by "The Crazy Kanuck; RIP Oppositelock" (jukesjukesjukes)
Published 08/29/2017 at 14:27
by "The Crazy Kanuck; RIP Oppositelock" (jukesjukesjukes)
Published 08/29/2017 at 14:27
No Tags
STARS: 1
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
There are 5 new road laws coming to Ontario.
- Distracted driving is squarely in the cross-hairs of law enforcement, upping the minimum fine from $200 to $490 if you’re a fully licenced driver convicted of using a hand-held device while driving. The conviction also comes with three demerit points against your driving record.
- Inexperienced drivers holding their G1, G2, M1 or M2 licences (in Ontario’s graduated licencing system for car and motorcycle operators) will see even stronger penalties, wherein a driver or rider, if convicted, will face a minimum 30-day licence suspension for a first offence; 90-day licence suspension for a second conviction; and the cancellation of their driver’s licence and removal from the graduated licensing system for a third conviction.
- Figure you’ll just contest the distracted driving charge in court and bypass these news law? The province has taken a measure to discourage drivers from fighting tickets, saying drivers who contest their ticket by going to court may face a fine of up to $1,000. Thats just fucking stupid.
- The “move over” law will be updated to include tow trucks as of September 1, meaning drivers who fail to slow down and move into the next lane when passing stopped emergency vehicles – think ambulance, police car, or fire truck – or tow trucks with their amber lights flashing can face a fine of $490 and three demerit points.
- In a move that rightly places driving-while-high-on-drugs under the same penalties as driving drunk, the province will now issue from three- to 90-day licence suspensions and week-long vehicle impounds to motorists convicted of driving impaired under the influence of any drug. Those caught driving while high are also likely to face arrest, much like drunk drivers
one for the cyclists: Cyclists must also take responsibility for their safety with new visibility laws in place requiring all bicycles, e-bikes, and mopeds to have proper lights, reflective materials and reflectors on their bicycles, lest they be charged a $110 fine
"CB" (jrcb)
08/29/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 2
“ Figure you’ll just contest the distracted driving charge in court and bypass these news law? The province has taken a measure to discourage drivers from fighting tickets, saying drivers who contest their ticket by going to court may face a fine of up to $1,000. Thats just fucking stupid.”
I’d like to see the exact wording of this law, because I can see a court challenge happening pretty quickly.
"benjrblant" (benjblant)
08/29/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 4
As a cyclist and an auto enthusiast, I’m in full support of the cycle visibility law. Hypocritical cyclists that remove all reflectors, don’t ride with lights, lane split, roll stop signs and lights, bounce off of lanes and sidewalks and then complain about ‘asshole drivers’ and ‘bicycle rights!’ piss me off so badly whether I’m driving or riding. You’re giving everyone a bad rap.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
08/29/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 1
Probably something along the lines of “the cop can fine you x but if you go to court and are found guilty the judge can fine you up to a max of y”.
"CB" (jrcb)
08/29/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 1
Even still, that seems really problematic.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
08/29/2017 at 14:40, STARS: 0
Yeah, I don’t know exactly how they’re going to hold that one up.
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
08/29/2017 at 14:44, STARS: 0
- The “move over” law will be updated to include tow trucks as of September 1, meaning drivers who fail to slow down and move into the next lane when passing stopped emergency vehicles – think ambulance, police car, or fire truck – or tow trucks with their amber lights flashing can face a fine of $490 and three demerit points.
Is slowing down an acceptable alternative to moving over, as is the case in Michigan?
Also, does this law really need to be so focused on emergency/rescue workers? Seems like this would be a good practice to require around construction workers, or anyone with car trouble regardless of whether or not there’s a responder on the scene.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
08/29/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 0
Don’t know about trying to impede or discourage people from accessing the legal system by challenging their tickets. Wonder if that will pass challenge.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
08/29/2017 at 15:15, STARS: 0
“if you’re a fully licenced driver convicted of using a hand-held device while driving.”
That’s bullshit, the distracting part isn’t holding the damn phone, it’s talking on it.
"fintail" (fintail)
08/29/2017 at 15:49, STARS: 0
I like the “discourage fighting it” part - if that isn’t a cash grab, I don’t know what is. The already over-generous bennies for judges must need a monetary injection.
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
08/29/2017 at 18:12, STARS: 0
Hang on a second.
Rolling a traffic control device is a bit different from blowing it, and I’d honestly be for legalizing the Idaho stop - treat red lights how car drivers treat stop signs (come to a complete stop, look, proceed if clear), treat stop signs how car drivers treat yield signs (slow down, look, proceed if clear).
Bicycles often can’t even trigger a red light, and stop signs are often overused in America (and momentum is more important to cyclists than it is to car drivers).
As far as lane splitting... I’d say it depends on context. Most North American traffic contexts, though, lane splitting by bicyclists is bad because it simply means that the cyclist and motorists are playing a game of leap frog. NYC-level traffic is about the only time it makes sense (where cyclists are going faster than motorists consistently, so a motorist is unlikely to have to re-pass a cyclist).
" The Compromiser" (charger)
08/30/2017 at 00:26, STARS: 0
Hasn’t yet. And it’s a he said/she said situation already. And she is a cop and therefore telling the truth in most judicial eyes. This sounds like some backend profiteering. Maybe it’s to pay for the new French university we need to protect our French heritage in Ontario. ..