for cops to do is to set up ride checks in the parking lot of bars.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by sonysnob

I think that's the most accurate point. I'm sure the intent of this law is to be able to go after people who are involved in a traffic collision and then flee the scene because they are impaired.

Even in that case though, a prosecutor is still going to have to have a lot of evidence to be able to prove the fact that that driver was impaired at the time of the accident. To be able to prove such a case, a prosecutor would probably need witness statements from a bar or a party to prove that a driver was consuming alcohol before the collision, as well, the breath sample would be probably have to be significantly over the legal limit so that even if a driver claimed to have consumed additional alcohol once they returned home that they can reasonably prove that the driver was impaired earlier.

The police have an incomplete chain of custody, so I think they'd need a lot of evidence for any court to actually garner any sort of conviction.

I was under the impression that they already had the power to do this, and that if involved in an accident when driving drunk, it wasn't really worth it to flee as you'd get caught and charged anyway. I definitely recall people being convicted in such cases.

[Dengler Avenue]

Not to mention that now the defendant will have to deal with one more charge - failed to remain on scene

[sonysnob]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I was under the impression that they already had the power to do this, and that if involved in an accident when driving drunk, it wasn't really worth it to flee as you'd get caught and charged anyway. I definitely recall people being convicted in such cases.

Personally, I don't follow case law for impaired driving charges at all really, so I don't know. I've seen hit and run cases though, and I've always assumed there must be some other reason (whether it be impairment or other criminal activity) for a driver to flee.

There must've been a reason for the text in the law to have been strengthened though.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by wave46

Breathalyze without reason while operating a motor vehicle, fine.

Breathalyze while not operating (or in care and control of) a vehicle? Thin ice. Presumption of innocence isn't something I'm willing to give up easily.

This is going too far and will hopefully be declared unconstitutional soon. We’re not a police state where all civil liberties are to be thrown away in a quixotic quest to eliminate all of the risk from life.

[haljackey]

OP here.

This is a thread to discuss highways.

Get yo politics outa here

-----

Here's a pic of a Canadian highway to get us back on the right road.



You know it's Canadian because of the flag.

[Dengler Avenue]

Well I just wanted to discuss some new laws about road usage, but sure we’ll just discuss it in the politics thread from here on.

It’s called highway traffic act, not road traffic act in Ontario.

Ps: Or maybe I just have a very loose definition of digression so I almost always tolerate egregious digression under my threads.

Also since you’re from around London, care to show (in pictures) what construction’s been like on the 401 there?

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases...2yGKg0R6R8njI5QbISGNa_x3exQYaXDgtaEDHQe8

In short, the study have been continuing and should be done by this winter. Then MTQ determines the best course of action.

I almost thought the project was dead under CAQ until I saw this.

Meanwhile, disappointingly, QC 117 Rouyn-Noranda Bypass, which was supposed to be opened last fall, won’t be opened to traffic until this fall.

Ps: I wonder whether it’s meaningful to officially extend A15 to Mont Laurier. By that I mean actually eliminating all the at-grade intersections and replacing some with interchanges (in addition to the existing ones). If not, perhaps extend it to Rivière-Rouge and upgrade the section from there to Mont Laurier as a 2+1?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

https://www.newswire.ca/fr/news-releases...2yGKg0R6R8njI5QbISGNa_x3exQYaXDgtaEDHQe8

In short, the study have been continuing and should be done by this winter. Then MTQ determines the best course of action.

I almost thought the project was dead under CAQ until I saw this.

Meanwhile, disappointingly, QC 117 Rouyn-Noranda Bypass, which was supposed to be opened last fall, won’t be opened to traffic until this fall.

Ps: I wonder whether it’s meaning to officially* extend A15 to Mont Laurier. By that I mean actually eliminating all the at-grade intersections and replacing some with interchanges (in addition to the existing ones). If not, perhaps extend it to Rivière-Rouge and upgrade the section from there to Mont Laurier as a 2+1?

The CAQ may be the most pro-highway government we've had in Quebec in a very long time.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The CAQ may be the most pro-highway government we've had in Quebec in a very long time.

I thought Legault only supported widening A30 from 4 to 6 lanes and twinning 335.

At least it’s important that the work to twin 185 proceeds as planned.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I thought Legault only supported widening A30 from 4 to 6 lanes and twinning 335.

At least it’s important that the work to twin 185 proceeds as planned.

They are also talking about finishing the twinning of A-50, extending A-13 north to the A-50, and as a biggie, building a third link between Quebec City and the south shore of the St. Lawrence.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They are also talking about finishing the twinning of A-50, extending A-13 north to the A-50, and as a biggie, building a third link between Quebec City and the south shore of the St. Lawrence.

MTQ's also widening Henri IV (A73) on the north approach of Pont Pierre Laporte.

If realigning A40 through l'Ancienne Lorette (Ville de Québec) is still on the table, there are 9 projects in total, almost all of which are pretty big. I've always wondered if its realignment will put A540 out of use because, in that case, the city can rejoin a neighbourhood that's been separated.

You're right. That's quite a lot of highway projects for any given quebecois government after the "revolt against highways".