Behind the Wheel - July 14, 2004

[skidmark]

Perpetuating Mediocrity

I stopped a vehicle being driven at 96 km/h in a posted 50 km/h construction zone the other day. Approaching the passenger side, I spoke with the woman in the front seat and the young lady driving. When I explained why I stopped them, the woman suggested that she was unable to get the driver to slow down, and maybe I could do something about it. The driver produced a learner driver's license and no L was displayed on the vehicle.

To me, the solution was simple. The woman should have denied her daughter access to the vehicle unless she was willing to follow the traffic rules.

After they had departed and I sat doing the notes for the violation ticket I had issued, I wondered to myself if maybe it wasn't so simple. Perhaps this woman should not have been given the privilege of teaching her daughter to drive. If the teacher is ill equipped to teach, the new driver will not learn what is necessary to drive correctly and safely.

Yes, ICBC does test the new driver to see if they meet standards as they progress through the Graduated Licensing Program. These standards are much more stringent than they were when I took my driver's test 30 years ago. The trouble is, attitude can easily be hidden for the duration of a test, but put back on as soon as the driver hits the highway alone.

Perhaps this young lady would be better off taking the complete GLP package at a driving school. She will receive instruction in both the mechanics and the ethics of being a good driver that she might not be getting at home.

[Blue coyote]

Lucky for the pair of them that I'm not an officer (lucky for me, too!)....

I'd be giving the "teacher" a ticket for "reckless driving" (as the one with the full license SHOULD be responsible for the conduct of their student)

I'd also be looking to have the learner's permit revoked.

Its the morons like that who are responsible for needing the GLP in the first place...

[skidmark]

We think alike.

I sat there at the roadside for a few minutes thinking about a means of ticketing the teacher. I was unable to come up with one.

When the ticket I wrote hits ICBC the OSMV will likely be interested.

[Lone Ranger]

Isn't 46 km/h over the limit dangerous driving and therefore a criminal offense? There again doubled monetory penalty because of it being a construction zone?

I imagine that got to be an extremely expensive day for the mother (or daughter?). Ouch...

[skidmark]

Speed alone does not constitute dangerous driving. In order to arrest and charge I would need to show that the speed was dangerous for the area that it was done in. Here we were well away from the workers and the lineups and the new pavement was down. All that remained to be done is the lines and shouldering and the posted speed usually is 80 km/h. I probably would have been refused by Crown Counsel.

Excessive speed is the same in any zone, $368 for 41 to 60 over and $483 for 61+. The doubling comes in the 1 to 20 over and 21 to 40 over zones.

[Lone Ranger]

Oh OK, thanks for clearing that up for me. I didn't know about the charging though, I thought though that 40 km/h constituted an automatic dangerous driving charge... hmmm I guess we learn something new everyday!

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, with commercial trucks the excessive speed is 20 km/h over, right? I have been told (I haven't gotten a ticket for excessive speed) by friends who have gotten them (when is BC going to finally bump the speeds up from 90 km/h on the TCH???) that when you get one they can shut you down for 24 hrs plus pull your licence until you pay the fine. Can this really happen? I understand the danger of driving fast in a 80,000 lb truck, but I didn't realize that they could pull your licence right then and there until you pay the ticket..

[muddhunter]

Originally posted by Lone Ranger
(when is BC going to finally bump the speeds up from 90 km/h on the TCH???)

Probably the same day they finish four laning it all the way to Banff! :rolleyes:

[skidmark]

I don't know what jurisdiction you are talking about, but it is not BC.

Excessive speed is the same for all vehicles, regardless of size or use here.

There is no authority to place a commercial driver out of service for excessive speeding that I am aware of.

[rattle]

Originally posted by skidmark
I sat there at the roadside for a few minutes thinking about a means of ticketing the teacher. I was unable to come up with one.


How about under Sec. 144?

Does the adult have to have care or control over the vehicle?

Chances are the Superintendent will probably issue a suspension!?!

[skidmark]

83 (1) In this section:

"owner" includes

(a) a person in possession of a motor vehicle under a contract by which the person may become the owner on full compliance with the contract, and in whose name alone the motor vehicle is registered, and

(b) a person who rents or leases a motor vehicle from another person;

"traffic bylaws of a municipality" includes bylaws enacted under this or another Act by a municipality with respect to the parking of vehicles, or the use of parking meters.

(2) The owner of a motor vehicle must be held liable for any contravention of this Act or the regulations, the Highway Act or the regulations under it, or the Firearm Act in respect of the carrying or use of firearms in motor vehicles, or the traffic bylaws of a municipality.

(3) An owner must not be held liable under subsection (2) if the owner establishes that

(a) the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle was not entrusted by the owner with possession, or

(b) the owner exercised reasonable care and diligence when the person entrusted the motor vehicle to the person who was, at the time of the contravention, in possession of the motor vehicle.

(4) If an owner is liable under this section, in place of the fine or term of imprisonment specified in an enactment for the offence, a fine of not more than $2 000 may be imposed.

(5) On a prosecution of the owner of a motor vehicle for an offence under this section, the burden is on the defendant to prove that

(a) the person in possession of the motor vehicle was not a person entrusted by the owner with possession, or

(b) the registered owner is not the owner.

(6) An owner of a motor vehicle is liable under subsection (2) even if the motor vehicle, at the time of the contravention, is unattended or is not in the possession of any person.

(7) An owner must not be held liable under subsection (2)

(a) with respect to an offence under section 24 (1), 95, 102, 224 or 226, or

(b) with respect to any offence where the driver has been convicted of

(i) the same offence, or

(ii) an included offence

arising out of the same circumstances.

This section makes it difficult to charge the woman if you want to charge the driver. Remember that the driver gets points if convicted where the owner does not.