438 replies to this topic

[victorian fan]

Another example of a few ruining it for many.

[VicHockeyFan]

Another example of a few ruining it for many.

Why do we allow the government to decide to kill it for all of us though? We should just empower them to deal with the idiots.

[sebberry]

Why do we allow the government to decide to kill it for all of us though? We should just empower them to deal with the idiots.

Because people are easier to control when you have a blanket rule like that in place.

They already have the means to deal with the problem people, booze ban or not.

[Mike K.]

Apparently in BC (I'm not sure about other provinces) one can move liquor between a liquor store and one's home or a provincial/federal campsite provided a reservation has been made.

If you're stopped with liquor in your vehicle and you're traveling to anywhere other than your home, it can be confiscated (I'm not sure if you can also be ticketed or not).

A friend of mine had to give up his liquor when his vehicle was stopped at a road block while en-route to a wilderness camping spot. The police confiscated all booze (unopened, mind you), and read them the law that I referred to above.

Yup.

[sebberry]

Apparently in BC (I'm not sure about other provinces) one can move liquor between a liquor store and one's home or a provincial/federal campsite provided a reservation has been made.

If you're stopped with liquor in your vehicle and you're traveling to anywhere other than your home, it can be confiscated (I'm not sure if you can also be ticketed or not).

A friend of mine had to give up his liquor when his vehicle was stopped at a road block while en-route to a wilderness camping spot. The police confiscated all booze (unopened, mind you), and read them the law that I referred to above.

Yup.

It's pretty sad how we view it.

With the exception of a glass of wine at Christmas and Thanksgiving, I am basically a non-drinker, but laws like this still piss me off.

I have some family that likes to go camping up in Nanaimo. I usually go up with a friend to visit the campsite (typically just for a day) and he brings along a bottle of scotch. Shares it with the family while I drink coke.

Nobody is getting rowdy, nobody is being irresponsible yet apparantly it is all illegal. Just a couple glasses of scotch.

[jklymak]

If you're stopped with liquor in your vehicle and you're traveling to anywhere other than your home, it can be confiscated (I'm not sure if you can also be ticketed or not).

Huh? So if I'm bringing a bottle of wine from my house to a friends I can have it confiscated? I don't believe it.

[sebberry]

Huh? So if I'm bringing a bottle of wine from my house to a friends I can have it confiscated? I don't believe it.

Ok, I just looked this up:

Liquor in motor vehicle
44 (1) In this section:

"motor home" has the same meaning as in the Motor Vehicle Act;

"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Motor Vehicle Act, and includes an all terrain vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Act.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person must not drive or otherwise exercise control over the operation of a motor vehicle, whether or not it is in motion, while there is liquor in the person's possession or in the motor vehicle.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply

(a) if the liquor is in a container that is unopened and has an unbroken seal,

(b) if the liquor is being transported or used in accordance with a licence issued under this Act, or

© in any other case, if the motor vehicle

(i) is a motor home and the liquor is kept in a cabinet away from the driver's area,

(ii) is a station wagon or hatchback and the liquor is behind the rear seat, whether or not that seat is in an upright position,

(iii) is a pickup truck and the liquor is in an exterior compartment, a space designed for the carriage of baggage or parcels or any other location that is not readily accessible to any person in the motor vehicle,

(iv) is a motorcycle and the liquor is not readily accessible to the operator, or

(v) is not one referred to in subparagraphs (i) to (iv) and the liquor is in the trunk or space designed for the carriage of baggage or parcels.

I'm guessing in Mike's friend's case the alcohol was not far enough away from the driver.

[LJ]

This is the same overreaching law that allows police to confiscate booze from you if you are walking home from a liquor store and passing near a "no drinking" event such as fireworks, parades etc.

If the person is drinking in a public place then by all means confiscate the booze, if they are walking from point A to B with no intent of drinking - leave them alone.

[yodsaker]

Too many Canadians haven't grown up and learned how to handle aclcohol in a mature fashion and our governments insist on keeping us in a childlike state.

[sebberry]

Too many Canadians haven't grown up and learned how to handle aclcohol in a mature fashion

You're talking about the government, right

[Mike K.]

I'm guessing in Mike's friend's case the alcohol was not far enough away from the driver.

That's strange. Their liquor was in the back of a pick-up truck and according to the law that's legit. Can someone confirm the details when it comes to transporting alcohol, not just how it should be transported? I tried to find the details but I couldn't come up with any related to the subject.

[VicHockeyFan]

That's strange. Their liquor was in the back of a pick-up truck and according to the law that's legit. Can someone confirm the details when it comes to transporting alcohol, not just how it should be transported? I tried to find the details but I couldn't come up with any related to the subject.

I suppose there isn't anything stopping the cop in your case from making a preemptive seizure, even though he knew it wasn't right. Cops do this all the time.

I parked in front the the Dominion Hotel once, in the 10-minute "hotel zone", then I proceeded to cross Yates. A cop whistled at me to come back. I did, and he said something along the lines of "you aren't going to leave the car there are you? It's a hotel zone" I explained that although it was indeed a 10-minute hotel zone, I could park there for any reason I wanted, as long as my stay did not exceed 10 minutes. He told me to move it, I said no, and he ended up writing a ticket. It took me some effort to get the ticket canceled later. He was in the wrong, but it didn't stop him from taking action that would require me to prove my innocence later.

I suppose booze confiscations can be successfully fought later, but by then is it worth it?

[sebberry]

Guilty until proven innocent - it's the Canadian way.

I would have liked to have seen the look on his face when the JP ruled in your favor

I can only imagine how much fun it would be to have a cop behind you while waiting at a red light at a pedestrian controlled crosswalk that is not at an intersection, then proceed while the light is still red once the pedestrian has passed.

[jklymak]

^ ?? You would get a ticket and you would deserve one. There is no special rule that says red signal lights controlled by pedestrians are any different than other red lights.

[sebberry]

^ ?? You would get a ticket and you would deserve one. There is no special rule that says red signal lights controlled by pedestrians are any different than other red lights.

Actually, that's where you're wrong.

If not located at an intersection, the red light at a pedestrian controlled crosswalk doesn't require the car to remain stopped until the light turns green, it only requires the car to stop and ensure the crosswalk is clear before proceeding.

[jklymak]

From the motor act sec 129:

(5) When a red light is exhibited at a place other than an intersection by a traffic control signal,

(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the signal must cause it to stop before entering the nearest marked crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before reaching the signal, and

(b) a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway.

OK, I guess that is vague. I don't take that to mean its OK to proceed against the light, but I could see where you might get that idea. Is there any case law on it?

[VicHockeyFan]

A Flashing Green Light indicates a Pedestrian Controlled Traffic Signal. A Flashing Green Light will turn solid for 4 to 5 seconds followed by an Amber then Red Light. The solid Green Light at a Pedestrian Traffic Signal serves as an advance warning drivers that the signal is about to change. Motorists are also reminded that it is illegal to proceed through a Red Light and must wait until the signal resumes its Flashing Green sequence.

http://www.kamloops....affictips.shtml

Not the most official source, but it's BC.

[sebberry]

http://www.kamloops....affictips.shtml

Not the most official source, but it's BC.

Ok, the full version:

Red light
129 (1) Subject to subsection (2), when a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the red light must cause it to stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before entering the intersection, and subject to the provisions of subsection (3), must not cause the vehicle to proceed until a traffic control signal instructs the driver that he or she is permitted to do so.
(2) The driver of a bus approaching an intersection and facing a red light and a prescribed white rectangular indicator may cause the bus to proceed through the intersection.

(3) Despite subsection (1), and except when a right turn permitted by this subsection is prohibited by a sign at an intersection, the driver of a vehicle facing the red light, and which in obedience to it is stopped as closely as practicable to a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, as closely as practicable to the intersection, may cause the vehicle to make a right turn, but the driver must yield the right of way to all pedestrians and vehicles lawfully proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection.

(4) When a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal,

(a) a pedestrian facing the red light must not enter the roadway unless instructed that he or she may do so by a pedestrian traffic control signal,

(b) except when a left turn permitted by this paragraph is prohibited by a sign at the intersection, the driver of a vehicle facing the red light at the intersection of not more than 2 highways, and which in obedience to it is stopped as closely as practicable to a marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, as closely as practicable to the intersection, may cause the vehicle to make a left turn into a highway on which traffic is restricted to the direction in which he or she causes the vehicle to turn, but the driver must yield the right of way to all pedestrians and vehicles lawfully proceeding as directed by the signal at the intersection, and

© a pedestrian proceeding across the roadway and facing the red light exhibited after he or she entered the roadway

(i) must proceed to the sidewalk as quickly as possible, and

(ii) has the right of way for that purpose over all vehicles.

(5) When a red light is exhibited at a place other than an intersection by a traffic control signal,
(a) the driver of a vehicle approaching the signal must cause it to stop before entering the nearest marked crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before reaching the signal, and

(b) a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway.

Notice how 129(1) is dealing with a red light at an intersection and 129(5) is dealing with a red light at a place other than an intersection.

129(1) explicitly states that the driver must remain stopped until a traffic control signal permits a driver to proceed. Basically this means come to a full stop and wait for a green light.

129(5) clearly omits the requirement to remain stopped until directed to proceed.

It's basically the same as a stop sign. You stop, but you don't wait for something to tell you to go.

Now, with that all being said, I can't think of a mid-block crossing where this would apply anywhere near Victoria, but it is on the books

[phx]

I parked in front the the Dominion Hotel once, in the 10-minute "hotel zone", then I proceeded to cross Yates. A cop whistled at me to come back. I did, and he said something along the lines of "you aren't going to leave the car there are you? It's a hotel zone" I explained that although it was indeed a 10-minute hotel zone, I could park there for any reason I wanted, as long as my stay did not exceed 10 minutes. He told me to move it, I said no, and he ended up writing a ticket. It took me some effort to get the ticket canceled later. He was in the wrong, but it didn't stop him from taking action that would require me to prove my innocence later.

When did you get that ticket? When I got a ticket there, the bylaw had been amended to allow the 10-minutes only while entering or leaving the hotel.

Hmm, perhaps it was amended in response to your acquittal.

Anyhow, I got off on a technicality.

[VicHockeyFan]

When did you get that ticket? When I got a ticket there, the bylaw had been amended to allow the 10-minutes only while entering or leaving the hotel.

Hmm, perhaps it was amended in response to your acquittal.

Anyhow, I got off on a technicality.

Circa 1992

Around the same time, I got a ticket for turning left off Fort (outbound) onto Fern during a prohibited hour. But the only sign indicating the turn was not legal (at that date) was on the left side of the road. After photographing the intersection set-up, I successfully argued my point in the courtroom, with blown up 8 x 10 photos to boot. I said that a motorist ought not to have to look to the left side of the road for signs pertaining to his movements. Of course at that time, it was real film, probably cost me $25 to get the shots. Anyway, soon afterwards they installed an overhead sign also.