I have proposed, for inattentive driving, similar roadside penalties as are imposed on impaired drivers.

To avoid unfair application, I proposed that they be imposed only 香蕉视频直播渋n that ridiculous rear-ender scenario that 香蕉视频直播榦n the face of it香蕉视频直播� could not have occurred had the rear-ending driver been attentive.香蕉视频直播�

The penalties would not be applied on the basis of any particular distracting behaviour, but on the basis of an actual collision.

The proof of the inattentive driving is in the pudding, so to speak.

If there is any uncertainty about how the collision occurred香蕉视频直播攁ny alternative explanation for the rear-ending collision besides a glaring lack of attention to the road ahead, no penalty would be imposed.

My proposal raises the issue what those alternative explanations might be.

The very recent court decision of Bingul vs. Youngson, 2016 BCSC 1868, released October 12, 2016, gives us an example.

Mr. Bingul香蕉视频直播檚 1991 Toyota Corolla was rear-ended by a tandem axle dump truck driven by Mr. Youngson.

The truck, along with the excavator-loaded trailer it was pulling, had a total combined weight estimated at 44,000 kgs.

The Toyota weighed something under 1,500 kg.

Mr. Bingul says that he stopped behind other traffic at a red light and the truck stopped behind him.

After two to three minutes, the light turned green. Before traffic ahead of him had cleared, the truck struck his car from behind.

Mr. Youngson tells a completely different story.  He says that he had a clear lane ahead of him as he was approaching a traffic light that had turned yellow, and that he had been braking and down-shifting to prepare to stop.

When he was about 30 feet from the stop line, sufficient distance to bring 44,000 kg of truck and trailer safely to a stop, Mr. Bingul cut in front of his truck, cutting his stopping distance in half.

Madam Justice Baker reviewed the case law that has developed with regard to rear-ender collisions.

She started with the following quote from a previous case: 香蕉视频直播溝憬妒悠抵辈ウwhen one vehicle hits another from behind, the onus is on the driver of the rear vehicle to show that the collision was not caused by his or her fault香蕉视频直播ο憬妒悠抵辈��.

She continued with this quote from the same case: 香蕉视频直播淏ut while liability for a rear end collision usually rests entirely with the following driver, that is not an invariable result香蕉视频直播ο憬妒悠抵辈��

What do you do, as a judge, when you have two people with completely different stories about what happened?

Madam Justice Baker noted that 香蕉视频直播溝憬妒悠抵辈ウthe assessment of the credibility of the two versions of events offered by the two drivers must depend on the internal consistency of their testimony and the consistency of their testimony with other testimony and evidence香蕉视频直播�.

After reviewing all the evidence, Madam Justice Baker decided to accept the version of events given by Mr. Youngson.

She concluded as follows: 香蕉视频直播淢r. Bingul was aware that there was a large and heavy vehicle in the lane.

香蕉视频直播淚 conclude that it was solely Mr. Bingul香蕉视频直播檚 sudden and negligent move into the lane of travel of Mr. Youngson香蕉视频直播檚 large and heavy vehicle that created the risk of collision and resulted in the accident.香蕉视频直播�

This is a lesson to those who dart in and out of traffic in an effort to get to the very front of the line at an intersection.

Big trucks can香蕉视频直播檛 stop on a dime, and you put yourself in danger when you dart in front of 44,000 kg of truck that香蕉视频直播檚 slowing for a light.

Another lesson is that some people really are dishonest enough that two completely different stories can be told about the same collision.

It is advisable to get the names and contact information of witnesses at the scene of a collision even if, from your perspective, liability could not possibly go against you.

There is always the possibility that the offending driver will lie through their teeth.