News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 272     0 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 232     0 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 2.9K     5 

Head of Slips (Waterfront Toronto, West 8/DTAH)

Kitsune said:
looks like the spadina slip has sustained some damage to a bench and the deck itself thanks to a drunk driver: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1115617
Click to expand...

Drunk driving offences should result in a life time ban from driving. No second chances are deserved when the lives of others are put at risk. Watch the slip and bench go unfixed like the University Avenue fountain.
 
Gord said:
Drunk driving offences should result in a life time ban from driving. No second chances are deserved when the lives of others are put at risk. Watch the slip and bench go unfixed like the University Avenue fountain.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. I have some patience for second chances, depending on the degree of offense; but incidents like this don't merit that.

How drunk do you have to be, that you can drive up a wave deck, with what amount to steps infront of you, and through a bench, and go over those into the harbour? I'm gonna guess this guy was a lot more than .01 over the limit.

***

DAMN it, I love that wave deck, great place to stop and read, and listen to the waves.

***

One other related venting issue, as someone who has some knowledge of how insurance works in Ontario...... As a matter of law, companies will have to offer him insurance as soon as his license is valid again. Though it will be expensive, not nearly as much as it ought to be, and the rest of us (drivers) can and will end up subsidizing him.

Great place for insurance reform:

1) For serious driving offences, allow insurers to just say 'No'

2) Allow (insist) insurers to charge a full risk premium on drivers who merit it. I remember seeing a policy for a guy (this was a few years ago); it was $8,000 per year, but you should have seen his driving record....5 pages of offences, several alcohol related. He should not have been insurable.

3) Treat driving w/o a valid license or insurance much more seriously; put simply, seize the car and any other car registered to said person. If the car was not the driver's return it after 30 days, with the condition any future offense for loaning a car to an un-licensed or insured driving and your car(s) are gone. If it is the driver's car(s), its gone for good, the state owns it.

4) We really need to differentiate between drunk driving offences so we can 'whack' serious offenders much harder. That is to say, 1st offence, barely over the limit; and you should get a serious penalty but it needn't be devastating.

But way over the limit (no question you knew you were driving impaired) and/or a repeat offence; lose you car, lose your license for a decade or more; pay a fine of $5,000 or 15% of your gross income, the greater of the two.

(all not either/or)
 
Two strikes for drinking and driving - first strike loss of license for one year, second strike loss of license for life. In the event of an accident due to drink, loss of license for life. Period.
There should be fines for stupid people too, like those who walk on a busy sidewalk while texting, or check their email/text on their mobile every 20 minutes during a movie, or for spitting on the sidewalk, and littering and....
 
Northern Light said:
One other related venting issue, as someone who has some knowledge of how insurance works in Ontario...... As a matter of law, companies will have to offer him insurance as soon as his license is valid again. Though it will be expensive, not nearly as much as it ought to be, and the rest of us (drivers) can and will end up subsidizing him.
Click to expand...

I don't think this should change. If we are going to let the license become valid, which is debatable, then we must get the person insured. There are too many places where hearing about uninsured drivers is commonplace. It isn't a good idea to have a setup where the person has a legal right to drive in the form of a valid drivers license but the only way for him to drive his car to work is to do so illegally uninsured. I would agree that there should be adequate deterrent to driving without a license or uninsured but I don't think taking someone else's car away would work, although reporting to that persons insurer that the owner permitted an unlicensed driver to user the car should force that persons insurance to go up. Car insurance is on the car isn't it? A person who drives a car once a year borrowing their friends car is insured isn't he? The primary drivers and drivers in the household determine rates but it would surprise me if the terms on most policies are that only drivers on the list can drive the car.
 
Kitsune said:
looks like the spadina slip has sustained some damage to a bench and the deck itself thanks to a drunk driver: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1115617
Click to expand...

I hope the city charges the driver's insurance to repair the wavedeck. This thing wasn't cheap and it wasn't intended for the wear and tear of cars so the driver should be 100% responsible to restore the wave deck.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Two strikes for drinking and driving - first strike loss of license for one year, second strike loss of license for life. In the event of an accident due to drink, loss of license for life. Period.
There should be fines for stupid people too, like those who walk on a busy sidewalk while texting, or check their email/text on their mobile every 20 minutes during a movie, or for spitting on the sidewalk, and littering and....
Click to expand...

Why do drunk drivers even deserve a second chance? An intelligent person would never get themselves in such trouble to begin with. My brother was nailed by a drunk driver a few years ago. The fool ran ran a red light, hit my brother's SUV, spun it 360 degrees and totaled the vehicle; luckily, my brother was perfectly fine. Here's where it gets good. My brother then called the police and told them that he was hit by a drunk driver. The police asked him if he was alright; he said yes. Then they told him that they couldn't spare any cruisers. So basically they knowingly let a drunk driver go free, further endangering other lives. The SUV was so badly damaged that he needed to buy a new one. This is why crime is down. If no one is hurt, it ain't recorded. If only we had a mayor like Rudy Giuliani, this type of crap wouldn't be tolerated.
 
While I have absolutely no tolerance for drunk driving, we must balance punishment with rehabilitation. I don't believe anyone, no matter how stupid, is beyond redemption. However, a person who's been convicted of drunk driving ought to prove that they've learnt to be more responsible before they're allowed to drive again. At some point in everyone's life we make stupid, reckless decisions. There needs to be room for people to express remorse, learn, and become better, more responsible citizens.

And this goes beyond some abstract ideal that people are not by nature stupid. There's a practical side to it as well. In Toronto driving is a luxury. Nobody here really needs to drive (unless it's a job requirement). It's quite possible to live your whole life here without ever getting behind the wheel (I, for example, have never driven a car). In some small Ontario town or rural area, however, being barred from driving for life is essentially being denied mobility for life. I don't think we as a society can afford to deny responsible, say, 50 year olds the ability to drive because of something they did as reckless teens.
 
lesouris said:
While I have absolutely no tolerance for drunk driving, we must balance punishment with rehabilitation. I don't believe anyone, no matter how stupid, is beyond redemption. However, a person who's been convicted of drunk driving ought to prove that they've learnt to be more responsible before they're allowed to drive again. At some point in everyone's life we make stupid, reckless decisions. There needs to be room for people to express remorse, learn, and become better, more responsible citizens.

And this goes beyond some abstract ideal that people are not by nature stupid. There's a practical side to it as well. In Toronto driving is a luxury. Nobody here really needs to drive (unless it's a job requirement). It's quite possible to live your whole life here without ever getting behind the wheel (I, for example, have never driven a car). In some small Ontario town or rural area, however, being barred from driving for life is essentially being denied mobility for life. I don't think we as a society can afford to deny responsible, say, 50 year olds the ability to drive because of something they did as reckless teens.
Click to expand...

How does one whose been convicted of a d.u.i. prove that they've become more responsible? Obviously they're going to follow the rules of the road if they're being supervised. They basically need to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I personally believe that people should not be allowed to get their license until they turn 21. Kids are taking longer than ever to grow up these days. 16 is far too young.
 
Gord said:
How does one whose been convicted of a d.u.i. prove that they've become more responsible? Obviously they're going to follow the rules of the road if they're being supervised. They basically need to be given the benefit of the doubt.

I personally believe that people should not be allowed to get their license until they turn 21. Kids are taking longer than ever to grow up these days. 16 is far too young.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha... but I'm sure you were far more responsible when you were 16...

At what age do you want drinking to start? Army recruitment?
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Hahahaha... but I'm sure you were far more responsible when you were 16...

At what age do you want drinking to start? Army recruitment?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. I'm not trying to draw attention to myself, but I was a total goodie two shoes when I was growing up. I comes from a very conservative upbringing so I never acted out. In fact in grade 8 my entire class was once forced to spend our entire lunch break indoors because of poor behaviour during science class. One of my fellow students asked why I had to stay because I never do anything and my teacher paused and said, you're right, and I was the only one who was allowed to leave. That's the result of good parenting. I know that's basically unheard of these days. I basically never got in trouble because I was raised well.

It doesn't really matter when people are permitted to drink; they can get booze at any age. I could care less. I've had all of 20 beers in my life. If even that.
 
Gord said:
Actually, yes. I'm not trying to draw attention to myself, but I was a total goodie two shoes when I was growing up. I comes from a very conservative upbringing so I never acted out. In fact in grade 8 my entire class was once forced to spend our entire lunch break indoors because of poor behaviour during science class. One of my fellow students asked why I had to stay because I never do anything and my teacher paused and said, you're right, and I was the only one who was allowed to leave. That's the result of good parenting. I know that's basically unheard of these days. I basically never got in trouble because I was raised well.

It doesn't really matter when people are permitted to drink; they can get booze at any age. I could care less. I've had all of 20 beers in my life. If even that.
Click to expand...

Cool story, bro.
 
Gord said:
Actually, yes. I'm not trying to draw attention to myself, but I was a total goodie two shoes when I was growing up. I comes from a very conservative upbringing so I never acted out. In fact in grade 8 my entire class was once forced to spend our entire lunch break indoors because of poor behaviour during science class. One of my fellow students asked why I had to stay because I never do anything and my teacher paused and said, you're right, and I was the only one who was allowed to leave. That's the result of good parenting. I know that's basically unheard of these days. I basically never got in trouble because I was raised well.

It doesn't really matter when people are permitted to drink; they can get booze at any age. I could care less. I've had all of 20 beers in my life. If even that.
Click to expand...

congratulations
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top