Montreal City Weblog

Kate 18:22 on 2024-03-02 Permalink Reply  

• Nicholas 18:55 on 2024-03-02 Permalink

  They don’t say if his licence will even be suspended, but this unnamed dangerous luxury car driver gets to brag to his friends about being called “un jeune cowboy” in the press, so I guess that’s punishment enough.

• JP 19:57 on 2024-03-02 Permalink

  I don’t really understand why there aren’t charges…sounds like reckless driving to me. I live a 10-minute walk from there… this could’ve been way worse. So glad nobody else except the occupants of the cars were hurt.

• MtlWeb 22:57 on 2024-03-02 Permalink

  These three probably kept the trauma service in ER busy all afternoon and possibly into the night, along with radiology (CT and x-ray) services, and likely the OR and ICU…including all of the staff that work in those care units. Their urgent needs for diagnostic imaging would take priority over the other ER patients….thus further delays for their own scans/films.
  If they needed surgery based on their presentation, they would then be sent upstairs as soon as a theatre room was ready….perhaps that room had planned to do a case that had been waiting while admitted on the wards….but depending upon the duration of the trauma OR(s), this case would then be pushed back to later in the evening/night or cancelled to be re-booked another day.
  The collateral damage to our system and the patients waiting for care when reckless activities requiring urgent health care present themselves.

• Kate 11:30 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  If they all went to the same ER, you’d be right. I have no idea whether that was likely.

• Uatu 12:06 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  I really hate the romanticization of reckless driving through the use of “cowboy”. I’ve heard cops using the term especially as descriptions of drivers during the construction holiday. What they should be called are inconsiderate aholes.
  Also quit using English or reduce tuition at McGill and Concordia you hypocrites.

• Tim S. 14:12 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  I wonder if the lack of charges is because the police are uncertain about their survival prospects. I’m usually pretty critical of the unwillingness to take dangerous driving seriously, but I find it hard to believe they would so quickly rule them out otherwise, especially with so many witnesses.

  I also wish the police would start using drones to look out for reckless drivers – not just speeding but the weaving, tail gateing etc. Given the resolution that’s out there these days, and the relative cheapness of the drones, it would be super-easy to implement a system similar to photo radar where, even if you can’t/shouldn’t intercept the vehicle, you can mail a ticket to the owner. But that would require political will.

• H. John 16:56 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  The article doesn’t give enough information to conclude that there will be no charges. It states “on a toutefois mentionné qu’aucune accusation criminelle”. There will be no criminal charges which is the most severe form of charge. There will likely be penal charges under Quebec’s Highway Code.

• H. John 17:05 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  Reckless or dangerous driving (federal, criminal), careless driving (provincial, penal).

  Careless driving charges can lead to demerit points, loss of licence, fines, and jail time.

• Kate 17:34 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  H. John, I try not to be anti-car, but I’ve had the impression that most judges feel that taking away a person’s licence is an extreme punishment, and that it’s understood that most people simply have to be allowed to drive, even if they’ve made serious and even fatal mistakes. Am I wrong?

• H. John 18:05 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  @Kate Sorry I haven’ seen any statistics on that. I do think that since the only times it seems to get reported is when a judge decides to not suspend it, for example because of work, it leaves an unfair picture of the norms.

• Blork 22:25 on 2024-03-03 Permalink

  Speculating, but maybe the idea that having both your car and your body wrecked is enough of a deterrent, given that no bystanders were hurt. Maybe it would be different if the driver hadn’t been injured (in which case more deterrence would be needed), or of they had injured or killed a bystander. But if the point of punishment is to deter, then maybe (maybe) they’ve fulfilled their quota in this case. (I’m not necessarily saying that would be my choice if it were up to me; just trying to understand the thinking.)

• Joey 11:21 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  @Tim S., 25 years ago I was on a work trip to Saratoga Springs. My boss, who was driving one of two cars in our little convoy, was going about 85 mph, well above both the NY state speed limit and the ‘buffer’ that border county cops will tolerate. We got pulled over and he got hit with a big ticket, though unlike in some counties he didn’t have to pay it on the sport. The cop who pulled us over did so while we were driving somewhat below 85 (but still enough above the 65 mph limit to warrant a ticket), but he told us that ‘the chopper’ had recorded us a few miles back – they must’ve radioed down to a cop in a cruiser further down the road who was waiting for us.

  The point being, it’s amazing how intense law enforcement can be when the default position is that curbing a certain kind of bad behaviour is warranted. I assume the entire northern NY highway patrol budget is designed to max out fines for Canadians. If the SPVM, SQ, etc., wanted to cut speeding, they absolutely could invest in the tools to catch speeders consistently – and make a solid return on that investment.

• Ian 11:36 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  @Uatu Bye bye mon Cowboy

• MarcG 12:45 on 2024-03-04 Permalink

  @Joey: The same could be said about any kind of prevention. Invest the resources up front and save lives and money down the line.