Quote:
Originally Posted by jlenko
Funny how RCMP Officer Monty Robinson can have an MVA and kill the other driver on a motorbike... and do the same thing (go and have a few drinks, then return to the scene...), go back to the scene of the accident... ironic, isn't it?
I figured there was some ulterior motive to your ranting. Now I understand..
|
But you have to remember, in our case.....it was just a vehicle going into the ditch...just happened to be a steep ditch and he was off the road by only a few feet.
No one else was involved. It is a VERY narrow road (the lanes are 8.6' wide at that point, as compared to the 10' or more on typical paved roads) and 1.5' of sandy shoulder. Yup...looking at the cell phone when it rang was the WRONG thing to do...ESPECIALLY at that point of the road. Caught the shoulder and in he went.
Y'all have to remember to,
he didn't leave the scene for a couple of drinks after the accident.....he went to get help for the injury he received and HAD a couple of beer. Two different scenarios. Hey, I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do....but when your bleeding heavily from a large facial cut....and you have friends just down the road......it's just you there......shock, your way of thinking changes.....it will be different that if you were not in shock. I am a certified Search and Rescue Manager for the province of BC..and in the first day of training we are taught....
"don't try to think like a lost person...or don't assume that a lost person will do the "normal" or "smart" thing. They are lost..their proper way of thinking has now been "tainted" by panic." The same will happen when a person is in shock. We sit here by the computer and "think" of what we would or should do......put yourself in a situation and then try again.
You want to hear ironic? A majority of the RCMP members that I talked to in my "research", didn't even know about section 90.3....the 12 hour suspension for novice drivers. These are the
same officers that expect "civilians" to know the right involved (request a roadside test) when issued a 24 hour prohibition!
I emailed the OSMV regarding the 12 hour suspension, and was told by the office that a roadside test was NOT required to hand it out. I sent an email back...explaining section 90.3 and received an email back apologizing for the incorrect information that I had received from them. Me, a citizen and NOT a lawyer....having to explain the MVA to the OSMV and correcting THEM....that is a worrying fact!
I phoned ICBC help line to ask about the 12 hour suspension...the gentleman said.."there IS a 12 hour suspension?? Never heard of it."
The OSMV states, that a novice driver "faces a 12 hour suspension if caught with a BAC of between .01 and .05" (
Impaired Driving - Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles - Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General ) How can that office enforce that if the officer hands out a 24 hour prohibition without a roadside test? And, if you read that section of their website.....an investigation BEGINS with section 90.3, and can be followed up by any normal driver sanctions as BAC levels are "reached"
You see, there are a lot of inconsistencies happening. If ICBC help line is surprised to hear of a 12 hour suspension.....these 24 hour prohibitions being handed out to novice drivers without a roadside test happens more than you think! If many of the officers don't know about the 12 hour suspension...well...the same thing.
My point in all this. What if an officer hands a novice driver a 24 hour prohibition...and the driver requests a roadside test......blows below .05? The right within that section AND on the back of the notice says "
the prohibition from driving is terminated and you are allowed to drive". It doesn't say "THIS prohibition" (meaning the 24 hour notice just handed to the driver).....it says "THE prohibition". Now....how does the officer "honor" that right? If he lets the novice driver go, it is in contravention of the MVA of BC. If he then issues a 12 hour suspension, "the prohibition from driving" didn't occur and the right "handed to him by the officer on the 24 hour notice" was not honored. Giving a novice driver a 24 hour
without a roadside test goes against the MVA and how it is written. And this is why section 90.3 was legislated. WHEN an officer DOES pull over a novice driver for suspected drinking and driving...they MUST demand a breath sample. It eliminates the right on the back of the 24 hour notice.....and provides NO appeal for the novice driver if issued a 12 hour suspension. Quite simple actually.
So, this rant is not to prevent anyone from getting a prohibition or suspension. This rant involves almost 8 months of research. As much as we civilians are to follow the letter of the law, so must the "officials". That's the reason we have written law!
