REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-02-2010, 02:20 PM   #26
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
I was going to bring that exact same point up, but I know there are people on here who disagree with me for the sake of stirring the pot so I didn't.

How about this: The restriction printed on the back of a DL requires corrective eyewear, yet the licencee had laser vision correction and no longer needs glasses. Should the police officer issue a ticket for driving contrary to restrictions?
Advertisement
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 02:22 PM   #27
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sho_bc View Post
First off, these people wouldn't be criminals. Transgressors of the Motor Vehicle Act, yes, but not criminals.
Define it any way you want, but anyone who breaks the law and provokes an armed response from the police is a criminal.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 03:58 PM   #28
I am grateful grapefruit
 
gars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
How about this: The restriction printed on the back of a DL requires corrective eyewear, yet the licencee had laser vision correction and no longer needs glasses. Should the police officer issue a ticket for driving contrary to restrictions?
Then why don't you stop by the Drivers licencing to get your Licence Restriction changed? I know people who got laser surgery who still don't have good enough vision to pass a vision test at the Drivers Licencing. How is a police officer supposed to test for that on the road? Are they supposed to keep an eye chart handy to test people on the road? Are they supposed to get trained on how to administer an eye test?

The issue behind this is, you were too lazy in the first place. Maybe you might not deserve the punishment that comes with the violation, but - you are wasting everyone's time/resources. The police officer that pulled you over. The judge's time at the court. The administration that comes with the appeal process. Should we have a violation ticket that has a lower fine - but one that is issued to people who are lazy?
gars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 08:32 PM   #29
Proud to be called a RS Regular!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 114
Thanked 28 Times in 14 Posts
Gotta love the childish responses from people like jlenko. Tell you what - go spend some time in a country where the law is black and white, there is no grey in the court system and officers act as judge and jury. Then try tell me having a justice system, and the notion that innocent until proven guilty is "unfair"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Define it any way you want, but anyone who breaks the law and provokes an armed response from the police is a criminal.
Have to strongly disagree here. There is an enormous difference between being criminal, and being deviant.

It is a very basic legal principal, that every crime violates law, but not every violation of the law is a crime. You cannot classify those involved in civil suits, or in contravention of legal regulations as criminals, otherwise practically every human being would be a criminal. It's more suited to the term of "infraction", which is a widely accepted term.

They are "offenders" or "deviants" but not most DEFINITELY not criminals.

Granted - loosely defined, crime and criminals, involve action outside of normal social constraints as defined by law, but that is a little to broad to be applied generally. In Canada, it is pretty simple, because Crimes are spelled out under the Criminal Code or other criminal law acts.

Last edited by Bainne; 12-02-2010 at 08:43 PM.
Bainne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 08:48 PM   #30
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
So what about all the people under the new drink-driving laws who *should* be convicted as criminals but are instead being given an administrative punishment because the police don't want to bother with the court system?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2010, 11:45 PM   #31
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bainne View Post
Gotta love the childish responses from people like jlenko. Tell you what - go spend some time in a country where the law is black and white, there is no grey in the court system and officers act as judge and jury. Then try tell me having a justice system, and the notion that innocent until proven guilty is "unfair"
My family came from those very countries.. I know what it's like. I value the fact that Canada gives people opportunities, but people like the OP who are clearly breaking the rules and getting away with it are what is ruining this great country.

Try applying the same scenario to something other than a driver's licence. Maybe you children will understand when your family is missing a family member, and the person responsibly skirts court time by simply lying and getting away with murder. You might think differently. Sure, extreme situations... but you never know.

BTW, I have to use childish language so you fools will understand me.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 12:05 AM   #32
I am grateful grapefruit
 
gars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
So what about all the people under the new drink-driving laws who *should* be convicted as criminals but are instead being given an administrative punishment because the police don't want to bother with the court system?
The big kerfuffle with the new drinking/driving laws, is that the ones getting affected are the ones blowing in the "warn" range - which falls under an impaired driving violation, but is not criminal. They're the ones who are facing harsher punishments (I think the criminal BAC 0.08 has harsher punishments as well, someone can correct me, but I don't think anyone really argues against more lenient punishments for them....).

If you want to petition to lower the Criminal BAC to 0.05, go ahead, start your petition.
gars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 12:12 AM   #33
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gars View Post
The big kerfuffle with the new drinking/driving laws, is that the ones getting affected are the ones blowing in the "warn" range - which falls under an impaired driving violation, but is not criminal. They're the ones who are facing harsher punishments (I think the criminal BAC 0.08 has harsher punishments as well, someone can correct me, but I don't think anyone really argues against more lenient punishments for them....).

If you want to petition to lower the Criminal BAC to 0.05, go ahead, start your petition.
I'm talking about the massive reduction in criminal charges of drunk driving, the people who should be made criminals are getting off with a simple ADP.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 12:16 AM   #34
Wanna have a threesome?
 
MindBomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Squamish
Posts: 4,886
Thanked 5,052 Times in 1,656 Posts
I would support the limit being lowered to criminal at BAC 0.05 under one condition, a breathalyzer we made available at any place of business that serves alcohol so people can ensure they are within the legal range. I don't believe people should drive after more than one drink, but allowing one drink isn't unreasonable and that alone can be push the 0.05 limit in certain people.
MindBomber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 04:43 PM   #35
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
I'm talking about the massive reduction in criminal charges of drunk driving, the people who should be made criminals are getting off with a simple ADP.
I noticed that bit on the news last night... I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this change. Seems like a pretty big deal to me!

Think of all the poor lawyers who will be out of work now!
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 11:40 PM   #36
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
... I know there are people on here who disagree with me for the sake of stirring the pot....
Irony, thy name is sebberry.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 11:54 PM   #37
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
Irony, thy name is sebberry.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 01:46 AM   #38
CRS
ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
 
CRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,364
Thanked 5,489 Times in 1,480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
The pot calling the kettle black.
CRS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 10:03 AM   #39
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRS View Post
The pot calling the kettle black.
Hardly.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 02:20 PM   #40
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Hardly.
Obliviousness and self-delusion, thy names are also sebberry.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is online now   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-04-2010, 04:08 PM   #41
CRS
ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
 
CRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,364
Thanked 5,489 Times in 1,480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
Obliviousness and self-delusion, thy names are also sebberry.
CRS is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net