Sky - City Fire Pre #5

Signature Ad

Sign. Minute Muffler

Sign/Anishnawbe Mushkiki

Skyscraper-newswatch (except CFNO)

CKPR - Cruisin Crew 2014

Click here to see more
Community Calendar
Click here for full listings.
Have the increased event centre costs prompted you to change your mind supporting the project?

Total Votes: 426
View Results Past Polls
User Submitted Photo Gallery
Submit Your Own Photos
2012-04-21 at 9:00 AM

Police lay three impaired driving charges overnight

By Leith Dunick, TB Newswatch
St. Joseph FoundationGrand A Day Draw tickets are now on sale. $1,000 daily draws in November. Grand Prize draw is for $10,000. License #M738339Click Here

An alleged impaired driver spent the night in custody and faces several charges after a stolen SUV was driven through the fence of a business on Cameron Street.

The driver fled the scene, but was soon located by police hiding in the area.

He's been charged with possession of stolen property, impaired driving and failing to provide breath samples.

It was one of three accidents involving alleged impaired drivers police investigated overnight. In one incident a female driver struck a parked car, while in the other a male driver struck a light standard on Lillie Street.

Both have been charged with impaired driving and will be in court to answer the charges next month.
No one was hurt in any of the incidents.

Police have not named any of the suspects.

Click here to submit a letter to the editor.

Click here to report a typo or error

Banner/Vector Construction


We've improved our comment system.
whyme says:
why impose penalties if they give them a 2 for one? To me this crime was violent in nature. What kind of mental scarring does the victom have in this? You do the do the time
4/21/2012 10:21:59 AM
mikevirtanen1961 says:
If they are not in pre-trial custody, they will not be eligible for 2-for-1. No penalties have been imposed because they have not gone to trial.
4/22/2012 11:12:46 AM
homelessteen says:
Using the same logic as the needle exchange program, shouldn't we have an impaired driving lane for harm reduction?
Because you know, alcoholism is a disease and all.
You losers must make your parents proud.
4/21/2012 10:33:22 AM
hockeyskates says:

22% of Thunder Bay's population are HEAVY DRINKERS. I guess you are bound to run into them on a Friday night. Always assume the other guy is hammered and drive defensively.

4/21/2012 11:19:17 AM
sc says:
People just don't get it do they?

Driving after drinking is not cool!!!
4/21/2012 11:54:10 AM
unknowncronic says:
Im pretty sure ALCOHOL should be more of a concern than ALL the oxy's in Thunder Bay...too bad everyone likes it soo much, even the judges!
4/21/2012 12:52:39 PM
DazeofThunder says:
They must have been out celebrating their victory over the Bicyclists....glad I wasn't out biking on those real safe streets
4/21/2012 1:09:26 PM says:
Well, after they serve the mandatory 7 day licence suspension, they will back on the road!
4/21/2012 1:37:06 PM
2cent says:
Really? Won't they be put on an officer in charge undertaking not to operate a motor vehicle until they have dealt with the matter in court?
4/21/2012 4:01:44 PM
jimmyboy says:
I liked the way in which tbnewswatch reported on the drug arrests recently....and would like to see the same type of total disclosure when it comes to this and all crime in Thunder Bay.
4/21/2012 1:54:30 PM
outsider9 says:
Glad no one got hurt or killed. Another great job to the guys and gals of the thunder bay police for getting these idiots off the street. Time to sober up monkeys...
4/21/2012 2:26:26 PM
thunderbaycouncel says:
little do these kids/adults know that if they didnt have a criminal record before...they do now! stay off the streets before you kill someone! idiots. sucks you wont be able to leave the country eh. dummys.
4/21/2012 2:54:29 PM
glock9 says:
Only 3, what are you insane, every bar in town you watch piles of ppl leave, get in their cars and drive away, get real.
4/21/2012 3:33:30 PM
localdog says:
Don't like seeing anyone post incorrect information, and I'm not supporting drinking and driving by any means, but a dui record will not prevent someone from leaving the country (at least in to the US) if that is the only thing on their record.

"At this time, driving under the influence, breaking and entering, disorderly conduct and simple assault are not considered crimes that make a person inadmissible to the U.S., although if there are multiple convictions and or other misdemeanors, you could be denied entry."

4/21/2012 4:00:41 PM
yer joking says:
When are people going to learn that impaired driving and auto theft are bad things to do? What kind of roll model are these people setting for the younger generation and what about the rest of the week aren,t people getting drunk then too? Why aren't the Police watching for the drinkers if there are so many out there? It is very confusing when you step back and look at it!
4/21/2012 5:22:06 PM
thunderbaycouncel says:
oh yes it does prevent you from going into the US. Ive seen it happen. Criminal record. Your screwed. Up to the person who you meet at the border though, 99.9% dont allow it.
4/21/2012 5:42:46 PM
dizzy wizzard says:
you people crack me up 7 day mandatory suspension, warn them not to drive till at least after their court appearance. The SUV was STOLEN you think the twit that stold it cares about even having a license?
4/21/2012 11:13:01 PM
sparrow says:
F.Y.I. it's actually an automatic 90 day suspension for impaired driving not 7 day...not that having a license will stop them from driving anyways.
4/22/2012 1:29:52 AM
anonnymouse says:
One thing that saddens me is the sheer number of well known business people/local residents who go for drinks after work and then drive home. So many of them continue to do it week after week and never get caught. What a poor example our "pillars of society" are setting for the rest of us.
Thank goodness no one was injured in these weekend incidents. It is a shame about the stolen vehicle and the property damage that was a result of the wreckless behaviour.
4/22/2012 8:16:59 AM
Rugged Dude says:
Facts speak for themselves. Check this out...

In the 1970s and 1980s, the number of impaired driving charges and convictions had decreased compared to earlier years. But, since the 1990s, the rates have actually INCREASED slightly, showing that the current penalties are not getting the message across.

Since the new millennium, there has been an average of approximately 53,000 Canadian drivers charged with impaired driving. There are approximately 3,000 Canadians killed on our roads each year, with, on average 1200 (40%) of those killed by drunk drivers.

That’s right - three KILLED per day or ONE EVERY EIGHT HOURS. Not to mention those people who have been badly injured or permanently disabled, or disfigured.

Imagine how many others have been affected by this completely avoidable mess – the families and friends of those injured or killed.

One more post coming... I'm on rugged roll this morning...

Rugged Dude

4/22/2012 9:16:09 AM
Rugged Dude says:
Something else I've been thinking about recently... about the roadside "warning laws."

Currently, a driver who blows a "warning" between .05 mg% and .08 mg% can receive a suspension of between 3 and 30 days. (I think I'm accurate here, but maybe not precise. Close enough for this purpose however.)

Here is my Rugged Dude Recommendation:

Any driver who blowns into a roadside screening device between .05 mg% and .08 mg% will have their driver’s licence suspended for 90 days, REGARDLESS.

And, will receive a fine of $500.

And, will be required to partake in an educational program illustrating the dangers of driving while impaired.

The real reason for the educational course? To inconvenience the hell out of the idiot and bring 'em back down to earth. Surely, they'll not want to go through that again...

And, if losing their licence for 90 days means they can't get to work? TOO BAD!

How about this - THINK before you drive. ZERO TOLERANCE.

Rugged Dude
4/22/2012 9:30:34 AM
Random says:
So where is your due process for this? It's conviction w/o trial by your method.
You are putting 100% faith that the roadside is working properly. No where else do you have something that effects you so much without having your day in court.
go without your car for 90 days, waste time in a course higher insurance rates and a fine, all without your day in court.
Does that sound fair?
I understand your logic, just seems to violate the sacred charter.
4/22/2012 6:01:45 PM
timetogo says:
Are you kidding me? ZERO TOLERANCE?

If someone gets in an accident and kills somebody after having 2 drinks, is that the deciding factor in the accident? What about the person who has 2 drinks, drives home and has a swell day?

Hey RD, you like these ludicrous actions against drivers who have had A drink (not drunk drivers)then why not extend your recommedations a bit further. I mean the law is the law, right? Ever speed anywhere?

Anyone caught driving 51 km/h in a 50 zone, 91km/h in a 90, etc., kiss your license goodbye, hello criminal record and don't forget about the $1000's in fines.

No turn signal, whoa, lookout, you're screwed now! Minimum 90 day suspension and a court appearance as to why should be a llowed to drive. Don't even get me started on having a burnt out head light!

4/22/2012 1:04:14 PM
keep it real says:
as a guy that enjoys a couple beers now and then and takes a cab home
I gotta comment on this foolishness
things like " THINK before you drive. ZERO TOLERANCE."
show how out of touch with reality you really are
The local drug scene is far worse and more destructive than any drinking infractions period.
The city is littered with needles, kids are working the streets for drug money
ask the shelter house or points about the number of iv drug users here
I'm sorry but in my opinion MADD Canada WAS a great organizatin but has now become a grief fueled political monster.
Girls arent working the streets for beer money and I hate the fact that a responsible adult has to question wether to have wine with dinner because of a STUPID 0.05 limit.
When there are shelters giving out junkie starter sets to our children
Lets hear all the MADD sheep start whining, until they see one of their daughters out "working"

4/22/2012 2:18:04 PM
Rugged Dude says:
I agree with most of what you're saying. MADD used to be good and now it's mainly a political farce.

And, when people discuss drunk driving laws, it is assummed that drugs are also part of the picture. Impaired driving rather than "drunk driving." Covers it all.

I don't think .05% is stupid. Science and research tells us that a typical person would be impaired at that level, impaired enough that one should not be driving cars, boats, snowmobiles, ATVs or even riding lawn mowers.
4/22/2012 5:38:49 PM
Rugged Dude says:
To Timetogo...

Actually, if a driver is allowed to have up to .05 mg%, then that IS some tolerance, no? So, when I mentioned zero tolerance, I meant after above the .05 mg% mark. Obviously.

You mentioned two drinks. I know alot of people who are giggling their asses off after two drinks. Maybe not you, but many people, especially younger people who don't drink much.

Your statement about "driving 51 km in a 50 km zone" is a ridiculous arguement. We're talking about drunk driving here. Do you not think that when three people are killed every day in Canada by drunk drivers that we don't need to crack down? REALLY crack down? I do.

I am still surprised to see people defending drinking and driving these days, even if in a small way. Holy blanking blank.
4/22/2012 3:10:26 PM
stairwayto7 says:
@ glock9 - Just because people leave the bar, get in their cars and drive doesn't mean there drunk. There is responsible people that do not drink when they go to the bar. Some go to just socialize, some are DD for their friends. Do not presume that everyone leaving the bar and driving away in their vehicles are drunk.
4/22/2012 7:39:36 PM
wayne says:
drinking and driving is ALWAYS a recipe for disaster. And those who say, "I only had a couple of drinks", are losers when they get behind the wheel.
4/22/2012 8:13:49 PM
wayne says:
keep it real: in one breath you say you take a cab home after having a couple of beers, and in the next breath you whine about adults having to question wine with dinner. drinking and driving is never a good mix. you just don't get it.
4/22/2012 10:39:36 PM
ThunderBayFullOfCrime says:
I'm guessing the posters who drink and drive and stick up for that behavior have never lost a loved one to a drunk driver. You can say what you want but MADD, regardless of who is behind it still sends a message loud and clear, a message of loved ones lost to drunk driving. Its a symbol and a reminder of the people who were hurt and families destroyed by alcohol.

I don't defend drinking and driving.
4/22/2012 10:53:16 PM
wayne says:
p.s. one beer = one glass of wine = one shot (ounce) of liquor. 'keep it real', i doubt that you always take a cab home after a 'couple' of beers. let us know where your favourite watering hole is so we can avoid being on nearby streets when you drive home drunk at noon.
4/22/2012 10:54:56 PM
unknowncronic says:
Yea Rugged Dude, seems too many peeps here in Thunder Bay love ALCOHOL way too much & still think it's ok to DRINK & DRIVE after a few drinks.

These are the same alcoholics that shun marijuana, even though for some it's LEGAL with a licence in Canada.

I've never heard of a Dr. writing a script for ALCOHOL, just an alcoholic Dr..

Make thier ALCOHOL ILLEGAL & watch how many would break the law & make thier own in the bathtub...

Most that post on here have an alcoholic drink in thier hands while posting anyways & would fight tooth n nail about thier friend "alcohol" & how it helps them thru the day...
4/23/2012 1:35:35 AM
timetogo says:
If .06mg% is considered to be the point at which a person has impaired their ability to safely operate a vehicle, ("drunk driving" sounds better but not realistic), then at what speed has this impairment occurred? 2km/h over the posted limit? 3 or 4 km/h over?

I'm well aware that alcohol affects some people more so than others. As does many other outside influences. Many people are a severe road hazard due to their inabilty to safely merge into traffic. However, the excellent driver behind said person, who uses turn signals, executes proper shoulder checks,and accelerates smoothly up to the posted speed limit is quite possibly the most heinous criminal on the road because they had a cocktail over lunch. (.05mg%)

At what speed have you impaired your ability to safely operate a vehicle and committed an offence? Is it beyond the legal posted limit?

It's ironic how some people want to crackdown on one law but ride your bumper, honking the horn if you won't break another.
4/23/2012 10:27:13 AM
jwo2854 says:
No wonder cyclists prefer sidewalks to bike lanes. They don't stand a chance against an impaired driver.
4/23/2012 11:53:18 AM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In