It’s about time we rethink how traffic fine revenue is shared in BC. This funding is shared between various municipalities around the province, with the government acting as arbiter of who gets some and how much. Municipalities ultimately don’t have much say on how big their slice of traffic revenue will be, or even if they get any in the first place. They can argue, they can appeal, but at the end of the day, the provincial government tells them how much they are going to receive. Municipalities lack bargaining chips. All they can do is shut up and take the money. Or not take the money, as is the case for many small towns.
A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post about the cell phone immobilizer case. To remind you, a man was acquitted at trial of using an electronic device while driving on the basis of the fact that he had his phone equipped with an app that would disable it from use while driving.
The case received a lot of press, mostly because up until now there have been very few defences in electronic device cases. And the more press a successful case receives, the more likely it seems to be that the Crown considers an appeal. I have no knowledge of whether they are or are not, but it seems to me that one is likely in this case.
And here's why.
This post is a guest post by Emma Wilson of Acumen Law Corporation. Emma is a rising star about to be called to the bar in British Columbia come August. She is well on her way to being a leader in traffic ticket, driving prohibition, and criminal defence.
We’ve all heard it in the news, or maybe learned it the hard way. The BC government, with help from ICBC, the RCMP and the municipal police forces, is cracking down on cell phone use while driving. The laws against use of an electronic device while driving have been on the books since 2010, so theoretically, we should all already be aware of this and the only people who should be worried are the ones who are actually putting others at risk with their behaviour (which isn’t us… or is it?).
In Episode Six of Driving Law with Kyla Lee, I sit down with Ian Tootill, founder of SenseBC to discuss traffic safety laws in British Columbia. Ian shares important insight into problems with our speeding, electronic device, and left lane laws. He also offers some insight into the Driver Penalty Point program, and how that could be overhauled to create a more sensible system of keeping track of bad drivers.
But before that, I talk about the Senate of Canada's vote to remove the random breath testing provisions from Bill C-46, and why that is an important step toward ensuring the constitutional validity of the bill.
Subscribe on iTunes or listen here on Soundcloud.
An ongoing case recently aired at a small claims court in BC could have wider implications for insurance cases in the province. A driver named Angela Seeley who crashed her car is suing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) for refusing to honour her insurance claim. ICBC believes Ms. Seeley was impaired at the time of the collision and it alleges she lied by saying she had nothing to drink before it happened. Ms. Seeley agrees her driving was affected leading up to the crash, however, not by drinking but by texting.
This case raises some interesting points about why someone would admit to using their phone while driving but deny having consumed alcohol before driving. What are the differences between driving while impaired and driving while distracted? What are their implications for insurance claims and, crucially, how severely they are punished?
On Episode Five of Driving Law with Kyla Lee I sat down with Paul Doroshenko from Acumen Law Corporation. We talked about the changes to ICBC's Driver Risk Premium, which will increase premiums for drivers who are convicted of any high risk offences. And in the second half of the episode, I spoke with Acumen's Agnes Tong about how DUI convictions will impact your ability to enter Canada or remain in Canada as a visitor or Permanent Resident.
You can listen here, subscribe on iTunes, and tune in next week for another episode.
Challenging a traffic ticket for speeding can be difficult. The evidence that an officer must adduce to show that the measurement of speed was accurate is relatively straightforward. And couple an external speed measurement using laser or radar with a speed estimate from the officer, and only a highly skilled person can succeed in traffic court.
Recently, a BC Provincial Court decision showed just how difficult it can be to succeed in these cases.
One very troubling suggestion by the BC Government recently was the notion that traffic ticket convictions on the driving record would soon come with increased consequences to insurance. They plan to be adding penalties to a ticket after the fact. But not only are those going to affect tickets that are issued after the changes come into effect, the word on the street is that the insurance-related consequences will be assessed to tickets that have previously been added to a person's record.
This is highly problematic, and may verge on being unconstitutional.
Last week, British Columbia's Attorney General, David Eby, gave remarks that suggest the government is contemplating traffic tickets resulting in an increase in insurance rates. The Attorney General cites a survey, conducted by the Provincial Government, which found that there was overwhelming support for the idea that high risk drivers should pay more for their insurance.
At first blush, having a traffic ticket affect your insurance rates may seem like a step in the right direction toward solving ICBC's financial problems and promoting road safety, but this idea is deeply flawed in several respects. Here's why.
Today, RoadSafetyBC made a major announcement regarding how it is going to start dealing with cases of street racing and stunt driving. You can read the announcement here.
At first blush, it sounds great for road safety. The Government makes it sound as though the current system allows only for fifteen-day prohibitions for street racing or stunt driving, and that these will now be replaced with longer prohibitions, between three and thirty six months, after this type of driving behaviour is observed. The problem with this announcement is that it sorely misrepresents the current state of affairs, and it misleads the public about why this action is being taken.
To understand this issue it’s necessary to understand the current system.
Vancouver Criminal Lawyer with a focus on impaired driving, cannabis legalization and related issues, and immediate roadside prohibition defence.