« Electric Cars in La-La-Land | Main | Timing is Everything... »

December 01, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf8f353ef015437b3604c970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whose Rights are More Important?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

DriveSmartBC

I disagree with you. How is an excessively speeding driver any less dangerous than an impaired driver on that same highway? If they were all alone, they would only present a risk to themselves. However, we all share the highways and other people do stupid things. There are also other things that we have no control over such as wild animals.

Claude Dusseault

All I want to say Is if I get a speeding or seatbelt ticket I have the opportunity to go to court and defend myself. Why should it be different with a MVA .05 provincial drinking and driving act. All I would like is you are in Canada and if you get charge with any laws have the opportunity to defend yourself. As far as I know in Canada you are innocent until proven guilty. Why should a constable on the side of a road be your judge and juryand jury. We are not in a communist country where people don't have a say.

Ken Chevis

Sad commentary about rights. Not the rights of alcohol-fueled morons who deal death and destruction, but law-abiding citizens who have the right to drive our Nation's highway and roads without fear. The alcohol industry has held sway in this country for far too long. This idiot in Vancouver has set back MADD progress by about

Brian

Jim, I have to call you on this one. The issue lies in the suspension and impoundment, not the spot check itself. To that end, like you said about cops impounding your vehcile for driving 50 over, is there any proof that arresting the person, but not suspending their license is any any less safe? Or are there any cases of a person's vehicle being impounded for DD, but then they go and drive another vehicle?

Natalie Hartford

I absolutely agree! Justice Sigurdson got this one wrong.
Dead wrong.

This is the exact same argument they use to NOT implement Random Breath testing in Canada. An initiative that shows it would not only save HUNDREDS of lives every single year but would also save our country MILLIONS of dollars.

My arguement to the Charter Infringment is this:
Driving in Canada is a PRIVILEDGE - not a right! Therefore the protection of innocent, law abiding citizens comes before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. PERIOD!

This isn't like unlawful search and seizure - no one driving around with a car load of illegal cigarettes is a danger to killing other drivers. Impaired drivers are. They MURDER over 1200 innocent people a year - it's the highest cause of criminal death in Canada.

Something must be done! And these laws were one small step in that direction. We've taken one giant leap back.

It's a sad, shameful day in our country!

To read more about my story and my thoughts (I had an interesting email with the Minister of Justice that might peak your interest), you can visit my blog at http://nataliehartford.com and click on the Impaired Driving - Our Story page.

Scott Kennie

I always find it amazing - people that have not been affected by drunk driving continue to defend it as a social faux-pas and "a protection of RIGHTS and FREEDOMS". These people need to realise the numbers of impaired drivers we are talking about....it would scare you into not driving.

People have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to know that everything is being done to protect them on the roads. If you are not impaired, you have nothing to worry about - you won't receive a 90 day suspension.

Ask any family (like mine) that has had a loved one voilently murdered by an impaired driver the question: "what's a bigger infraction on your RIGHTS and FREEDOMS - having a 90 day driving ban or being ripped to pieces by the truck driven by an impaired driver that crossed the centre line?"

I believe my RIGHT to live outweighs someone's PRIVILEDGE to drive!

DJL

By all means, stop the drunken moron from endangering others. But the Police have no right to seize private property as punishment for a crime until the accused has been found guilty by a Judge. It's not the spot checks I have problems with (although I don't really like them, they feel like the camel's nose under the tent flap), it's the fact that the Police are now acting like Judges and the accused are being found guilty and punished before they've had their day in court.

In Canada the Police arrest, the Crown Attorneys prosecutes, and Judges determine fate. And until the accused pleads guilty or is found guilty in a fair court they don't get punished. If the Police are allowed to deny the rightful owner access to their own vehicle beyond the point where the immediate public safety is an issue then the Police are meting out punishment without due process and are violating the rights of the accused.

If BC wants to modify their laws so that a automotive vehicle can be seized if the driver is found guilty of drunk driving I don't have a problem with that. But before the car is seized, even temporarily, the alleged moron has to have their day in court and they have to be found guilty by a Judge; not a Police Officer.

Mark

I wonder how many dead victims of drunk drivers had a chance to defend themselves without a judge present.

RX7heaven

Drunk driving kills 4 Canadians and 1 B.C. resident each week on average. Repeat offenders should lose their driving privileges and more education is obviously warranted. We have also lost almost 200 people in Afganistan fighting for our rights and freedoms so we have to avoid giving frontline police too much power like they have in less democratic countries. I agree that some speed alone doesn't kill but going 40kph over can get your car impounded in B.C.

Larry

'There isn't a lick of evidence that exceeding the speed limit by ANY amount is per se dangerous'

Aside from differences in individual drivers' skill levels, isn't that connected to the speed that is determined, for better or for worse, for a particular road or situation (curve, hill, etc.)? I mean, if you considered it safe for yourself to drive a particular stretch at 100 km/h at most, you wouldn't expect yourself to be able to react and be in control to the same extent if you found yourself doing 120 there instead, right?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.