News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

The article got more concerning and scary the longer it went on.

1. A former law student, so should know the consequences.
2. Did Highway speeds in a 60kph zone.
3. Not only ran away from the cops, but endangered even more in the process by going 200kph and running a red light.
4. Refused a breathlyzer test after learning of the cyclist's death, which meant she likely knew what she did and didn't care.

She was sentenced to 7 years in jail in 2017, was on parole and was banned from driving for 10 years. The new allegations include twice the allowed alcohol limit, and possesion of drug in her car.

Once again, as I said earlier, driving needs to stop being seen as a right, but instead be regarded as a priviledge. One that not everyone 16+ deserves.
 
I find that chart BurOak posted okay but I question it’s reliability. My wife, while never proven scientifically, clearly is either allergic to or cannot properly metabolize alcohol. She would not be safe being behind the wheel after half a glass of wine or half a bottle of beer.

The chart shows blood-alcohol concentrations for 'typical' males based on studies of metabolism, but you raise a fair point. Breath testing results establish a legally accepted benchmark, but do not tell the entire story of either individual metabolism or how individuals respond to a given BAC. My wife is the same (cheap date!). There has always been two separate criminal offences: 'Impaired Driving' and Driving Over .08'. It is legally possible to convict someone of Impaired (alcohol) even though they had a BAC under .08 but the physicaldriving evidence would have to be very strong, and these days the courts rely heavily on BAC readings which I do not particularly agree with. With experience, a cop (particularly a breath tech) can pretty much guess what the readings will be, but I have arrested persons who I though were borderline but just about blew the top off the instrument, and those that were essentially falling down drunk and barely moved the needle.

The article got more concerning and scary the longer it went on.

1. A former law student, so should know the consequences.
2. Did Highway speeds in a 60kph zone.
3. Not only ran away from the cops, but endangered even more in the process by going 200kph and running a red light.
4. Refused a breathlyzer test after learning of the cyclist's death, which meant she likely knew what she did and didn't care.

She was sentenced to 7 years in jail in 2017, was on parole and was banned from driving for 10 years. The new allegations include twice the allowed alcohol limit, and possesion of drug in her car.

Once again, as I said earlier, driving needs to stop being seen as a right, but instead be regarded as a priviledge. One that not everyone 16+ deserves.

The law is clear that driving is a regulated public activity and a privilege, but too often the courts are swayed by the view that it is a de facto necessity in today's society. Judges are guided by sentencing guidelines and I think there needs to be bolder direction from the senior courts. Legislated mandatory minimums haven't done well at the Supreme Court. One step could be for the province to prohibit not only driving (generally parallel to criminal prohibitions) but vehicle ownership. Obviously there are ways around it but it would be another tool in the box.
 
Impaired driver sentenced to 6 years for crash that killed Laurier dean

Jun 25, 2020

Ronald Rees, the driver in a crash that killed a well-known Wilfrid Laurier University dean last April, was sentenced to six years in prison Thursday morning.

That means Rees will spend an additional four years and seven months in custody, in recognition of time already served. He is also banned from operating a motor vehicle anywhere in Canada for 10 years after his time served.

Leanne Holland-Brown was struck by a vehicle on the afternoon of April 24, 2019.

Rees, who was 56 at the time, pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing death and one count of impaired driving causing death in March.

Rees had consumed cold and flu medicine and cannabis on the day of the crash, the court heard in March. His car had been stopped near MacGregor Public School, where Holland-Brown and her friend where walking. The car began to inch forward, then quickly accelerated.

 
The fact that Rees was sentenced to an four years and seven months in addition to time served doesn’t mean he’ll actually spend all of the four more years and seven months in jail.
 

How about killing someone on a suspended license, going to prison, getting paroled on the promise to "never drink again", and blowing over 0.10 again?
The
The fact that Rees was sentenced to an four years and seven months in addition to time served doesn’t mean he’ll actually spend all of the four more years and seven months in jail.
He will serve 16 months at the most.
 
Once again, as I said earlier, driving needs to stop being seen as a right, but instead be regarded as a priviledge. One that not everyone 16+ deserves.
I expect that in my children's lifetime the right or privilege to operate any vehicle independent of direct government or 3P oversight will cease. When I ride my 1960's motorcycle, with no cell phone I sometimes think I am at the end of an era, where outside of license plate cameras no one knows who or what I'm doing, my business is my own. Anyway, I expect these idiot DUI killers will be used as a justification for greater 3P and government oversight, for example, every car having autonomous overrides if the 3P or government net deems you a threat to yourself or others.
 
Last edited:

How about killing someone on a suspended license, going to prison, getting paroled on the promise to "never drink again", and blowing over 0.10 again?
Do we treat these drivers as victims themselves of an addiction or mental defect? If a schizophrenic intentionally refuses to take their meds and beheads someone on a bus, they get treatment and release. If an alcoholic drinks to the point of impaired decision making and then gets in a car, they're treated as criminals and given (but not serve) long prison sentences. IDK, I usually lean towards harsh crime and punishment, but IDK.

One thing we could do to protect others from distracted, impaired or negligent drivers is to change the streets. More roundabouts and Y and skewed junctions to prevent t-bone collisions, higher curbs to reduce pedestrian strikes, etc.
 
Last edited:
I expect that in my children's lifetime the right or privilege to operate any vehicle independent of direct government or 3P oversight will cease. When I ride my 1960's motorcycle, with no cell phone I sometimes think I am at the end of an era, where outside of license plate cameras no one knows who or what I'm doing, my business is my own. Anyway, I expect these idiot DUI killers will be used as a justification for greater government oversight, for example, every car having autonomous overrides if the government net deems you a threat to yourself or others.
It's always easier to punish the innocent, than the guilty.
 
Damn.

 
Are there any grandsons of those original hardworking Italians, Greeks and Slavs who settled north of Toronto in the 1960s who from nothing built billion $ construction empires..... who isn‘t a Lamborghini driving, peacocking waste of oxygen?
 
If self-driving vehicles were commonplace in 2015, the tragedy would have been prevented.

Impaired driving would be completely eliminated once self-driving vehicles become commonplace.

It's easier to come up with technological advancements than it is to convince everyone in a democratic society not to drink and drive.
 
If self-driving vehicles were commonplace in 2015, the tragedy would have been prevented.

Impaired driving would be completely eliminated once self-driving vehicles become commonplace.

It's easier to come up with technological advancements than it is to convince everyone in a democratic society not to drink and drive.
Self driving was available in 2015, it’s called a taxi, Uber or limo.

Unless you’re suggesting that driving a car at all be banned?
 
Self driving was available in 2015, it’s called a taxi, Uber or limo.

Unless you’re suggesting that driving a car at all be banned?
I'm just saying that the entire incident could have been preventable.

I'm also saying that it's easier to come up with technological advances than it is to fix one's behaviour.
 
I'm just saying that the entire incident could have been preventable.

I'm also saying that it's easier to come up with technological advances than it is to fix one's behaviour.
Ya, but it doesn’t require technological advancements, just common sense. Don’t drink and drive. As was mentioned, calling a cab, friend/family or Uber just requires a phone and making that call
 

Back
Top