Highways in Canada - Page 371

Mister F · #**7401** Posted **Jan 9, 2019, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Why are we twinning these highways again? I'm looking at AADT data for 11 and i'm looking at a road with a steady base of 3,000-5,000 AADT for most of its length north of North Bay (and sub 1,000 for nearly 160km around Quetico Provincial Park).

Even the 17 from Manitoba to Sudbury lacks AADT over 10,000 and floats around 1,000-3,000 for most of its length.

What's the Ontario AADT cutoff to warrant twinning? 10,000? 8,000?

I share your doubts. There's no compelling reason to twin any highway across northern Ontario. Divided highways across such vast, empty expanses of land are practically nonexistent anywhere in the world. There's no twinned highway across Australia, Russia, Brazil or even smaller countries like Sweden. Safety isn't a good reason since you can increase safety with much cheaper alternatives like frequent passing lanes or 2+1 designs.

The (probably tens of) billions a full twinning would cost would be better spent on any number of other projects that would benefit more people. It's a fantasy.

Horus · #**7402** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 1:29 AM**

Just make Hwy 17 one way westbound and Hwy 11 one way eastbound.
Bingo - TCH is twinned with the world's largest highway median!

Dengler Avenue · #**7403** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 1:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horus

Just make Hwy 17 one way westbound and Hwy 11 one way eastbound.
Bingo - TCH is twinned with the world's largest highway median!

Highway 17 one way eastbound and Highway 11 one way westbound. You got them flipped.

Dengler Avenue · #**7404** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 3:09 AM**

Folks, we’ve got a problem here: https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impaired-driving-canada-breath-samples/

The at-home part really ticked me off, and I’m not even a drinker.

Corndogger · #**7405** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 3:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Folks, we’ve got a problem here: https://globalnews.ca/news/4832762/impaired-driving-canada-breath-samples/

The at-home part really ticked me off, and I’m not even a drinker.

And yet many on this site want to reelect the Liberals. Justin and his thugs are doing things Harper would never consider doing. Next up will be shakedowns in intersections just like they do in some Central American nations and knocks on your door in the middle of the night will also becoming our way.

Dengler Avenue · #**7406** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 3:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

And yet many on this site want to reelect the Liberals. Justin and his thugs are doing things Harper would never consider doing. Next up will be shakedowns in intersections just like they do in some Central American nations and knocks on your door in the middle of the night will also becoming our way.

Honestly, all these days on SSP I’ve tried to maintain a neutral, moderate position, but today’s the tipping point.

MonctonRad · #**7407** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:04 AM**

I can't imagine this new ruling would survive a supreme court challenge.

kwoldtimer · #**7408** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I can't imagine this new ruling would survive a supreme court challenge.

It will obviously be challenged. Expert views differ as to whether or not the increased police powers will be deemed reasonable by the courts.

Corndogger · #**7409** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

It will obviously be challenged. Expert views differ as to whether or not the increased police powers will be deemed reasonable by the courts.

I've yet to hear one expert say anything good about this. It's a complete violation of our rights and needs to be struck down immediately. The best way to do that is to vote Justin out of office and repeal the legislation. Next step after that is to legislate MADD out of existence. I don't drink but have grown to truly hate that organization. Early on they had a great mandate but now they are truly evil. Putting police forces under complete civilian control also needs to happen RFN. What a fucking mess this country is in!

Dengler Avenue · #**7410** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:30 AM**

K this is technically a thread about highways. But now people should understand Dr Awesomesauce’s frustration.

kwoldtimer · #**7411** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I've yet to hear one expert say anything good about this. It's a complete violation of our rights and needs to be struck down immediately. The best way to do that is to vote Justin out of office and repeal the legislation. Next step after that is to legislate MADD out of existence. I don't drink but have grown to truly hate that organization. Early on they had a great mandate but now they are truly evil. Putting police forces under complete civilian control also needs to happen RFN. What a fucking mess this country is in!

I believe that Peter Hogg, Canada's most distinguished constitutional expert, has suggested that the law is reasonable. Although it doesn't bind Canadian courts, New Zealand has apparently had similar provisions in place for a number of years. One assumes as well that the government's own legal advice from the Dept of Justice was that the law was constitutional.

Personally, I make no predictions.

Rollerstud98 · #**7412** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 4:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

I've yet to hear one expert say anything good about this. It's a complete violation of our rights and needs to be struck down immediately. The best way to do that is to vote Justin out of office and repeal the legislation. Next step after that is to legislate MADD out of existence. I don't drink but have grown to truly hate that organization. Early on they had a great mandate but now they are truly evil. Putting police forces under complete civilian control also needs to happen RFN. What a fucking mess this country is in!

Your post made me think of this!
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/205894/amp

Dengler Avenue · #**7413** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 5:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Your post made me think of this!
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/205894/amp

I tried giving a more moderate view in http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=236344&page=66 #1320.

Corndogger · #**7414** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 6:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I believe that Peter Hogg, Canada's most distinguished constitutional expert, has suggested that the law is reasonable. Although it doesn't bind Canadian courts, New Zealand has apparently had similar provisions in place for a number of years. One assumes as well that the government's own legal advice from the Dept of Justice was that the law was constitutional.

Personally, I make no predictions.

He made those suggestions back in 2010 based on laws that are much narrower than what Justin brought in. There should be no limitations on our rights and freedoms. How can anyone be okay with this law? If it's okay for the police to come visit you at home and claim you were driving drunk then what's to stop them from claiming you didn't pay for your big screen TV or any other item in the house? This is one sick government. They need to be booted out of office not reelected.

Acajack · #**7415** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:07 PM**

Still with this topic, I found this news... interesting.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4828694/impaired-driving-laws-breath-tests-police/

70 year old totally sober guy returns a bunch of empties, gets stopped by a cop who forces him to pass a breath test under threat of arrest and fine.

JHikka · #**7416** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corndogger

How can anyone be okay with this law? If it's okay for the police to come visit you at home and claim you were driving drunk then what's to stop them from claiming you didn't pay for your big screen TV or any other item in the house?

I can only assume that a breathalyzer test at home is only considered if reports or complaints were filed against your driving prior to arriving home and after an officer has questioned you regarding those complaints. I can't imagine police officers just knocking on random doors on Saturday nights checking for car keys.

Acajack · #**7417** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

I can only assume that a breathalyzer test at home is only considered if reports or complaints were filed against your driving prior to arriving home and after an officer has questioned you regarding those complaints. I can't imagine police officers just knocking on random doors on Saturday nights checking for car keys.

Well, in the case of the older fellow returning his empties, we can already see that there is some potential for a type of slippage that might make some people uncomfortable.

MonctonRad · #**7418** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

I can only assume that a breathalyzer test at home is only considered if reports or complaints were filed against your driving prior to arriving home and after an officer has questioned you regarding those complaints. I can't imagine police officers just knocking on random doors on Saturday nights checking for car keys.

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????

In other words, you might be impaired at 2AM in your living room, but were you impaired when you were driving home at midnight??? I can't imagine any judge making this determination, especially if there was clear evidence you were drinking after you got home.

This will not pass a court challenge. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence????

wave46 · #**7419** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

I can only assume that a breathalyzer test at home is only considered if reports or complaints were filed against your driving prior to arriving home and after an officer has questioned you regarding those complaints. I can't imagine police officers just knocking on random doors on Saturday nights checking for car keys.

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.

Dengler Avenue · #**7420** Posted **Jan 10, 2019, 2:39 PM**

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.)