Photoz Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I'm a non drinker, and although I agree with MOST of the new driving / drinking regulations . . . there are SOME that I feel are BEYOND ridiculous. If I hadn't seen & heard this, directly out of O. P. P. Sgt. Dave Woodford's mouth on the CTV news, then on Channel 24, from another high ranking cop, I'd think someone was telling a bad joke! There has been a law in place that sets out pretty much the same penalties for being over .08 while operating a motorized watercraft, as there is for operating a motor vehicle . . . . which I don't have a problem with. The new law that just came into being (on the spot suspensions for .05) now applies to watercraft too, same as land vehicles. BUT . . . . this is where it gets kinda ridiculous . . . . these police spokespersons went on to say that ALL of these laws (new & old) also appiled to UNMOTORIZED watercraft too. The rather surprised interviewer then specifically asked if the laws now applied to watercraft such as canoes, rowboats etc., and was assured they did? I wonder where they draw the line . . . perhaps 'impaired operation of an air mattress?' 'Impaired operation of an inner tube?' Again, this was on the CTV news AND CP 24, and the information was VERY clearly given by 2 well-known police spokesmen. Did anybody else see or hear this? Or read up on the new regulations? I find it hard to believe someone, paddling their l'il Sportspal canoe, on some beaver pond, technically could be hit with the same penalty for being over .08, as somebody driving a car in a school zone, also at over .08? Please tell me these guys made a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish-miester Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) I was surprised by that too.. I thought it was a little bit ¨out there¨ i also wonder how hard they are gunna come down on every1.. i personaly think its a bit much.. but hey safety first i guess?.. Edited May 16, 2009 by fish-miester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 If you're going to drink... stay home and stir up a bunch of crap on the internet, it's what I do!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike the Pike Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 If you're going to drink... stay home and stir up a bunch of crap on the internet, it's what I do!!! Now I get it you stir your drink with the swivel stick then you look for an opportunity to pick on people with Tillers. I knew it wasn't you Glen just the booze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MillerPhoto Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 as long as they don't see you drinkin in the canoe, i don't think you will have to worry,they probly won't check.. unless your paddling in circles I don't think its so much about you operating the boat/canoe/car/truck/lawnmower.. its more how your acting on it, and they could charge you with public intoxication.. as long as your not on your own property.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 That's why I bought Leah the remote control serving table... to go with her twin engined pool lounger. She can send the drinks to shore when she sees the OPP coming.... and then kick to pretend it's just a floaty toy... Seriously Steve... anything considered a "vessel" is covered under the impared operation regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blarg Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 (edited) I agree that would be the best idea(not drinking), but this is pretty ridiculous, How can you have 2 legal limits? That is effectively what we have now. It seems to me the gov't is trying to have it both ways, they want almost zero tolerance (which id be fine with) while still allowing people to drink some and not pissing off the bar and restaurant owners too much. When this got into the news last year it was being said at that time, that if you get a warning and a suspension you still wouldn't have a criminal record because the legal limit is .08, but your insurance company would get a report of your warning and your insurance would triple or more. How can it be legal to punish people with fines and what not when they haven't gone over the legal limit? or then again have they?, is .05 the new limit? It's a pretty strange law imo. If the gov't is serious about reducing drinking and driving why don't they just lower the legal limit from .08 to .05 or lower? Edited May 16, 2009 by blarg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outllaw Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 in the near future we will only be allowed 4 sheets of toilet paper. cmon this is george orwell at its best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 You can be nicked for impaired on a lawn tractor, or a bycycle as well. If you are operating some/any manner of vehicle on a public roadway, or body of water, you have responsibility of care and all the rules of the road apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 in the near future we will only be allowed 4 sheets of toilet paper.cmon this is george orwell at its best. Who needs more than 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigugli Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 in the near future we will only be allowed 4 sheets of toilet paper.cmon this is george orwell at its best. Hasn't anybody told you about the 3 shells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 dang I am still trying to figure out the 3 shells....I just swear to get my paper to wipe I think it is getting stupid, if .08 is the point where it affects your driving then whey take your license at .05 and you have got to watch out for those drunken row boaters...you never know when they will crash into your dock....next you will have to blow into the meter before you go to bed or before you ride your wife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 nextyou will have to blow into the meter before you go to bed or before you ride your wife Well you'll be okay Terry cause the fictitious wives tell no tales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushart Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I wonder where they draw the line . . . perhaps 'impaired operation of an air mattress?' I'll have you know I do my best air matress work--Impaired (Oh you mean on the Water and not a tent) Bushart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLofchik Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 I look forward to the first report of someone blowing 0.05 in the boat after one or two drinks at a tie-up lunch spot and have their boat, trailer & car impounded for three days and leave you stuck on shoreline 400km from home. $500ish on impound fees alone, then you find out the scumbag tow truck driver & impound lot had a field day cherry picking through your gear (whatcha talkin' about, there ain't no fishfinder on it when it got here.....) Congrats people, you've got the Big Brother gov't you wanted. Lol atleast with the crappy weather you won't have your car towed because you were drifting down the river on an inner tube with a beer......what a friggin' joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendel Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Yep, better get out your helmet and bubblewrap jacket soon. In the not so distant future we will not even be allowed to cross the street without submitting to a breathalyzer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keram Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 From .08 to .05 - personally I do not have a problem. But at the same time , can we increase requirement (for any law enforcement person carrying a tazer), from current IQ 50 level to IQ 80 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonny Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 It all has to do with the insurance company's being in bed with the government and the police,,,why else would they make points being taken off for seat belts,,,it is all so the government can control you and insurance company's making more of our hard earned money!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 From .08 to .05 - personally I do not have a problem. But at the same time , can we increase requirement (for any law enforcement person carrying a tazer), from current IQ 50 level to IQ 80 ? Don't be ridiculous!... it takes 2 non-french speaking Canadians to make an IQ of 70!!! ... those separatists are some smart asses eh!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlied Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Not all Police Officers carry Tazer's in Ontario, just so you know! And a tazer saves lives, cause if there was no tazers and a police officer had to protect himself he would shoot. I would rather be tazed than shot!! For the person complaining about the non-motorized fines....there are alot of people that drown in ontario from drinking and getting in canoes and stuff. They wouldn't make these laws if idiots would stop doing stupid things on the water drunk! Its like a stupid warning on a product, they wouldn't put it on there if someone didn't do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdH20guy Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 well said charlie..you beat me to it! Grow up people........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishing n autograph Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I think there might have been a mistake because the impaired charges apply to motorized vehicles only..... and that is anything that's not driven by human or animal power i.e bikes and horse drawn carts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When they added it to "boating" they made it operation of a vessel .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishing n autograph Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When they added it to "boating" they made it operation of a vessel .. sorry the true wording is any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel..... i'll have to double check the Crim. Code's definition of a vessel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeds Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 I hate that safety first crap... It's just getting stupid. If I don't want want to wear a bicycle helmet that should be my perogative. If I want to have a beer in my canoe that's my business. If I'm drunk and endangering others or would be rescuers well then that's a different story. I'm just getting sick of meddlesome laws that are designed to protect us from ourselves. I mean; why not take it a step further? No swimming after drinking. How about no alcohol within 50 metres of the waters edge? Think how safe we'd all be!! Wouldn't it be great to be so safe?! Where does it end? It's all just so idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts