By The Canadian Press
Dec 22/08
TORONTO - The head of the Ontario Provincial Police says drivers who crash in bad weather because of their own negligence should have to pay the bill.
Commissioner Julian Fantino will propose absolute liability legislation today under the Highway Traffic Act to hold irresponsible drivers accountable. This essentially means making drivers pay for accidents in which they were driving aggressively in poor weather, not insurance companies
Fantino says at least 40 per cent of crashes are caused because people are going too fast in poor conditions and not paying attention.
He says his proposal targets people "who could care less" about how they are driving when the roads are bad.
Fantino says his proposal mirrors laws currently on the books in almost every state in the U.S.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Proposed legislation to ban children riding flies in face of proof that it's not a problem
Allan Johnson
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Dec 12, 2008
On Dec. 4, the attention of Ontario motorcyclists was on the Legislature for the second reading debate of Bill 117.
Bill 117 was introduced by Liberal MPP Helena Jaczek (Oak Ridges-Markham) in October as a private member's bill to change the Highway Traffic Act to ban children 14 years of age and under from travelling as passengers on motorcycles. It's intended to "protect children from preventable injury."
Jaczek came armed with considerable support. Supporters in the gallery included representatives of the Ontario Safety League, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association and Katie Mellor and Nigel Finan, "representatives of concerned parents who support this bill."
Jaczek produced statistics to prove her claim that there is a serious problem with child passenger motorcycle safety. She quoted Ministry of Transportation road safety reports from 1995 through 2005 that showed there had been 199 cases of injury to motorcycle passengers 15 years old or younger over those 11 years. As perspective during these years, 76,052 children were injured in all types of road accidents.
And the Ministry of Transportation's 2005 Ontario Road Safety report indicates that – out of 5,155 on-road injuries suffered by children aged 15 years or younger in 2005 – only 21 were injured as on-road motorcycle passengers.
Jaczek asked for the Bill to be sent to committee for further consideration "on behalf of Katie Mellor and Nigel and all those concerned with an undeniably unnecessary risk to vulnerable children."
And then, after some debate between MPPs, Liberal MPP Bas Balkissoon ( Scarborough-Rouge River) stood up and addressed the origins of Bill 117.
"I just want to read parts of a letter by Katherine Mellor," he said. "Katherine is in the gallery today. She wrote this letter back in June 2008, to (Transport Minister Jim) Bradley as a parent.
"She says: `In my daily parenting plight, I have recently had a new situation cross my path, which has served to be both alarming and perplexing. To make a long story as concise as possible, my soon to be ex-husband has decided, to my chagrin, that my son Liam (8 years old) should be a regular passenger on his motorcycle.'
"To her dismay, she found that the `only two requirements the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario have are that any passengers need to wear a helmet with a chinstrap, and their feet must touch the footrests. I would like to add that depending on the motorcycle the footrests could be quite high, meaning; even a very small child of 3-to-5 years of age could potentially be a passenger! The bottom line is that children under the age of at least 12 do not truly grasp the ramifications of riding as a passenger on a motorcycle.'
"She goes on to say: `My request to you, Minister Bradley, is that changes to the MTO rules and regulations regarding children as passengers on motorcycles be looked into immediately. Not just the next time the issue is up for review, as it might be too late for my son at that time.'"
And so it seems that the root of this issue stems from a private animosity between divorcing parents. He takes their 8-year-old son for motorcycle rides while she fears for the child's safety.
Whether it's right or wrong for children to be passengers on motorcycles is not the issue. The fact that the vast majority of children who ride as passengers do so behind careful, responsible parents is not considered. The fact that most motorcycle accidents are caused by inexperienced riders is ignored.
The Ontario government is spending a great deal of time, effort and money to debate a proposed bill because two people could not agree on what's best for their child.
Bill 117 has been referred to the Justice Policy committee for discussion.
Toronto Star
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
Dec 12, 2008
On Dec. 4, the attention of Ontario motorcyclists was on the Legislature for the second reading debate of Bill 117.
Bill 117 was introduced by Liberal MPP Helena Jaczek (Oak Ridges-Markham) in October as a private member's bill to change the Highway Traffic Act to ban children 14 years of age and under from travelling as passengers on motorcycles. It's intended to "protect children from preventable injury."
Jaczek came armed with considerable support. Supporters in the gallery included representatives of the Ontario Safety League, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, the Canadian Paraplegic Association and Katie Mellor and Nigel Finan, "representatives of concerned parents who support this bill."
Jaczek produced statistics to prove her claim that there is a serious problem with child passenger motorcycle safety. She quoted Ministry of Transportation road safety reports from 1995 through 2005 that showed there had been 199 cases of injury to motorcycle passengers 15 years old or younger over those 11 years. As perspective during these years, 76,052 children were injured in all types of road accidents.
And the Ministry of Transportation's 2005 Ontario Road Safety report indicates that – out of 5,155 on-road injuries suffered by children aged 15 years or younger in 2005 – only 21 were injured as on-road motorcycle passengers.
Jaczek asked for the Bill to be sent to committee for further consideration "on behalf of Katie Mellor and Nigel and all those concerned with an undeniably unnecessary risk to vulnerable children."
And then, after some debate between MPPs, Liberal MPP Bas Balkissoon ( Scarborough-Rouge River) stood up and addressed the origins of Bill 117.
"I just want to read parts of a letter by Katherine Mellor," he said. "Katherine is in the gallery today. She wrote this letter back in June 2008, to (Transport Minister Jim) Bradley as a parent.
"She says: `In my daily parenting plight, I have recently had a new situation cross my path, which has served to be both alarming and perplexing. To make a long story as concise as possible, my soon to be ex-husband has decided, to my chagrin, that my son Liam (8 years old) should be a regular passenger on his motorcycle.'
"To her dismay, she found that the `only two requirements the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario have are that any passengers need to wear a helmet with a chinstrap, and their feet must touch the footrests. I would like to add that depending on the motorcycle the footrests could be quite high, meaning; even a very small child of 3-to-5 years of age could potentially be a passenger! The bottom line is that children under the age of at least 12 do not truly grasp the ramifications of riding as a passenger on a motorcycle.'
"She goes on to say: `My request to you, Minister Bradley, is that changes to the MTO rules and regulations regarding children as passengers on motorcycles be looked into immediately. Not just the next time the issue is up for review, as it might be too late for my son at that time.'"
And so it seems that the root of this issue stems from a private animosity between divorcing parents. He takes their 8-year-old son for motorcycle rides while she fears for the child's safety.
Whether it's right or wrong for children to be passengers on motorcycles is not the issue. The fact that the vast majority of children who ride as passengers do so behind careful, responsible parents is not considered. The fact that most motorcycle accidents are caused by inexperienced riders is ignored.
The Ontario government is spending a great deal of time, effort and money to debate a proposed bill because two people could not agree on what's best for their child.
Bill 117 has been referred to the Justice Policy committee for discussion.
Toronto Star
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Is Fantino is above the Law?
Dec 08, 2008 06:11 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS
A three-judge panel has decided OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino does not have to continue testifying at a disciplinary hearing against two officers.
Fantino was due back on the cross-examination hot seat tomorrow morning.
Fantino's lawyers asked the Divisional Court panel to set aside an earlier ruling that the disciplinary proceedings should go ahead.
They wanted the stay until they can appeal to the courts next month that the adjudicator in the hearings is biased against Fantino and the panel agreed.
The officers' lawyer called the stay action an unprecedented attempt by Fantino to avoid further cross-examination about his handling of their situation.
The lawyer said there was no evidence the adjudicator was biased, and accused Fantino and his legal team of "cagey chess playing".
THE CANADIAN PRESS
A three-judge panel has decided OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino does not have to continue testifying at a disciplinary hearing against two officers.
Fantino was due back on the cross-examination hot seat tomorrow morning.
Fantino's lawyers asked the Divisional Court panel to set aside an earlier ruling that the disciplinary proceedings should go ahead.
They wanted the stay until they can appeal to the courts next month that the adjudicator in the hearings is biased against Fantino and the panel agreed.
The officers' lawyer called the stay action an unprecedented attempt by Fantino to avoid further cross-examination about his handling of their situation.
The lawyer said there was no evidence the adjudicator was biased, and accused Fantino and his legal team of "cagey chess playing".
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Deaths of OPP officer's family ruled 'accidental'
This is a truly sad story about a Great police officer!
Thu, December 4, 2008
By CARLA GARRETT,
WOODSTOCK — Holding back tears, Oxford Police Chief Ron Fraser spoke yesterday about a tough investigation into the accidental death by carbon monoxide poisoning of three members of a local police officer’s family.
Fraser said Richard Hawkins, 41, Jordan Hawkins, 12 and Cassandra Hawkins, 14, died accidentally from carbon-monoxide poisoning. A blockage in a gas fireplace in their Woodstock home was determined to be the source.
“All three victims were overcome and died as a result of circumstances consistent with carbon-monoxide poisoning,” said Fraser during a press conference at OCPS headquarters.
Investigators believe the family was initially overcome sometime Thursday night into Friday morning.
Laurie Hawkins, a well-known Oxford OPP officer, remains in “severe critical condition” Fraser said with tears welling in his eyes.
“Our thoughts and prayers of all members of the police community and the community of Woodstock are with her and her family.”
Police say a pipe in the inner-workings of the basement fireplace had become plugged with carbon. Once ignited, the fireplace filled the home with lethal levels of carbon monoxide.
“There was incomplete combustion of the fuel system,” said Det. Sgt. Paul Hess.
He said the family had been complaining of flu-like symptoms, consistent with CO poisoning, over the last couple weeks.
The investigation, which has spanned over three days, is now winding down.
Hess said he doesn’t expect any unexpected twists.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/12/04/7631116.html
Thu, December 4, 2008
By CARLA GARRETT,
WOODSTOCK — Holding back tears, Oxford Police Chief Ron Fraser spoke yesterday about a tough investigation into the accidental death by carbon monoxide poisoning of three members of a local police officer’s family.
Fraser said Richard Hawkins, 41, Jordan Hawkins, 12 and Cassandra Hawkins, 14, died accidentally from carbon-monoxide poisoning. A blockage in a gas fireplace in their Woodstock home was determined to be the source.
“All three victims were overcome and died as a result of circumstances consistent with carbon-monoxide poisoning,” said Fraser during a press conference at OCPS headquarters.
Investigators believe the family was initially overcome sometime Thursday night into Friday morning.
Laurie Hawkins, a well-known Oxford OPP officer, remains in “severe critical condition” Fraser said with tears welling in his eyes.
“Our thoughts and prayers of all members of the police community and the community of Woodstock are with her and her family.”
Police say a pipe in the inner-workings of the basement fireplace had become plugged with carbon. Once ignited, the fireplace filled the home with lethal levels of carbon monoxide.
“There was incomplete combustion of the fuel system,” said Det. Sgt. Paul Hess.
He said the family had been complaining of flu-like symptoms, consistent with CO poisoning, over the last couple weeks.
The investigation, which has spanned over three days, is now winding down.
Hess said he doesn’t expect any unexpected twists.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/12/04/7631116.html
Friday, November 28, 2008
How many nail's are needed for his own coffin?
Fantino will have to resume testifying at OPP hearing
Ontario's Divisional Court has rejected a move by the head of the OPP to stop a disciplinary hearing involving two high-ranking officers.
OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino was halfway through a tough cross-examination last month, facing accusations of abuse of power, when he tried to shut down the hearing, accusing the adjudicator of bias.
The hearing in Orillia was investigating whether Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Alison Jevons — who were charged with neglect of duty over their handling of an internal investigation in Eastern Ontario — are victims of a political witch hunt by Fantino and the OPP union.
On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Janet Wilson of Ontario's Divisional Court ruled against Fantino.
"Most importantly ... [the court] found that it was inappropriate to have stopped the proceedings midway into Commissioner Fantino's cross-examination for the purposes of going to the higher courts," said Julian Falconer, the lawyer for the two accused officers.
Falconer went on to say that he was relieved by the decision.
"I think these interruptions do nothing but create longer, larger proceedings and expenses that are simply crushing for these officers. They are anxious — from a reputation point of view and their ability to do their jobs as police officers — to bring this to an end," he said.
Fantino has said suggestions he is abusing his power are "hysterical nonsense."
MacDonald and Jevons were ordered to look into why OPP supervisors in Eastern Ontario looked the other way when a local officer allegedly took a baseball bat to his wife's car.
When MacDonald and Jevons concluded there was misconduct, the police union filed a complaint claiming major problems with the whole investigation. Fantino, then fresh to the commissioner's job, ordered a review of the findings. He later agreed with the union and charged the two senior officers with neglect of duty and deceit for their handling of the investigation.
In turn, the two officers have charged Fantino with abuse of power.
No date has been set for the resumption of the hearing. When it gets going again, Fantino is expected to return to the witness box to face more questions about his involvement in the case.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/28/opp-fantino.html
Ontario's Divisional Court has rejected a move by the head of the OPP to stop a disciplinary hearing involving two high-ranking officers.
OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino was halfway through a tough cross-examination last month, facing accusations of abuse of power, when he tried to shut down the hearing, accusing the adjudicator of bias.
The hearing in Orillia was investigating whether Supt. Ken MacDonald and Insp. Alison Jevons — who were charged with neglect of duty over their handling of an internal investigation in Eastern Ontario — are victims of a political witch hunt by Fantino and the OPP union.
On Thursday, Superior Court Judge Janet Wilson of Ontario's Divisional Court ruled against Fantino.
"Most importantly ... [the court] found that it was inappropriate to have stopped the proceedings midway into Commissioner Fantino's cross-examination for the purposes of going to the higher courts," said Julian Falconer, the lawyer for the two accused officers.
Falconer went on to say that he was relieved by the decision.
"I think these interruptions do nothing but create longer, larger proceedings and expenses that are simply crushing for these officers. They are anxious — from a reputation point of view and their ability to do their jobs as police officers — to bring this to an end," he said.
Fantino has said suggestions he is abusing his power are "hysterical nonsense."
MacDonald and Jevons were ordered to look into why OPP supervisors in Eastern Ontario looked the other way when a local officer allegedly took a baseball bat to his wife's car.
When MacDonald and Jevons concluded there was misconduct, the police union filed a complaint claiming major problems with the whole investigation. Fantino, then fresh to the commissioner's job, ordered a review of the findings. He later agreed with the union and charged the two senior officers with neglect of duty and deceit for their handling of the investigation.
In turn, the two officers have charged Fantino with abuse of power.
No date has been set for the resumption of the hearing. When it gets going again, Fantino is expected to return to the witness box to face more questions about his involvement in the case.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/28/opp-fantino.html
Thursday, November 27, 2008
McGuinty may be wearing out welcome as dad-in-chief
McGuinty may be wearing out welcome as dad-in-chief
November 26, 2008 Jim Coyle
David Ortiz might have to start sharing his nickname.
The Boston Red Sox slugger is known to fans as Big Papi -- the "big" self-evident, "papi" a term apparently used in his native Dominican Republic for "dude" or "buddy."
In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty may soon come to be known as Big Pappy -- in this case owing to a rather large streak of "father-knows-best-ism" in his Liberal government.
If the premier has developed a signature image, it's as a ban-happy control freak. The list of things that have fallen under his censorious eye is long and growing. Pit-bulls. Trans-fats. Lawn pesticides. Cigarette displays in convenience stores. Smoking in cars carrying children. Cellphones in cars.
Individually, many of these were uncontroversial, some even popular. Taken together, they reveal a mindset likely to make the province chafe just a bit.
Last week, as his government introduced proposed new restrictions on young drivers, McGuinty made a comment that probably revealed more than he intended.
The legislation would ban G2 drivers from carrying more than one teenage passenger during the first year; allow zero blood-alcohol in drivers 21 and younger; and increase sanctions against young drivers for any infraction.
"If that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until the reach the age of 22, then, as a dad, I am more than prepared to do that."
The premier has apparently appointed himself Ontario's dad-in-chief.
But judging by the firestorm of opposition to his legislation, McGuinty might have worn out his welcome as the province's Ward Cleaver.
There comes a point, as New Democrat Gilles Bisson noted in reaction to the introduction of the young driver bill, when politicians have to admit "we can't legislate everything."
In the end, McGuinty may be done in more by his fetish for risk-management and tidy-up time -- the incessant super-Dad --than anything he does or doesn't do on large matters of the economy.
Yesterday, Premier Dad was at it again when he was asked to comment on the huge opposition to the bill that's grown up among young people on Facebook.
The first part of his answer was bizarre. He applauded the participation of young people in the discussion about road safety. But he wanted to know "what responsibilities are they prepared to undertake to provide us with some assurances that they will do what they need to do to keep our roads safe?"
Talk about reverse onus. What's next? Having LCBO clerks demand assurances before making a sale that purchasers will not get tipsy?
The second part of the premier's answer was even odder.
He said he wasn't sure that young people would come to committees to make presentations at public hearings on the bill.
"I think we need to find a way to get onto Facebook. . . . I talk to my kids about this, they say: 'You're not going to make me go to a committee hearing, are you? When did you invent those, in the 1700s?' "
Let's leave aside the fact the premier has already banned civil servants from using Facebook and seems to have had a conversion experience on the merits of social networking.
Since when were premiers in the business of dissing a form of government that is a model for the world? Or a century in which a lot of really cool stuff was invented?
What next? Will the premier be mocking Confederation as an outdated concept because it happened, like, back in 1867, or whatever?
Not only is McGuinty subject to recurring doubts of Dad-ism. He's becoming that worst kind of middle-aged Dad --the Dad trying to be hip.
Jim Coyle writes on provincial affairs for Mercury news services.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/408843
November 26, 2008 Jim Coyle
David Ortiz might have to start sharing his nickname.
The Boston Red Sox slugger is known to fans as Big Papi -- the "big" self-evident, "papi" a term apparently used in his native Dominican Republic for "dude" or "buddy."
In Ontario, Premier Dalton McGuinty may soon come to be known as Big Pappy -- in this case owing to a rather large streak of "father-knows-best-ism" in his Liberal government.
If the premier has developed a signature image, it's as a ban-happy control freak. The list of things that have fallen under his censorious eye is long and growing. Pit-bulls. Trans-fats. Lawn pesticides. Cigarette displays in convenience stores. Smoking in cars carrying children. Cellphones in cars.
Individually, many of these were uncontroversial, some even popular. Taken together, they reveal a mindset likely to make the province chafe just a bit.
Last week, as his government introduced proposed new restrictions on young drivers, McGuinty made a comment that probably revealed more than he intended.
The legislation would ban G2 drivers from carrying more than one teenage passenger during the first year; allow zero blood-alcohol in drivers 21 and younger; and increase sanctions against young drivers for any infraction.
"If that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until the reach the age of 22, then, as a dad, I am more than prepared to do that."
The premier has apparently appointed himself Ontario's dad-in-chief.
But judging by the firestorm of opposition to his legislation, McGuinty might have worn out his welcome as the province's Ward Cleaver.
There comes a point, as New Democrat Gilles Bisson noted in reaction to the introduction of the young driver bill, when politicians have to admit "we can't legislate everything."
In the end, McGuinty may be done in more by his fetish for risk-management and tidy-up time -- the incessant super-Dad --than anything he does or doesn't do on large matters of the economy.
Yesterday, Premier Dad was at it again when he was asked to comment on the huge opposition to the bill that's grown up among young people on Facebook.
The first part of his answer was bizarre. He applauded the participation of young people in the discussion about road safety. But he wanted to know "what responsibilities are they prepared to undertake to provide us with some assurances that they will do what they need to do to keep our roads safe?"
Talk about reverse onus. What's next? Having LCBO clerks demand assurances before making a sale that purchasers will not get tipsy?
The second part of the premier's answer was even odder.
He said he wasn't sure that young people would come to committees to make presentations at public hearings on the bill.
"I think we need to find a way to get onto Facebook. . . . I talk to my kids about this, they say: 'You're not going to make me go to a committee hearing, are you? When did you invent those, in the 1700s?' "
Let's leave aside the fact the premier has already banned civil servants from using Facebook and seems to have had a conversion experience on the merits of social networking.
Since when were premiers in the business of dissing a form of government that is a model for the world? Or a century in which a lot of really cool stuff was invented?
What next? Will the premier be mocking Confederation as an outdated concept because it happened, like, back in 1867, or whatever?
Not only is McGuinty subject to recurring doubts of Dad-ism. He's becoming that worst kind of middle-aged Dad --the Dad trying to be hip.
Jim Coyle writes on provincial affairs for Mercury news services.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/408843
Monday, November 17, 2008
Love the plugs from a greiving Father
Sure I'm sympathetic for the death of anyone especially young adults who's parents lack parenting skillls, and just throw cash at adolesence.
We have Mr. Mulcahy, who buys his son a car with more horsepower then anyone would ever need on any road in the GTA, I can only dream of having a such car, a car that I would never be able to afford for that matter.
So his son sits in a bar up north, gets pissed up with a few friends, drinking booze like prohibition was about to be enacted!
Hops into the car pissed up, that Daddy bought him,smashed into a guarddrail, down the embankment and dies a horrific death with his two friends, luckily his girlfriend escaped with minor injuries.
I wonder if Mr. Mulcahy paid his son's insurance or bar tab, where was the server's head when serving these young ADULTS, so many questions and all we get is yellow journalism at it's finest!
Does anyone have any pictures of Father Mulcahy without him plugging his company?
And anyone can get a private members BILL passed with a pocket full of cash just ask the Dalton Gang and view BILL126!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
