Quote:
Originally Posted by gars
Try talking to your local MLA?
|
Yes sir, I have. I've talked to my MLA (no response yet), and also the MLA that "counts" so to speak. Shirley Bond, the MLA from Prince George and the Minister of the Solicitor General of BC who now has her staff looking at this.
I've talked personally (well, via the phone) with the Manager of Prohibitions with Driver Services in Victoria also, who was VERY talkative, spent almost an hour talking with her. She was on the ball, worked with her "lawyer type" people down there and gave me an answer in 2 days. Here is the basic answer I got:
"The novice driver, when "invoking" his right on the reverse side of the 24 hour notice IS allowed to drive (IF under .05).....until the officer gives the 12 hour suspension" What....10 minutes?
To me, that is like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey, then taking it away. Why "jerk" a driver around like that...when it doesn't have to happen in the first place. If this is allowed by law, so be it. BUT, it doesn't mean that it is right or something "civilians" have to agree with.
IF taken to court, and IF it is shown that a 24 hour prohibition is an invalid charge to issue to a novice driver as the FIRST step of the investigation, what would that mean? All novice drivers that received a 24 hour prohibition in that manner would have these charges removed from their record. It would also mean that all "fees" that resulted in these charges would have to be reimbursed. License reinstatement fees, impoundment fees etc. You know how much that would cost the OSMV/government? Can you now realize how much of a fight this will be?
On the one hand, I would LOVE to prove that this is an invalid charge in the first step of an investigation with a novice driver. On the other hand, I would love to have JUST the procedures/policies changed. Nothing has to be rewritten, just done in a different order!
Just start the investigation with section 90.3, this is why is what legislated in the first place.....easy.