OPP and public policy

[Slim MacSquinty]

I have noticed a disturbing trend in the recent past where Julian Fantino and the other guy who looks like chief wigham (from the simpsons) seem to carry undue influence over public policy.

First I find it a little disturbing that the sitting head of the OPP thinks so highly of himself he writes and releases his autobiography.

Cops have been advocating the siezure of vehicles, legislature seems to readily agree, the street racing legislation allows an ordinary cop to criminilize a speeder and sieze their vehicle, doesn't this fly in the face of due process, sure when you catch a drunk driver you have to take his car away as they are in no shape to safely drive, but I do not see how that equates to speeding. Furthermore, I find it troubling that speeding 50k over in a school zone is seen as no worse than 50k over on a lonely stretch of the 401, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have the fines based on the percentage over, or can't cops do math?

Now they are going to seize the vehicle of the multi time drunk driver and they will have to forfeit title to the crown, I do not see how taking the car is a resolution to the problem, in fact it will probably cause undue grief to others. What if the drunks spouse, child, sibling needs the car to go to work. How is this just not spiteful, or have we so vilified alcoholics that we assume they have no family or friends? Why could the crown not prohibit multi time drunk drivers from owning a vehicle, same efffect less collateral damage?

Is it just me or does anyone else notice this trend?

[Dog]

I have always been troubled by seizure of private property by the police with out due process . These laws would seem to be contrary to the charter of rights but i am unaware of any challanges to them . There is also the fact that if i am speeding in excess of 50 km or driving impaired in the car i own the police can confiscate it but if i am doing the same thing in the truck i lease they cant.

[margrace]

I have always been troubled by seizure of private property by the police with out due process . These laws would seem to be contrary to the charter of rights but i am unaware of any challanges to them . There is also the fact that if i am speeding in excess of 50 km or driving impaired in the car i own the police can confiscate it but if i am doing the same thing in the truck i lease they cant.

From a friend in Brownsville texas " Just as a matter of interest, a typical week produces several millions of illegal drugs being siezed at US border points along the valley. Its a huge issue here. The local cops (and customs) get to keep the proceeds of anything they seize, so they are very vigilant. They get new cars, comm equipment and all that none budget stuff with the money and vehicles they seize. How many Ontario police departments drive siezed Hummers and Cadillacs?

[Topaz]

On the news I heard that if a person has been convicted 2-3x for drunk driving, the law will take your vehicle and sell it and give you back the profits. You won't be able to drive again so I assume they will stop you from buying another car by not allowing you to get a ownership on the car or insurance. This is in Ontario.

[Slim MacSquinty]

On the news I heard that if a person has been convicted 2-3x for drunk driving, the law will take your vehicle and sell it and give you back the profits. You won't be able to drive again so I assume they will stop you from buying another car by not allowing you to get a ownership on the car or insurance. This is in Ontario.

I understand that they do not return any money to the owner, the money is kept for a victims fund and to pay for drinking and dirving education programs. I seems that enforcement, prevention etc. are subordinated to monetary penalties.

The other police issue that I was curious about was the RIDE program, My recollection was that initially it was a seasonal program which faced a court challenge since the police were effectively pulling people over without due cause, which of course is a human rights offence. An exception was made for the program as it was specifically aimed at seasonal drinking and was deemed to be an effective deterent. However the program is no longer seasonal and a review of the published statistics indicates to me that it has turned into a fishing expedition by the police. Few drunk driving charges are layed but many more minor charges and traffic violations are effected. In other words it has become a bit of a "let me see your papers" exercise. It occurs to me that there must be something more important for an $80K/yr officer driving around in a $60K car?

[Wild Bill]

I understand that they do not return any money to the owner, the money is kept for a victims fund and to pay for drinking and dirving education programs. I seems that enforcement, prevention etc. are subordinated to monetary penalties.

The other police issue that I was curious about was the RIDE program, My recollection was that initially it was a seasonal program which faced a court challenge since the police were effectively pulling people over without due cause, which of course is a human rights offence. An exception was made for the program as it was specifically aimed at seasonal drinking and was deemed to be an effective deterent. However the program is no longer seasonal and a review of the published statistics indicates to me that it has turned into a fishing expedition by the police. Few drunk driving charges are layed but many more minor charges and traffic violations are effected. In other words it has become a bit of a "let me see your papers" exercise. It occurs to me that there must be something more important for an $80K/yr officer driving around in a $60K car?

Often when something doesn't make sense it helps to take a second look to decide what's the REAL goal of a program!

What if the RIDE program is not primarily designed to catch drunks but rather to APPEAR to catch drunks? They seem to catch very few impaired drivers. It's not hard to avoid the RIDE program. They tend to be rather conspicuous and always set up in the same places. The powers that be can get their photo-ops and the usual shallow-thinking citizens think another problem has been solved. These are usually the same folks who think that another gun registry will cure the danger of ILLEGAL guns, or more basketball courts will eliminate youth crime, or putting anti-pollution costs on our domestic industries will save the planet while allowing cheap imports from countries that have no such costs, or that our expertise of "soft diplomacy" will guarantee other nations will respect our claims to the Arctic....the list is endless.

It's the old Liberal joke once again: "It doesn't have to work as long as we can say we've got one!"

[eyeball]

I wonder how many more decades of whining about drunk driving we'll be subjected to before someone finally gets serious about it?

Either outlaw alcohol or make breathalyzer ignition-interlock systems standard equipment in all cars, like the radio or the heater. As for speeders, especially the younger street-racing crowd...make the install engine speed governors. Simple.

In any case shouldn't we be moving towards fully automating our roads and cars? Then we could put bars in our cars.

[Slim MacSquinty]

I wonder how many more decades of whining about drunk driving we'll be subjected to before someone finally gets serious about it?

Either outlaw alcohol or make breathalyzer ignition-interlock systems standard equipment in all cars, like the radio or the heater. As for speeders, especially the younger street-racing crowd...make the install engine speed governors. Simple.

In any case shouldn't we be moving towards fully automating our roads and cars? Then we could put bars in our cars.

I agree that there has to be a better more streamlined aproach to deal with drinking drivers, I do believe that in another generation there probably won't be much of a problem, I know that my son and his friends wouldn't even consider it. However I think the Cops are carefully choosing their battles to soften public opinion toward crimilizing traffic infractions and getting themselves extra ordinary powers.

It appears that many of the people who are getting stunt driving charges are middle aged men driving on 400 series highways late at night (probably shift workers on their way home), that's BS, as these guys are speeding in excess but hardly racing or stunt driving, that clearly was not the intent of the legislation. It really bugs me since I have been riding big street bikes for nearly thirty years, used to ride "crotch rockets" now I ride a big european bike. 100mph (160kph) is easy to reach in third gear, I've been safely riding all these years and am exceedingly careful, but still like to see 100mph on a rare occasion, I'm hardly a criminal and think its ridiculous some cop can take my bike for that. I have spent some years involved in technical aspects of highway design and know that 400 series highways are usually designed for 160kph speeds, so when done correctly its not even unsafe in a car.

Speeding aside, it concerns me that our civil liberties can be so easily taken away, with little or no public debate.

[margrace]

So is it okay to have the 400 blocked for 12 hourss on a bright sunny day or see the massive pileups after a white out?

[freakinbox]

I somewhat understand the 50 over thing. But lets face it the only reason it was passed is because they said it was for street racing. If they had said what they have been using it for, 70+ year olds, mothers taking their kids to hockey and basically that it was an easy way to get money out of people there would have been a fight. They really haven't gained anything but money from it, Withing 7days if they have the cash those people are back on the road. Oh and btw you don't have to own the vehicle as far as I know to have it impounded. They take the car (I would assume unless it was STOLEN!) regardless, this applies to people from the US as well. If your in ontario and your speeding 50 over car is impounded 7 days and license (don't think this applies to the us) is also suspended for 7 days. But when the opp and tow trucks are lined up in LONG LONG rows down the 400 series hwy's how do you say it's not a money grabber? Don't kid yourself, this was the intent of the law, they just wouldn't say it those shift workers are the people that can pay the money, an 18 year old kid driving a 15+ year old car can't. the shift workers have to, they need their license and car to work to support their families.

Yeah I have noticed the lack of rights people in ontario have. From no smoking in your OWN CAR to cops having the right to say this is how it is I get the judgement. It scares me because as much as we all like to try to avoid this fact, ticket quotas have them doing illegal stuff as it is. Bet I'm not the only one who was pulled over for 80 in a 50 when you were doing 50 (fully loaded mini van, from a stop sign up a hill which was maybe 100 feet and there was a cop there). You think it's bad being an older person, try being young on the roads. You don't have to do anything wrong to be harassed with them just looking for something. They harassed me as to why I had 2 coffee's in my car as if it was a crime to go get coffee for you and someone else.

Also remember that law doesn't just apply to 50 over but acts of driving the cop feels were dangerous.

I think it should apply to cops and after recent events of seeing a crusier go from the left shoulder ont he qew cut 2 semi's off and a car just about causing a pile up because the semi were ALL over the place I will be carrying my camera. Filming those cops that do 150+ just to profile cars on the 400 or who go through lights using their lights. I won't go to the OPP with it as they will probably do nothing, I will go to the news for everyone else to watch .

Edited March 18, 2008 by freakinbox