Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI)"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks

Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI) (view source)

Revision as of 07:05, 10 August 2021

528 bytes added ,  07:05, 10 August 2021
no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= August 21, 2020}}
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= June 30, 2021}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}}
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = motor}}


Line 22: Line 22:
To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).
To convict a driver of any of these offences, the Crown must only prove inadvertent negligence: a lack of proper care or absence of thought. The standard of care is determined in relation to the circumstances and carelessness must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: ''R v Beauchamp'', [1952] OJ No 495, (1953)106 CCC 6 (Ont CA).


=== 3. Road Racing ===
=== 3. Street Racing ===


Part 9 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' includes street racing provisions. This offence has recently become a major public issue and authorities treat it very seriously. Street racing will also be considered an aggravating factor for other offences including those in the ''Criminal Code''.
Part 9 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act'' includes street racing provisions. Street racing has recently become a major public issue and authorities treat it very seriously. Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 250, “Race” includes circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the road, traffic, visibility, and weather, the operator of a motor vehicle is operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual, by doing any of the following:
 
Per ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 250, “Race” includes circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the road, traffic, visibility, and weather, the operator of a motor vehicle is operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual, by doing any of the following:


* a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;
* a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;
Line 79: Line 77:
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser'', 2018 BCPC 183], the accused was acquitted of the offence because his cell was programmed with a software that immobilized the phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed and BCCA ordered a new trial. The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software, it was still an electronic device held in a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii.ca/t/j7zgh ''R. v. Tannhauser'', 2020 BCCA 155].   
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2018/2018bcpc183/2018bcpc183.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20tannhaus&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Tannhauser'', 2018 BCPC 183], the accused was acquitted of the offence because his cell was programmed with a software that immobilized the phone when a vehicle that is in motion. **This case was appealed and BCCA ordered a new trial. The judge in the BCCA trial said that even though the cell phone could not immediately be used due to the software, it was still an electronic device held in a position in which it may be used, which is illegal [http://canlii.ca/t/j7zgh ''R. v. Tannhauser'', 2020 BCCA 155].   


In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC],  The accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.  
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360],  the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion.
 
In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1.  


== B. Penalty Points ==
== B. Penalty Points ==
Line 85: Line 85:
Penalty points are imposed in accordance with the schedule set out in Division 28 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''. It is important to note that conviction for ''Criminal Code'' offences also results in the imposition of penalty points. See [[Examples_of_Penalty_Points_and_Fines_for_Motor_Vehicle_Offences_(13:App_A) | Appendix A]] for examples of offences and their corresponding penalty points.
Penalty points are imposed in accordance with the schedule set out in Division 28 of the ''Motor Vehicle Act Regulations''. It is important to note that conviction for ''Criminal Code'' offences also results in the imposition of penalty points. See [[Examples_of_Penalty_Points_and_Fines_for_Motor_Vehicle_Offences_(13:App_A) | Appendix A]] for examples of offences and their corresponding penalty points.


The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/publications/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].
The number of penalty points will be taken into account under ''Motor Vehicle Act'' s 93 when the Superintendent suspends a license. '''The Superintendent may suspend the license of a class 5 driver who accumulates 15 or more points in any two year period.''' For a class 7 driver, or novice driver, the Superintendent may suspend the licence for receiving single a 3 point Violation Ticket. [https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/driving/roadsafetybc/high-risk/street-racing/driver-improvement-policies-guidelines.pdf More information can be obtained from the Driver Improvement Program Policies and Guidelines].


As of December 2017, a class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence up to 5 months.
As of December 2017, a class 5 driver who incurs two high-risk offences (Use of Electronic Device; Excessive Speed; and/or Drive Without Due Care or Attention) in a one year period risks losing their driver’s licence up to 5 months.
Line 113: Line 113:
* c) driving while prohibited by operation of law (s 102);
* c) driving while prohibited by operation of law (s 102);


* d) impaired driving (s 224); or  
* d) impaired driving (s 224); or [REPEALED]


* e) refusing to give a blood sample (s 226(1)).  
* e) refusing to give a blood sample (s 226(1)). [REPEALED]


Generally, where the driver of a motor vehicle has been convicted of an offence, financial liability rests on them and further relief cannot be sought against the owner of the vehicle.  
Generally, where the driver of a motor vehicle has been convicted of an offence, financial liability rests on them and further relief cannot be sought against the owner of the vehicle.  
LSLAP
5,109

edits

Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/50410"