New Street Racing Bill

[shabby]

http://www.frank-klees.on.ca/CurrentIssues/StreetRacing.htm


172.1 (1) If a police officer has reason to believe that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in a race, the officer may,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence;

(b) order the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person to be impounded; or

(c) both request the surrender of the driver’s licence as provided in clause (a) and order the motor vehicle to be impounded as provided in clause (b).

Best part...


No appeal or review
(9) There is no appeal or review from a licence suspension or impound order under this section.

:rolleyes:

[TheOneDealer]

i think its stupid, people are going to street race no matter what law there is. if people really wanted to do something, no bill will stop them, i just think all of these restrictions and such just make people want to take a bigger risk. if u want to end street racing, why make cars that go faster than 120? i mean companies make cars that go 180+ with crazy hp numbers, thats the problem with laws, they put the blame on the easiest victims, why not look at the companies that make these overpowered sports cars.

[KorruptioN]

No appeal at all? The whole law is subjective in the officer's eyes, and if he feels like doing a little damage to somebody who may in fact be innocent, he'll have all the power to.

[masterballer]

stupied law ... what idiots, who votes for these idiot?

[gordholio]

Great law. The streets are not for racing.
If people want to race, get sponsors and a race car and become a driver at an official race track.
The streets are made for a purpose - going to and fro - not for someone's joyrides.

Also, they way they make cars go so fast, it invites this street racing.
There's no need for cars to go over a certain speed.

[m77m7]

i think its stupid, people are going to street race no matter what law there is. if people really wanted to do something, no bill will stop them, i just think all of these restrictions and such just make people want to take a bigger risk. if u want to end street racing, why make cars that go faster than 120? i mean companies make cars that go 180+ with crazy hp numbers, thats the problem with laws, they put the blame on the easiest victims, why not look at the companies that make these overpowered sports cars.
So races that take place in smaller lengths where they don't go higher than 120 is ok? A race can be very brief and doesn't necessarily mean speeds reach higher than 120. Making a cause for preventing guns from being sold to people other than law enforcement is much more worthwhile.

[PCDawg]

Great law. The streets are not for racing.
If people want to race, get sponsors and a race car and become a driver at an official race track.
The streets are made for a purpose - going to and fro - not for someone's joyrides.

Also, they way they make cars go so fast, it invites this street racing.
There's no need for cars to go over a certain speed.

But its not fair in terms of not having an appeal. Sure i have a car that i have modifed both in terms of aesthetics and engine-wise to get more hp and torque. But do i street race? No. I have a 2 1/2 year old son which i transport in my car and i dont want to do something stupid where it will risk my life and I wont be able to enjoy watching my son grow up.

I've had cops ons streets follow me and i can see that they were running my paltes in their computers to see if I have any traffic convictions and when they drive up beside me they see a kid in the back.

If One day i dont have my kid in there and they say that I was street racing and pull my liscense, its over for me?? Becuase i mod my car for the fun of it and not to punk around the streets and look for competition?

If i want that i take it to the track or drag strip...

Yes true...cars they making nowadays are too fast. Look at the new BMW 3-series coupe...crazy 300hp or the new Mazdaspeed 3 .... turbo'ed 240hp engine. Or the soon to be released Nissan Skyline GTR, a pure sports car. If they want to do soemthing go after the car manufacteres and reduce the hp output. Every year it increases and they all try to best each other but making bigger faster engines.

[evolution921]

172.1 (1) If a police officer has reason to believe that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in a race, the officer may,

So I guess they can impound any car they want, since any car could have been "driven" in a race. They can just randomly pull over someone in a BMW M3 or Corvette and claim that they have reasons to believe that they have driven the vehicle in a race and impound their car because they don't like certain people driving certain cars.

[masterballer]

Great law. The streets are not for racing.
If people want to race, get sponsors and a race car and become a driver at an official race track.
The streets are made for a purpose - going to and fro - not for someone's joyrides.

Also, they way they make cars go so fast, it invites this street racing.
There's no need for cars to go over a certain speed.


if u dont mind me askin, how old are you? you sound like ur atleast 40+ .... your not gonna get pulled over, but me being 18 and driving a car that is a target for cops dont like this, i can get pulled over and impounded for no reason if a cop wants to be a dik so yea, its not a fair law at all.

[Sonbuster]

if you want to street race, get a low profile car, such as a dodge shadow, geo metro, buick park avenue, oldsmobile 88, pontiac 6000 etc. pop in a super/turbocharger and NOS system. and you're set. you'll never get pulled over. cops are out looking for civics and other street imports.

[Hula]

Sorry guys but many folks like me, like this law a lot!!! I too used to have a riced up vehicle 10 years ago and anyone who drives a modded up car who says they don't race, simply don't get it. When you drive a car with flashy paint, a CAI, cat-back exhaust and a wing the size of fricking Texas, there is a greater likelihood you're going to push the rules of the road more so than the average Joe. If you say you're not, you're kidding yourself. I have ricer friends and they all do this. They despise being targeted by police, but they wear a giant F'ing bulls-eye right on their car!!! It reads as potential "intent" right on your bumper each time ya hit the street.

If you want to play the game, be prepared to have the rules changed on you.

Let's be honest, there have simply been too many damn street racing incidents of late and many people are losing their lives, or the ability to live life to the fullest extent as a result. I also find it ironic that most of the punks going up and down the road at unsafe speeds risking the lives of others folks are the ones that survive when an accident occurs.

Yeah....perhaps the new law isn't the most effective new law to hit the books in the past 20 years, but the intent is to stop street racing and that's not likely going to happen if they make it too easy for folks being caught to get off on a technicality, or to give them an appeals process to follow.

If you street race and you hurt or kill someone else on a public street, rot in jail for all I care. I'm confident I'm not in the minority for saying this, just a little more outspoken than some others.

Street racing is as bad as "drinking and driving". It's out and out stupidity that risks the lives of those others who can't control what you or any other moron goes out and does on the road. If you disagree, you'll likely be the one caught for racing and you'll probably find very little support from the public when you try to plead your case.

[ElvaSoShexai]

i agree street racing is bad. but this bill just has way too many flaws... to me it just seems like they gave up on preventing gun violence and need something to make up for their failure

i think they've tried this in several other cities down south and it actually worked in lowering street racing:

build (or just have some empty space) a track IN TORONTO (autox/drag whatever) where people can go for the weekends to race OFF the street at an affordable price

[MrDisco]

Great law. The streets are not for racing.
If people want to race, get sponsors and a race car and become a driver at an official race track.
The streets are made for a purpose - going to and fro - not for someone's joyrides.

Also, they way they make cars go so fast, it invites this street racing.
There's no need for cars to go over a certain speed.

agree 100%. heck i dont think it goes far enough - i'ld force manufacturers to limit cars from exceeding 130 km/h and placing a limit on horsepower. then i'ld crack down hard on engine mods.

[VivienM]

if u dont mind me askin, how old are you? you sound like ur atleast 40+ .... your not gonna get pulled over, but me being 18 and driving a car that is a target for cops dont like this, i can get pulled over and impounded for no reason if a cop wants to be a dik so yea, its not a fair law at all.

Why are you driving a car "that is a target for cops"?

What makes this car "a target for cops"?

If the answer to both questions is the same... then perhaps the author of this bill has a point.

[Shaner]

i agree street racing is bad. but this bill just has way too many flaws... to me it just seems like they gave up on preventing gun violence and need something to make up for their failure

i think they've tried this in several other cities down south and it actually worked in lowering street racing:

build (or just have some empty space) a track IN TORONTO (autox/drag whatever) where people can go for the weekends to race OFF the street at an affordable price

There already is a track in Toronto.

[Makaveli2k]

I think this law was really thought up in a matter of minutes and not thought through. If a officer see's a car that has been modified and going down the highway.. how does he determine if that vehicle has been racing? so cops get all pull over happy and stop every modified car on the highway accusing them of streetracing and there is nothing that driver can do about it, because you can't prove that you have or you haven't only goes on the police officers guess. Stupid Stupid government... seriously What do some people see in the conservatives!

[Shaner]

I think this law was really thought up in a matter of minutes and not thought through. If a officer see's a car that has been modified and going down the highway.. how does he determine if that vehicle has been racing? so cops get all pull over happy and stop every modified car on the highway accusing them of streetracing and there is nothing that driver can do about it, because you can't prove that you have or you haven't only goes on the police officers guess. Stupid Stupid government... seriously What do some people see in the conservatives!

Wow, do you realize how dumb of a comment you just made?
Everything relating to driving is jurisdiction of the provincial government. Do you know who the provincial government is in Ontario? It's the Liberals!

So now do you want to change your statement to "What do some people see in the Liberals?"

Besides, the police can't go around just impounding cars for no reason. Sure, laws can be made left and right, but judges can just as easily strike them down.
Unless you are/were actually racing, you have nothing to worry about.

[masterballer]

Why are you driving a car "that is a target for cops"?

What makes this car "a target for cops"?

If the answer to both questions is the same... then perhaps the author of this bill has a point.


my car is a pos, only thing i got in there is a cold air intake that cost 90$....dosent even add my HP, its a 106 HP civic hatch, AUTO but since its a civic its a target....

[kingsley]

Besides, the police can't go around just impounding cars for no reason. Sure, laws can be made left and right, but judges can just as easily strike them down.
Unless you are/were actually racing, you have nothing to worry about.

According to the new law they can. And since there is no appeal process, how is anybody going to find out if people are getting punished for no reason?

[VivienM]

my car is a pos, only thing i got in there is a cold air intake that cost 90$....dosent even add my HP, its a 106 HP civic hatch, AUTO but since its a civic its a target....

Let's be reasonable here... there are plenty of Civics being driven by like... older women and others who would never race. It's been the best-selling (or close) car in this country for a very long time.

Do you seriously think a stock (or visibly/audibly stock, at least) Civic is going to be much of a target?

Now, if you had lots of visible mods, it'd be a different story...

[Shaner]

According to the new law they can. And since there is no appeal process, how is anybody going to find out if people are getting punished for no reason?

I'll wait until more info comes out or it's applied.
I guess I have more faith in our legal system than that. That's unconstitutional. And don't kid yourself, anything can be taken in front of a judge if the judge will hear it.
There may not be an official appeal process under this law (is it law yet?), but it doesn't mean there won't be other means available to fight back.

[Premium Dude]

I think this law would be decent if they it implied to only being caught in the act of racing. Any car could be suspect to racing in the past. Hell I know many 40+ year olds who have raced on the street, as well as 18-25 year olds. They may only be light to light races, but nonetheless they have still raced. The one getting the ticket will be the 18-25 year old though.
I personally modify my car because it is a hobby. As hard as it may be for some of you to believe, I always do the speed limit. In fact I am usually slowest on the street. I also have an aftermarket turbo, full suspension, and a few other minor things. So to a cop my car might look "suspicious" from the outside, but really I obey the law. Am I not allowed to modify my car for personal pleasure?
This whole modified car thing is getting rediculous.
Oh and to those who say limit the car's output directly from the manufacturer, thats a horrible idea. Horsepower and torque affect acceleration. Only thing you do by limiting that is making it slower for me to reach dangerous speeds.
As for lowering the speed governor to I dunno, 100? That still won't work. Unless 100 is the speed limit everywhere. Because otherwise I can just do 100 in a 40 zone, and its still speeding.

[masterballer]

Let's be reasonable here... there are plenty of Civics being driven by like... older women and others who would never race. It's been the best-selling (or close) car in this country for a very long time.

Do you seriously think a stock (or visibly/audibly stock, at least) Civic is going to be much of a target?

Now, if you had lots of visible mods, it'd be a different story...

yea but they look out for civic more often, if i get pulled over in a civic and im 18 there is more chance of them giving me a bigger ticket or not cutting some slack cause im a 18 yr old civic driver, now if i have a few mods hear and there this law would suck for me if the officer is a dick.

[konfusion666]

The proposed law is flawed and has no place in our justice system for 2 main reasons:

- it relies completely and totally upon the possibly unreliable opinion of a single police officer

- there is no appeals process

It should be pretty obvious in what ways it needs to be changed before it becomes a fair and reasonable addition to the books. In it's current state, it won't pass.

[masterballer]

The proposed law is flawed and has no place in our justice system for 2 main reasons:

- it relies completely and totally upon the possibly unreliable opinion of a single police officer

- there is no appeals process

It should be pretty obvious in what ways it needs to be changed before it becomes a fair and reasonable addition to the books. In it's current state, it won't pass.


thank you... :)

[coyori]

One way to get around this is to make your car a "sleeper" - ordinary on the outside, but suped up inside.

Where I live, '89 Honda CRX's with farting mufflers litter the street. Yes it's an eyesore, but that doesn't mean these guys are a threat on the street. If anything, they cause more commotion than actual accidents.

[B0000rt]

So this law goes into effect, which makes people more 'scared' to street race, meaning less street racing will go on, meaning less accidents will occur, and the under 25 age group for insurance will decrease?

I'm all for it, if that's the truth.

[UrbanPoet]

i think its stupid, people are going to street race no matter what law there is. if people really wanted to do something, no bill will stop them, i just think all of these restrictions and such just make people want to take a bigger risk. if u want to end street racing, why make cars that go faster than 120? i mean companies make cars that go 180+ with crazy hp numbers, thats the problem with laws, they put the blame on the easiest victims, why not look at the companies that make these overpowered sports cars.

lol... thats dumb.... The last big story on street racing where the mom/dad of a baby girl was killed in a street racing accident... actually involved a Honda Civic with rims and a MINI van...

[VivienM]

So this law goes into effect, which makes people more 'scared' to street race, meaning less street racing will go on, meaning less accidents will occur, and the under 25 age group for insurance will decrease?

I'm all for it, if that's the truth.

I agree. They need to crack down on irresponsible under-25s before the accidents happen and the insurance claims are made. It's the ONLY way the rest of us can avoid being stereotyped and discriminated against. It's a sad world when the driving age is technically 16, but gazillions of licenced drivers are priced out of law-abiding car ownership (sorry, but telling your insurance company you're an "occasional driver" on your mom's car when you take said car, which she's never driven, to university 200km away for 8 months/year isn't law-abiding, in my books) until they're 25 by the $4000-6000/year cost of insurance.

Perhaps I'm being stereotyping too, but somehow I have a feeling that <25 dudes driving modded-up Civics with fart-can exhausts and body kits and whatever are far more likely to cause insurance claims than <25 dudes driving 5 year old mid-sized domestic sedans...

[VivienM]

If they want to do soemthing go after the car manufacteres and reduce the hp output. Every year it increases and they all try to best each other but making bigger faster engines.

High-powered cars are not the problem; drivers doing stupid things with that power are.

Look at something like the MB AMG cars... all insanely and absurdly powerful. But the thing is... few people who can afford them are irresponsible enough to drive them stupidly and kill people, so they don't cause trouble until the teenage son and his friends borrow the 469HP car and kill some random person. But that's a failure of parenting, and it's not DaimlerChrysler's problem that its customers may be so busy earning money to pay for their expensive cars that they have no time to teach their kids how to be responsible.

[UrbanPoet]

ekk.. it would suck if a good kid that was always a good driver decided 1 day that instead of goign 110km/hr he goes 130 b/c hes late for a family dinner.
Then he gets hit with some massive charges b/c he has some rims :|

[crimsona]

I think drunk driving needs more attention... probably kills more people

[gordholio]

I didn't realize the Civic was a race car. :lol:
I guess it proves you can make any car into a race car.

[Hula]

Leaving my office Friday evening, I saw a young guy in a newer integra trying to get an older guy in a Bonneville to race him. Light went green, cars jetted off and the integra go so badly smoked, I burst out laughing behind them. The integra was a tuner and must have had most mods available from appearance and sound anyway? The Bonneville was as old as my car (97 ish) and the old guy was laughing his butt off at the next light. The young guy was quite embarrased and when the light turned green the next time, he took off weaving through traffic ..... I guess to show how "cool" he really was, even though he got dusted by an old man in an old car.

Unfortunately, the young and the old guy were stupid. And, the tuner market obvioulsly did little to help make his car fast. Based on that display, every tuner should just drop a GM 3.8 L into their car and they'd smoke everyone.....on the track that is.

Do it on the road, and I'll hope you cream yourself before you do to any innocent victims.

[Emancipated]

This is stupid beyond comprehension. Throw the book at the racers instead of using scare tactics to deter them. These racers have total disregard for people on the road; why should society? Caught racing, license FCKING REVOKED FOR LIFE.

I want to be clear. Speeding=! racing, although the former should be reviewed and tweaked.

[Emancipated]

Leaving my office Friday evening, I saw a young guy in a newer integra trying to get an older guy in a Bonneville to race him. Light went green, cars jetted off and the integra go so badly smoked, I burst out laughing behind them. The integra was a tuner and must have had most mods available from appearance and sound anyway? The Bonneville was as old as my car (97 ish) and the old guy was laughing his butt off at the next light. The young guy was quite embarrased and when the light turned green the next time, he took off weaving through traffic ..... I guess to show how "cool" he really was, even though he got dusted by an old man in an old car.

Unfortunately, the young and the old guy were stupid. And, the tuner market obvioulsly did little to help make his car fast. Based on that display, every tuner should just drop a GM 3.8 L into their car and they'd smoke everyone.....on the track that is.

Do it on the road, and I'll hope you cream yourself before you do to any innocent victims.

Unfortunately society promotes that mentality. Everyone with a Civic and a fart can thinks they're an F1 driver. They're a menace to our roads and pose a threat to everyone who's on it at the same time as them.

The same cannot be excluded with high powered car owners. Mustangs routinely show their "power" in the summer days, though they're generally more behaved and experienced behind the wheels.

[masterballer]

This is stupid beyond comprehension. Throw the book at the racers instead of using scare tactics to deter them. These racers have total disregard for people on the road; why should society? Caught racing, license FCKING REVOKED FOR LIFE.

I want to be clear. Speeding=! racing, although the former should be reviewed and tweaked.


speeding = racing :confused: so 99% of drivers out there are racers, i didnt know that.

[B0000rt]

speeding = racing :confused: so 99% of drivers out there are racers, i didnt know that.
Though he did it the opposite way, =! supposed to mean != or does not equal.

Therefore speeding does not equal racing. I guess you haven't gotten that far in coding yet :p But regardless, you should've understood that from the context of his comments.

[shabby]

There already is a track in Toronto.

You mean toronto motorsports park way out there in cayuga? Theres st thomas and grand bend but those three are around 2 hours away.
Mosport is an hour away but its not a drag strip, and i doubt they'll ever build one anywhere close to toronto due to the noise. Maybe north of toronto but who knows.

[B0000rt]

You mean toronto motorsports park way out there in cayuga? Theres st thomas and grand bend but those three are around 2 hours away.
Mosport is an hour away but its not a drag strip, and i doubt they'll ever build one anywhere close to toronto due to the noise. Maybe north of toronto but who knows.
Maybe he means the one that's setup on Lake Shore every July ;) :cheesygri :lol: :lol:

[DJ_Peanuts22]

lol... thats dumb.... The last big story on street racing where the mom/dad of a baby girl was killed in a street racing accident... actually involved a Honda Civic with rims and a MINI van...

An interesting point.

From my experience, minivan drivers are even WORSE than riced-out Civic drivers.... the majority of which I have encountered on my daily commute seem to have a serious case of road rage.

Surprised nobody ever said that the outcome of that case might have been caused by the minivan driver egging on the modded civic to "race" him. It's funny how so many people buy into the stereotype that modded cars are fast and dangerous on our roads... the only danger is the driver that's behind the wheel and not the car itself. You can drive a stock Volkswagen Beetle and still wreck havoc on public roads if you act stupid enough.

It would not be fair to point the finger at a particular crowd and single them out as opposed to spreading the blame evenly. Everyone has an equal responsibility to keep our roads safe every time they get into the car.

[ichpen]

Don't really see the point of this bill. The HTA deals with racing activity with various dangerous driving clauses. I'm not sure that creating a separate offence under the criminal code is anything but show by the government.

I've not read the bill but it sounds as if it can encompass far too many activities. What is the definition of street racing??? Is it a couple of cars speeding up and cutting each other off??? (Sounds like road rage)... Is it the all too common lane merge race you see on highways (guy merging has a mini race with the adjacent car)?? Or is it a couple of riced up Civics with giant ironboard spoilers going a little bit too quickly on the main street??

Don't know how it will be applied. I'd imagine lawyers will be the ones profiting from this as charges can be easily explained and dismissed.

[VivienM]

Unfortunately, the young and the old guy were stupid. And, the tuner market obvioulsly did little to help make his car fast. Based on that display, every tuner should just drop a GM 3.8 L into their car and they'd smoke everyone.....on the track that is.

That could have been the supercharged L67 3.8L?

Those things make for great sleepers.

Even the naturally-aspirated stock 3.8Ls can probably teach some 10 year old modded Civics a few lessons. Stupid punks who think their lowered suspension, loud exhaust, and not much else actually make their car fast.

[UrbanPoet]

I didn't realize the Civic was a race car. :lol:
I guess it proves you can make any car into a race car.

well.. the honda civic can become avery potent race car...
a B16A has 160hp of high revving power.
pass 5000 rpm and you got some serious juice... that put into a honda civic hatch back thats roughly 2300lbs and you got urself a pretty fast car..

[shabby]

well.. the honda civic can become avery potent race car...
a B16A has 160hp of high revving power.
pass 5000 rpm and you got some serious juice... that put into a honda civic hatch back thats roughly 2300lbs and you got urself a pretty fast car..

A fast car compared to what, a regular civic? Sure.
Compared to a real fast car, no.

[konfusion666]

Don't really see the point of this bill. The HTA deals with racing activity with various dangerous driving clauses. I'm not sure that creating a separate offence under the criminal code is anything but show by the government.

I've not read the bill but it sounds as if it can encompass far too many activities. What is the definition of street racing??? Is it a couple of cars speeding up and cutting each other off??? (Sounds like road rage)... Is it the all too common lane merge race you see on highways (guy merging has a mini race with the adjacent car)?? Or is it a couple of riced up Civics with giant ironboard spoilers going a little bit too quickly on the main street??

Don't know how it will be applied. I'd imagine lawyers will be the ones profiting from this as charges can be easily explained and dismissed.

Finally, a sensible post.

The rest of this thread seems to be jealous mid-size domestic car owners who are overly fascinated with "riced-up Civic drivers". :lol:

On the 401, the vast majority of poor driving techniques are exhibited by... you guessed it... mid-size domestic car owners (and large domestic SUV owners). Why? Because a Civic doesn't have the power to drive aggressively on a highway, so it's the domestic owners who tend to cause problems. :lol:

[UrbanPoet]

A fast car compared to what, a regular civic? Sure.
Compared to a real fast car, no.

with good tires and suspension.. and a lil tweaking here and there... basic exhaust stuff and some air/fuel ratio tuning (to get optimal performance from them... since slapping them on doesnt really help if u dont adjust them to meet your goals) ive heard of them running 14 seconds in the 1/4 mile.
Thats on par with a mustang GT V8.

sometimes i dont think its "have the fastest car possible" b/c u could do witha with a 1990 **** box 5.0 and $5000 and make it faster then lightning... but its rather make a CIvic as fast as you can.

[65505201]

Finally, a sensible post.

The rest of this thread seems to be jealous mid-size domestic car owners who are overly fascinated with "riced-up Civic drivers". :lol:

On the 401, the vast majority of poor driving techniques are exhibited by... you guessed it... mid-size domestic car owners (and large domestic SUV owners). Why? Because a Civic doesn't have the power to drive aggressively on a highway, so it's the domestic owners who tend to cause problems. :lol:

From my highway driving (120km/day), I've also noticed that it's rarely the 'souped up hondas' or 'racing punks' that are causing the problem. It's always the middle age guys and gals in SUVs / sedans / minivans that make the stupidest lane changes and hold up traffic. I can't even begin the count the number of times I've seen an SUV cut across 4 lanes 100 m before an exit or the times a minivan went into my lane at 110 while I'm passing at 130.

[Hula]

This thread isn't about how big the civic's balls are....it's about a bill to stop dumb ass younger and older folks from flying up and down the road with a blantant disrpect for your, or my saftey. The next time you go zipping through traffic trying to pass, or impress another driver, think the following two things:

1/ Why am I doing this, and what's the prize? (99% of the time, you don't even know who you're scooting with!).

2/ How would I feel if I or my loved ones were hurt as a result of what I'm doing right now, or what I could do to someone else therefore impacting their families, friends and loved ones.

If you care, then stop. If you don't, have fun in jail.

People really need to stop justifying this ridiculous behaviour! If you don't do it, congratulations. If you do it and don't intend on stopping, then I hope you're forgiving to anyone potentially changing the life of someone you love, or your own life since your behaviour and that of the potential offender are really no different.

[konfusion666]

People really need to stop justifying this ridiculous behaviour! If you don't do it, congratulations. If you do it and don't intend on stopping, then I hope you're forgiving to anyone potentially changing the life of someone you love, or your own life since your behaviour and that of the potential offender are really no different.

Nobody is justifying "poor driving behaviour". What's happened is the anti-Civic crowd has burst on here, foaming at the mouth, and babbling on about things that are unrelated to this Bill in particular - which is indeed poorly written and leaves far too much to the discretion of the cop. Coupled with "no appeal" it's a recipe for disaster.

[Coke355mL]

This law has proven effectively in other provinces with stricter laws against street racing. It's meant to deter people from racing. The fear that a police officer may just impound cars and/or suspend their license is unfounded. A police officer will not just go out and do that just because he feels like it. Because if they are challanged, they must prove that the driver had intent.

People who modify their cars must also be prepared to accept the complications that come with such hobbies. In one retrospect, you are just asking for it. Yes, it is unfair to those who genuinely just do this as a hobby but if your car is street legal, then simply be prepared to defend when challanged. It's a hassle but it comes with the hobby. You just have to accept it.

To those who believe civics are primary targets of police officers, it may have been true maybe 5-10 years a go but police today are perfectly aware that civics are amoungst the slowest on the street - people these days are now more prone to modifying cars that have newer engine technology instead of just relying on the light weight of a civic and then dropping lots of money in modifying its speed potential. I'm thinking the WRX is a prime example.

[Shaner]

There's nothing wrong with the law. We have courts for a reason and anything can be taken in front of a judge. You can easily challenge the charge in court, even if there is no official appeal process. You can't just get a ticket and not be given a chance to have your day of court, that does against our justice system.

As for the people who want to add body kits and loud exhausts to your cars, don't be crying when you get pulled over twice as much as most other people. You are putting a bullseye on your forehead and you will get pulled over more often, that's the nature of the beast. You need to accept reality, and the reality is that a lot of people with modded cars do engage in street racing. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to say "most people with modded cars engage in street racing."

As with everything in life, the actions of some ruin it for all of us. That's just the way it goes. If you want to have a modded car, accept the fact that you will be targetted by the police.

[masterballer]

This law has proven effectively in other provinces with stricter laws against street racing. It's meant to deter people from racing. The fear that a police officer may just impound cars and/or suspend their license is unfounded. A police officer will not just go out and do that just because he feels like it. Because if they are challanged, they must prove that the driver had intent.

People who modify their cars must also be prepared to accept the complications that come with such hobbies. In one retrospect, you are just asking for it. Yes, it is unfair to those who genuinely just do this as a hobby but if your car is street legal, then simply be prepared to defend when challanged. It's a hassle but it comes with the hobby. You just have to accept it.

To those who believe civics are primary targets of police officers, it may have been true maybe 5-10 years a go but police today are perfectly aware that civics are amoungst the slowest on the street - people these days are now more prone to modifying cars that have newer engine technology instead of just relying on the light weight of a civic and then dropping lots of money in modifying its speed potential. I'm thinking the WRX is a prime example.

yes the STi....thats a sick car....i want one soo bad

[ichpen]

To everyone, this is not a discussion on Civics, WRXs or the merits of a 3.8L GM engine. This bill is far reaching, meaning IMHO it will likely fail under its first challenge in court. Having said that most reckless speeding I've seen has been on highways largely executed by regular cars. Would that be considered racing?? Doubtful.

Is racing described purely as a planned event or merely aggressive driving by more than one car on the same stretch of road? Interesting questions.... Once you start asking them you'll see how useless this bill is likely to become.

[st7860]

http://www.turbovan.net/van.html

a 1989 dodge van with a 12 second quarter mile.

[65505201]

There's nothing wrong with the law. We have courts for a reason and anything can be taken in front of a judge. You can easily challenge the charge in court, even if there is no official appeal process. You can't just get a ticket and not be given a chance to have your day of court, that does against our justice system.

Considering that your license is immediately suspended and your car impounded, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

[masterballer]

Considering that your license is immediately suspended and your car impounded, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

laws are flawed, so is democracy ;)

[Narci]

There was a street racing incident last week I believe that invloved a pick up truck and a van. Street racing isn't limited to sports cars.

[ichpen]

There was a street racing incident last week I believe that invloved a pick up truck and a van. Street racing isn't limited to sports cars.

So what is it limited to?? Is it me, speeding up to overtake someone, speeding up to make it through a light??? Hypothetical questions but I'm not sure what teeth this law has.

[st7860]

i don't know about in Ontario but in BC there's a regulation and/or law against speeding up to make it through a yellow light.

[thelefteyeguy]

I doubt the liberals will pass this bill thru

[anabeces]

stupid bill giving cops even more unnecessary power that they will abuse for sure.

seriously though...who hasn't raced atleast once in their lifetime...

[Shaner]

stupid bill giving cops even more unnecessary power that they will abuse for sure.

seriously though...who hasn't raced atleast once in their lifetime...

People like you are the reason we need street racing laws in the first place. Maybe if you could learn to be mature we wouldn't have so many damn laws. You talk about street racing in this thread and you talk about consistently driving 180 km/hr in another thread. It's no wonder so many people are killed in traffic accidents, because of reckless, dangerous, immature people like you.

Grow up or stop driving, pick one!

[gilboman]

more useless laws that is just a PR exercise much like the get tough on crime platform.

tougher sentences are USELESS, since they dont do anything to address root of problem. it's no different than using a super band aid on a stabbing wound and call it doing something to address the injury.

[shabby]

It seems like its better to be a criminal then a street racer, without a license you're screwed for life... and not just 25 years.

[Hula]

stupid bill giving cops even more unnecessary power that they will abuse for sure.

seriously though...who hasn't raced atleast once in their lifetime...

Glad you're in BC and not Ontario. We have enough ****** drivers here, we certainly don't need another.

[TigerEROS]

People who get caught for street racing should be in jail and have their license suspended for LIFE!!!

They shoul have their names in the media big time ... including the ones who are under 18 .... such a-holes that have no respect for other people on the streets.

SUCH IDIOTS! and LOSERS!

[VivienM]

more useless laws that is just a PR exercise much like the get tough on crime platform.

tougher sentences are USELESS, since they dont do anything to address root of problem. it's no different than using a super band aid on a stabbing wound and call it doing something to address the injury.

How do you propose addressing the root of the street racing problem?

[anabeces]

How do you propose addressing the root of the street racing problem?

there is non because it's called being young and having fun.

edit* you could provide better training on how to handle a car.

[Coke355mL]

Considering that your license is immediately suspended and your car impounded, you are effectively guilty until proven innocent.

How is that guilty until proven innocent if the police impound your vehicle because you were racing or reason to believe that you were involved in a race?

[Coke355mL]

there is non because it's called being young and having fun.

edit* you could provide better training on how to handle a car.

So being young and having fun is excusable? What ever happened to being responsibile and realizing that driving is a priviledge?




stupid bill giving cops even more unnecessary power that they will abuse for sure.

seriously though...who hasn't raced atleast once in their lifetime...

It's people like you that makes B.C. the worst place for street racing.

[Coke355mL]

It seems like its better to be a criminal then a street racer, without a license you're screwed for life... and not just 25 years.

I think you should reconsider this comment - criminal acts are far more serious than street racing. I would rather give up my license for life than to spend 25 years behind bars and have no freedom at all.

[Coke355mL]

People who get caught for street racing should be in jail and have their license suspended for LIFE!!!

They shoul have their names in the media big time ... including the ones who are under 18 .... such a-holes that have no respect for other people on the streets.

SUCH IDIOTS! and LOSERS!

While I agree with you, I also believe that some people can change. Repeat offernders should lose their license but those who are stupid but learn from their mistake shouldn't have to be subject to a lifetime suspension.

[VivienM]

there is non because it's called being young and having fun.

So, if some dude racing a modded Civic kills your mother/gf/other loved one tomorrow, you'll say he was "being young and having fun"?

I have nothing against people being young and having fun... but don't have "fun" with lethal 2500-4000lbs machines in a place where innocents could get killed!

[Coke355mL]

I think people who say they are just being young and having fun are more than likely to be people who do not own their own vehicle, drive their parent's vehicles, do not pay for their own insurance nor do they realize how expensive it is just to own one.

I can't say how many times I've seen a car accident and it involved young kids can't believing it happened to them.


So, if some dude racing a modded Civic kills your mother/gf/other loved one tomorrow, you'll say he was "being young and having fun"?

I have nothing against people being young and having fun... but don't have "fun" with lethal 2500-4000lbs machines in a place where innocents could get killed!

[gilboman]

How is that guilty until proven innocent if the police impound your vehicle because you were racing or reason to believe that you were involved in a race?

because they are already carryijng out the penalty without first determining whether you are racing or not.

[Coke355mL]

Police when impounding your vehicle will do so if they have just cause to justify such an action. They won't do it if they don't have reasons to believe or witnessed that you were racing. While they do not have the power to decide if someone is guilty or not, they can impound you if they believe you have been racing and pose as a threat to the public.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of abuse from the police because one can be corrupt and in that case, we can only hope that they do determine that you have been racing first before impounding your vehicle and preventing you from causing further danger to the public.


because they are already carryijng out the penalty without first determining whether you are racing or not.

[superdeals]

i think its stupid, people are going to street race no matter what law there is. if people really wanted to do something, no bill will stop them, i just think all of these restrictions and such just make people want to take a bigger risk. if u want to end street racing, why make cars that go faster than 120? i mean companies make cars that go 180+ with crazy hp numbers, thats the problem with laws, they put the blame on the easiest victims, why not look at the companies that make these overpowered sports cars.

So when you get a headache just cutoff your head!! Not coherent.
Many decent persons are driving the 'same' sports car within proper speed limit. The problem is with the 'punks' who are doing this 'street racing'. So better is to have stringent law and proper implementations. I would file them under 'first degree homicide' (in case there is fatality involved) or 'attempted to mass murder' and put away the 'punk' for 20 years behind the bars!! :mad:

[shabby]

I think you should reconsider this comment - criminal acts are far more serious than street racing. I would rather give up my license for life than to spend 25 years behind bars and have no freedom at all.

Well i dont intend to kill someone in cold blood anytime soon.
Yes criminal acts are more serious, but with out justice system you get a slap on the wrist as a first time offender.

[65505201]

Police when impounding your vehicle will do so if they have just cause to justify such an action. They won't do it if they don't have reasons to believe or witnessed that you were racing. While they do not have the power to decide if someone is guilty or not, they can impound you if they believe you have been racing and pose as a threat to the public.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of abuse from the police because one can be corrupt and in that case, we can only hope that they do determine that you have been racing first before impounding your vehicle and preventing you from causing further danger to the public.

I'm sorry, but my faith in the police with regards to traffic violations is absolutely dismal. You go ahead and let the police be judge, jury, and executioner. I want to retain my right to defend myself before the penalty is laid down.

[st7860]

at least this racer had his eyes on the road
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGTEOhXVDoU&search=350z

[anabeces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9txXKLClRc&search=ford%20gt

[jetway1212]

Police when impounding your vehicle will do so if they have just cause to justify such an action. They won't do it if they don't have reasons to believe or witnessed that you were racing. While they do not have the power to decide if someone is guilty or not, they can impound you if they believe you have been racing and pose as a threat to the public.

Yes, this opens up the possibility of abuse from the police because one can be corrupt and in that case, we can only hope that they do determine that you have been racing first before impounding your vehicle and preventing you from causing further danger to the public.

Are you a cop? or should i said police patrol? or soon to be?

Seriously you didnt get the point. Traffic violation in many case can be very vague. Evidences are not concrete as a police can spot and soon make judgement base on previous impression. Thus why psychology is bonded with the justice system. Sometime, you're so sure of something and can swear by it but you're just completely wrong and probably never know that.

Guilty untill proven innocent is what communist countries do in their law system, not hear.

Frankly, from what i learned in my political class Canada government is not that far off from being communist eh?

[Coke355mL]

I'm sorry, but my faith in the police with regards to traffic violations is absolutely dismal. You go ahead and let the police be judge, jury, and executioner. I want to retain my right to defend myself before the penalty is laid down.

I respect that - others have more faith in the justice system while others do not. I supposed it comes down to what your experiences and that of others have been like. Speaking from my experiences and that of many others I have known from various car clubs, people have always been hassled by police more often than they would like. Even for myself when I used to drive a heavily modded Type R, enthusiasts like ourselves were always being hassled by cops and it was always something BS and end up getting non-moving violation tickets. Racing charges on the other hand have always been handed out when people have actually been racing because it is a far more serious offence and the officer must be prepared to prove the driver had intent to race when challanged in the court of law.



Well i dont intend to kill someone in cold blood anytime soon.
Yes criminal acts are more serious, but with out justice system you get a slap on the wrist as a first time offender.

I agree, it's a slap on the wrist for a lot of the criminal offences.

[st7860]

Frankly, from what i learned in my political class Canada government is not that far off from being communist eh?

For example, in Communist China, you don't need an expensive licence just to sell milk, eggs, and so on, but in Canada, you can't just buy a cow or a chicken and start selling it, you have to buy a rather expensive quota.

[Coke355mL]

Traffic violations in many cases can be very vague? Evidences are not concerte? You say police officers could genuinely believe that you have been racing but can be wrong and they never know it? Traffic laws are not subjective nor are they discretionary. It is not left to the opinion of an officer if you have been street racing or not. The officer must be prepared to prove beyond reasonable doubt when challanged in court or defend himself when a formal complaint has been filed. I can see your point that your concern is police officers being biased due to previous impressions or experiences and it may be very well so but for police officers to pass judgement that they have reasons to believe that you have been racing or have witnessed you racing, this must go beyond simple "impressions" as you call it. Sure, police officers can always write up a racing ticket, slap you with it, impound your vehicle and tell you it's your problem but this is why we have separate review boards for all formal compliants that are filed when a citizen makes claim of abuse of power and these types of claims are taken seriously.

Police officers have the power to enforce the law and if they have reasons to believe you've been racing, I say impound the vehicle.



Are you a cop? or should i said police patrol? or soon to be?

Seriously you didnt get the point. Traffic violation in many case can be very vague. Evidences are not concrete as a police can spot and soon make judgement base on previous impression. Thus why psychology is bonded with the justice system. Sometime, you're so sure of something and can swear by it but you're just completely wrong and probably never know that.

Guilty untill proven innocent is what communist countries do in their law system, not hear.

Frankly, from what i learned in my political class Canada government is not that far off from being communist eh?

[Dibble]

My Opinion (Feel free to criticize):
Positives:
- Removes potential street racers off the streets immediately (The whole "better safe than sorry" idea)

Negatives:
- Highly subjective and vague with regards to what "Street Racing" really is (The bill can be interpreted in too many different ways)
- No ability to appeal/review goes against what our judicial system is all about

Although I agree that street racing needs to be cracked down on and it is a step in the right direction, the bill has a crucial flaw in the fact that you are not allowed to appeal the order. I too am and would be angered by the deaths caused by meaningless street racers, but the bill can and may target those who have absolutely no part in it due to the subjectivity of the definition and it is even worse because you can not appeal the order.

The subjectivity can be drawn from several aspects...
- Conclusion driven from Stereotyping (i.e. Cars that are modded = Street Racing)
Perhaps the idea of cars being modded due to it's aesthetic value rather than for streer racing needs should be explored more.
- Suspicion
What does this exactly mean? Because I have a hard time defining this without being subjective and it can definitely be interpreted in too many ways; too vague.

From the looks of it, it may seem as though I am taking the side of Street Racers. However, as I'm analyzing the integrity of this bill, I am simply viewing this from the "beyond reasonable doubt" perspective as well as from the police offer's perspective -- if I were a police officer, would I be comfortable with such a vague law? if I were a rational, logical, and reasonable police officer... does this provide a strict guidline that would provide me with a way to distinguish people who speed, people who "race", people who like to make their car look nice ("visual modding"), etc. etc.?

This bill may deter some street racers... but it is only by fear and not by vitue. It only communicates the consequences of street racing to individuals who would go about doing so and fails to educate the impact of their actions.
For example, it's like telling a kid not to touch the stove because it's hot and it can burn them; the kid may know the consequences to himself for doing so, but he probably does not know or realize the consequences that can occur to everyone else... i.e. severe burns would cause the mother/father to drive him/her to the hospital and use up valuable emergency room time/money that can be spent on other important things.

A slap on the wrist to street racers because of their actions won't deter them. Murders happen regardless of the fact that you can spend your whole life in jail, right?? Same goes for just about any criminal activity. It only deters, does not eliminate.

[65505201]

Traffic violations in many cases can be very vague? Evidences are not concerte? You say police officers could genuinely believe that you have been racing but can be wrong and they never know it? Traffic laws are not subjective nor are they discretionary. It is not left to the opinion of an officer if you have been street racing or not. The officer must be prepared to prove beyond reasonable doubt when challanged in court or defend himself when a formal complaint has been filed. I can see your point that your concern is police officers being biased due to previous impressions or experiences and it may be very well so but for police officers to pass judgement that they have reasons to believe that you have been racing or have witnessed you racing, this must go beyond simple "impressions" as you call it. Sure, police officers can always write up a racing ticket, slap you with it, impound your vehicle and tell you it's your problem but this is why we have separate review boards for all formal compliants that are filed when a citizen makes claim of abuse of power and these types of claims are taken seriously.

Police officers have the power to enforce the law and if they have reasons to believe you've been racing, I say impound the vehicle.

You still don't get it, do you? Sure, you can have your review boards, but the punishment (impound/license seizure) has already been given out. Case in point, my dad was in court yesterday for an 'unsafe right turn.' 5 other dudes were in as well. The cop had nothing on them and didn't show up for the entire day.

Will my dad be compensated for his day off work? No. Will someone be compensated for the 2 days w/o a car? Hell no.

[65505201]

Traffic laws are not subjective nor are they discretionary.

:rolleyes:

I wonder how often hot females get tickets from male officers. Also, if they are not discretionary, why do tickets get knocked down all the time?

[curtis]

Positives:
- Removes potential street racers off the streets immediately (The whole "better safe than sorry" idea)


Unlikely. The ones ******** enough to race... are ******** enough to not care.

[curtis]

Racing charges on the other hand have always been handed out when people have actually been racing because it is a far more serious offence and the officer must be prepared to prove the driver had intent to race when challanged in the court of law.

With no appeal. Who does he need to prove it to? Where/when will he be challenged?

[curtis]

I should start dressing up as Hard Gay, so when a gay police officer pulls me over, I'll get off. If I don't, I'll just say the cop was anti-gay.


:rolleyes:

I wonder how often hot females get tickets from male officers. Also, if they are not discretionary, why do tickets get knocked down all the time?

[Dibble]

Unlikely. The ones ******** enough to race... are ******** enough to not care.

What? Suspicion of street racing automatically warrants suspension of that person's license and impounds their car. How is that not immediate removal of a potential street racer?

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say there (i.e. You probably thought I meant it'd keep street racers from racing but we know that's never going to happen), and in that case, I am truely sorry.

[gman]

Wow, do you realize how dumb of a comment you just made?
Everything relating to driving is jurisdiction of the provincial government. Do you know who the provincial government is in Ontario? It's the Liberals!

So now do you want to change your statement to "What do some people see in the Liberals?"

Besides, the police can't go around just impounding cars for no reason. Sure, laws can be made left and right, but judges can just as easily strike them down.
Unless you are/were actually racing, you have nothing to worry about.

Except it is Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees introduced the bill and he is PC.
It is only a private member's bill so who really care?

[Coke355mL]

I'm sorry, you either don't get it or don't understand.

You're looking at it from a standpoint that you're already considered guilty when they impound your vehicle. From a jurisidicial standpoint, they are impounding your car because they have reasons to believe or have evidence to support that you have violated a law - NOT that you are guilty already. Therefore I would support their power to impound your vehicle to prevent further harm to the public. If I was a police officer and I saw someone racing and pulled them over, I would exercise my authority to impound the vehicle because I witnessed an violation act or have reasons to believe that person was racing.

If you want to argue this then consider why you are handcuffed and thrown into jail when police officers have reasons to believe that you have murdered someone? Is the accussed automatically guilty because they are thrown into prison? In some cases you may not be eligible for a bail hearing and you stay in jail until trial. Does that mean the accused is already considered guilty? NO. When you are suspected of, and police have evidence to allege that you have commited a violation against an existing law, then you are subject to the laws that are enforced the members of the law enforcement.


You still don't get it, do you? Sure, you can have your review boards, but the punishment (impound/license seizure) has already been given out. Case in point, my dad was in court yesterday for an 'unsafe right turn.' 5 other dudes were in as well. The cop had nothing on them and didn't show up for the entire day.

Will my dad be compensated for his day off work? No. Will someone be compensated for the 2 days w/o a car? Hell no.

[Dibble]

I'm sorry, you either don't get it or don't understand.

You're looking at it from a standpoint that you're already considered guilty when they impound your vehicle. From a jurisidicial standpoint, they are impounding your car because they have reasons to believe or have evidence to support that you have violated a law - NOT that you are guilty already. Therefore I would support their power to impound your vehicle to prevent further harm to the public. If I was a police officer and I saw someone racing and pulled them over, I would exercise my authority to impound the vehicle because I witnessed an violation act or have reasons to believe that person was racing.

If you want to argue this then consider why you are handcuffed and thrown into jail when police officers have reasons to believe that you have murdered someone? Is the accussed automatically guilty because they are thrown into prison? In some cases you may not be eligible for a bail hearing and you stay in jail until trial. Does that mean the accused is already considered guilty? NO. When you are suspected of, and police have evidence to allege that you have commited a violation against an existing law, then you are subject to the laws that are enforced the members of the law enforcement.

^ what he said.

I would think it's much better to throw an innocent man into jail for a day because of suspicion until material is gathered up to charge or not charge the person, than to let a killer off because they aren't allowed to keep him for a day (or longer) to file or not file charges.

The same goes for impounding your vehicle.
Would you rather let an innocent man lose a day of his pay because the police have a reason to believe he was or has street raced, or let an actual street racer go, not impound their car, and let them cause more havoc until he/she causes an actual accident causing death?

I don't like the idea of losing my pay, nor having my vehicle/license taken away because the police are "suspecting" me of street racing... but if that can also keep actual street racers off the street and save some lives... well, so be it. It may not be fair for the innocent, but is losing your vehicle for the time being and losing a day's worth of pay really more important than saving a life?

Although that is fine and dandy... my argument regarding the bill however, is with the fact that you can not appeal or have the case reviewed which goes against our judicial system and what modern society is based on.

[st7860]

^

. It may not be fair for the innocent, but is losing your vehicle for the time being and losing a day's worth of pay really more important than saving a life?
.

Yes because while they might do things like that overseas in certain countries, in Canada, in most cases you are not guilty until proven.

[Dibble]

Yes because while they might do things like that overseas in certain countries, in Canada, in most cases you are not guilty until proven.

I just told you what the equivalent was in terms of a murder case, or almost any kind of criminal case. The person suspected of criminal activity in Canada can and usually will be taken into custody by police and can hold them for a period of 24 hrs without charging them. Is this an example of the so called "not guilty until proven"?

When you are innocent and you are charged with first degree murder... is it fair that you have to miss a day of work/pay (or more) to go to court, possibly hire a lawyer, and prove your case? Not to mention, you might even be held in jail until the time of trial because the police find him/her "a danger to the public"?

[st7860]

well if the police have evidence or a reason to believe someone committed a serious vehicular crime such as running someone over, causing an accident with a loss of life, etc , with or without the street racing bill they can ALREADY under existing law try to hold on to the perp if they believe he/she/it is a danger to the public

[Dibble]

well if the police have evidence or a reason to believe someone committed a serious vehicular crime such as running someone over, causing an accident with a loss of life, etc , with or without the street racing bill they can ALREADY under existing law try to hold on to the perp if they believe he/she/it is a danger to the public

Then how is it any different to impound someone's vehicle under "reason to believe" and "suspicion"?
It's basically stating the equivalent process for a criminal activity in terms of what happens to your car as well.

But that still doesn't answer my question as to how you believe someone's life isn't as important as impounding someone's vehicle who the police have a reason to believe that they were street racing. From your original argument, you are simply saying that this process isn't fair because "you are guilty until proven not" and Canada doesn't do this... but the fact of the matter is, impounding someone's car is not making anyone guilty but it is more of a safety precaution much like holding someone in jail before they are charged (or not charged) because the police have "reason to believe/suspicion of criminal activity".

I may not be a strong supporter of the bill, but this is definitely a step in the right direction. The only flaw in my opinion is the fact that you can not appeal.

[Coke355mL]

If I was being suspected of steet racing or police have evidence that I have, then I can understand why my vehicle is being impounded.

Regarding the inability to appeal your vehicle being impounded though, personally I don't have a problem with that. It is similar to the judicial system of the inability to appeal when you are put behind bars until a court case (i.e. waiting for murder trial). Appealing is only done when a court ruling has been made (i.e. guilty or not guilty). One can appeal a crime once judgement has been passed but when you are being investigated or suspected of, there is no appeal to that. Same thing when you are asked to handover your passport so you can't leave the country, even though you are not guilty of anything.

Is impounding your vehicle too harsh? I don't think so. There are alternative modes of transportation although it may be undesirable or unfavorable. And I have to agree with Dibble that it is better to save lives than to endanger them.

[SoNgMaN]

IF a cop arrested you for shooting someone ( hell even thinking you shot someone) and you have the "Weapon" on you does he take it away? same situation here kids ;)

you're all really over analyzing this.

and i hope your families are somehow affected if you think something like this is stupid.

[65505201]

If I was being suspected of steet racing or police have evidence that I have, then I can understand why my vehicle is being impounded.

Regarding the inability to appeal your vehicle being impounded though, personally I don't have a problem with that. It is similar to the judicial system of the inability to appeal when you are put behind bars until a court case (i.e. waiting for murder trial). Appealing is only done when a court ruling has been made (i.e. guilty or not guilty). One can appeal a crime once judgement has been passed but when you are being investigated or suspected of, there is no appeal to that. Same thing when you are asked to handover your passport so you can't leave the country, even though you are not guilty of anything.

Is impounding your vehicle too harsh? I don't think so. There are alternative modes of transportation although it may be undesirable or unfavorable. And I have to agree with Dibble that it is better to save lives than to endanger them.

The problem is that the officer doesn't need to provide any evidence to anyone that the driver was racing. In any other investigation, they must have solid evidence in hand before being allowed to do anything.

What are the cops going to say? Some dude phoned in with a description matching your car that was tearing down the 401? If drivers were really racing, I'd doubt that bystanders will be able to get a good description beyond color and make of car.

[65505201]

IF a cop arrested you for shooting someone ( hell even thinking you shot someone) and you have the "Weapon" on you does he take it away? same situation here kids ;)


Yes, well, considering that firearms have to be locked tight 99% of the time, I'd say that having a gun in your pocket would raise some eyebrows.

[65505201]

Then how is it any different to impound someone's vehicle under "reason to believe" and "suspicion"?
It's basically stating the equivalent process for a criminal activity in terms of what happens to your car as well.


Well, if you agree with cops impounding all the modders' cars while they're idling at Timmies due to 'suspicion', I supposed you'd agree with jailing everying in Tuxedo court everytime a Tamil Tiger shooting occurs.

I'd really like to see what guidelines are given to the police for impounding someone under suspicion w/o any evidence at all.

[Bullseye]

Taking away these shitebags vehicles is the only action that will work. Fines, tickets, and insurance costs are not enough to deter people acting on spur of the moment emotion, but you tell them police will take away their prized possession, that will stop a lot of them.

I drive a 5.0 Mustang (responsibly, because I'm a mature adult and a father), and all the time I have babyfaced little punks pulling up beside me at stoplights. The are ridiculously reclined 60 degrees in the seats of their cut-spring, oversized winged, fart can equipped POS car, looking over at me, revving their little hamster wheel engines to 7000 rpm. The light changes and they peel away, cutting through traffic dangerously, as I roll away at a normal speed. It's ALWAYS an under 25 male, yet these are the ones always complaining about high insurance.

Anyone hear about that Vette that was totalled two days ago on the 427? That was a friend of a friend, a 25 year old with a car whose performance far exceeded his maturity level. He'd just spent $20k putting in a 500hp engine and other mods into it, ridiculous. He was racing another vette, apparently going almost 200kph. Well, he just died last night in hospital. Thankfully, no innocent people were killed this time, but it's still a shame that immature young men are dying so often because of their bad decisions.

[Bullseye]

And for the record, 'innocent until proven guilty' only applies to criminal law, no the Highway Traffic Act. Just like when you get a speeding ticket, it's up to you to prove your innocence, not the other way around.

[dark169]

I like the law. Here in alberta if you get caught dui you loose youe license for 30days on the spot and your car gets towed, even if you never get convected of anything you still have to find a way around for 30days. Same thing, ifthe cop says you where racing you walk home and go pick up your car from the impound the next day.

It would be differant if they where takign your car to the crusher and turning it into a cube before your convicted of anything.

Theres a bunch of other laws that allow cops to impound your car on the spot, for example if the cop feels your car is unsafe it can be impounded dispite the fact he's not a mechanic.

Like all laws theres room for abuse but over zelous cops getsorted out as well. Just like a cop could say you never stoped at a stop sign, how do you prevent the abuse?

[konfusion666]

Anyone hear about that Vette that was totalled two days ago on the 427? That was a friend of a friend, a 25 year old with a car whose performance far exceeded his maturity level. He'd just spent $20k putting in a 500hp engine and other mods into it, ridiculous. He was racing another vette, apparently going almost 200kph. Well, he just died last night in hospital. Thankfully, no innocent people were killed this time, but it's still a shame that immature young men are dying so often because of their bad decisions.

Well, I guess that lays to rest the "theory" that it's only "punks in Japanese econoboxes" who engage in street races. It's obviously a shame whenever somebody dies, but a V8-equipped domestic musclecar is more of a danger on the road than a lightweight, underpowered Civic-with-fartcan.

In fact... of all the recent "deaths while racing" incidents in the media, I think the majority were in V8/V6-equipped domestic/German vehicles. Like those 2 kids in Benz'es some time ago who were blamed for the death of the immigrant taxidriver.

[Bullseye]

Well, I guess that lays to rest the "theory" that it's only "punks in Japanese econoboxes" who engage in street races. It's obviously a shame whenever somebody dies, but a V8-equipped domestic musclecar is more of a danger on the road than a lightweight, underpowered Civic-with-fartcan.

In fact... of all the recent "deaths while racing" incidents in the media, I think the majority were in V8/V6-equipped domestic/German vehicles. Like those 2 kids in Benz'es some time ago who were blamed for the death of the immigrant taxidriver.

The people I see driving stupidly are usually in riced out small cars (domestic or import), but yes, it can be any car. The idea that one car is more dangerous than another is bull (aside from mechanically unsafe vehicles, obviously), any car can be dangerous if driven that way. Even a Yaris could hit 150kph on a city street if someone wanted to something so stupid.

The problem here is the DRIVERS, period. It's immature, inexperienced young men, almost always, and the only message they will understand is that they will lose their toys if they don't stop endangering the lives of innocent people.

[dark169]

Well, I guess that lays to rest the "theory" that it's only "punks in Japanese econoboxes" who engage in street races. It's obviously a shame whenever somebody dies, but a V8-equipped domestic musclecar is more of a danger on the road than a lightweight, underpowered Civic-with-fartcan.

In fact... of all the recent "deaths while racing" incidents in the media, I think the majority were in V8/V6-equipped domestic/German vehicles. Like those 2 kids in Benz'es some time ago who were blamed for the death of the immigrant taxidriver.

Wasn't that RCMP officer killed in BC by a street racer killed by a civic. Its the driver not the car, once you engage in a racing mindset bad things can happen.

I've seen vettes rcing, I've seen crap box eary 90's civics racing, fancy 150hp sport bikes, and big crusier bikes, once you start racing on the streets (or solo speeding WAY faster then other traffic) it only takes something like a lane change/pot hole/deer to kill people.

[Narci]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1221.aspx

Bullcrap..like alot of people have said..street racing can be any vehicle..not just modified vehicles...so why are they only crushing modified vehicles?????

[Shaner]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1221.aspx

Bullcrap..like alot of people have said..street racing can be any vehicle..not just modified vehicles...so why are they only crushing modified vehicles?????

They aren't going around crushing only modified cars. Read the article properly next time!
They crushed 2 cars that were seized back in 2003 and 2004 because they were being used in illegal races and the owners of the vehicles were making money off the illegal cars. It wouldn't matter if they were modified or not, if they are proceeds of crime, they will be seized. In this case, the cars were heavily modified so the crown destroyed them instead of reselling them like they normally would.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with cracking down on street racing.

[sleepyguy]

me, extemely irresponsible if you race... yes even once. there are innocent lives at risk.

the bill has flaws and i admit to that... but overall i bet it will deter street racing as the 'racers' will have to double-think if they want to or not. just imho.


stupid bill giving cops even more unnecessary power that they will abuse for sure.

seriously though...who hasn't raced atleast once in their lifetime...

[GeneralCho]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1221.aspx

Bullcrap..like alot of people have said..street racing can be any vehicle..not just modified vehicles...so why are they only crushing modified vehicles?????

I must agree that street racing can be with any vehicle. I have seen people street race in their minivans and SUVs. I know that there are lots of people with modified cars that are responsible drivers and are against street racing.

The root of the problem is irresponsible DRIVERS with the intent to street race and disregarding the safety of innocent bystanders. We cannot just stereotype one group of people, such as, guys with modded cars or "rice rockets". The fact that you are enable to appeal the charge and just having the police to decide you faith is ridiculous. There is a thin line between street racing and speeding - how are the police able to judge the intent of the driver in certain situations. They can screw your life over just by accusing you of street-racing while in mere fact you were just speeding.

[Bullseye]

From the above link;

'We are seeking ... to send a message to street racing motorheads and drivers that we're not just going to take your keys away for a few weeks, we are going to take your precious vehicles away from you. We're going to bring them into a scrap yard where they will be destroyed."'

Ha!

In my experience, the vast majority of people that try to goad me into racing them are driving modded looking small cars. I've never seen a minivan, and until yesterday, never an SUV. Some fool yesterday in a pimped out Durango tried to get me to go...a Durango!

[Narci]

They aren't going around crushing only modified cars. Read the article properly next time!
They crushed 2 cars that were seized back in 2003 and 2004 because they were being used in illegal races and the owners of the vehicles were making money off the illegal cars. It wouldn't matter if they were modified or not, if they are proceeds of crime, they will be seized. In this case, the cars were heavily modified so the crown destroyed them instead of reselling them like they normally would.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with cracking down on street racing.

I understand shaner...but it's obvious that the police is profiling a certain group by only demolishing 2 modified cars. What ever happened to the accident/street race involving a pick up and a mini van that went into oncoming traffic?

Here it is:

http://www.metronews.ca/news_detail.asp?id=16714

[SodiumSulfate]

I agree with the general consensus of the respondants of this thread, but I have an added suggestion: reward good drivers.

I'm 25, no accidents or speeding tickets and i've been driving since I was 16. Yet, when I try to get insurance on my first new car, I'm getting nailed with what I consider high rates. I read about people with multiple tickets, convictions, etc being charged a little more than what I'm being quoted. Heck, I'm looking a getting a smaller engine with less horsepower because I don't need a fancy 200hp engine when a 100hp engine is more than enough.

Obviously the chance of the police destroying your car is a biggie, but I think most people who race modded cars can afford to have their cars destroyed. I mean a modded corvette ain't cheap, having it destroy probably won't keep you from buying another one and starting over.

I personally think that this Bill is good idea. But as an added incentive, reward good drivers by making insurance premiums for good drivers rediculously low. Encourge people to be good drivers the RFD way - by discounts!

That and ugly body kits that make your car look like it you came from the planet Xenu should be banned.

[Bullseye]

25 years old with 9 years good driving, how high could your rates be? You must have been an occasional driver on someone elses car? In that case, the insurer likely considers you a not very experienced driver, because you weren't driving full time for those 9 years. Just guessing here.

[SodiumSulfate]

25 years old with 9 years good driving, how high could your rates be? You must have been an occasional driver on someone elses car? In that case, the insurer likely considers you a not very experienced driver, because you weren't driving full time for those 9 years. Just guessing here.

That's true. I've always been a secondary driver on both of my parents cars - 4 years of which I was away at University.

I've been getting quotes of about $2,300.00, which to me is high since I have a G licence and have had it for 6 years as well as at a minimum of 5 years of driving experience (if you discount the years away at Uni, for which I was still paying for insurance). I've even tried to use my professional memberships and associations, but i'm still getting relatively high quotes. I should add that i'm married too, and I have the higest rating (6 stars) at my current insurer.

[Bullseye]

That's true. I've always been a secondary driver on both of my parents cars - 4 years of which I was away at University.

I've been getting quotes of about $2,300.00, which to me is high since I have a G licence and have had it for 6 years as well as at a minimum of 5 years of driving experience (if you discount the years away at Uni, for which I was still paying for insurance). I've even tried to use my professional memberships and associations, but i'm still getting relatively high quotes. I should add that i'm married too, and I have the higest rating (6 stars) at my current insurer.

Doesn't sound that bad for someone who's never been a full time driver before, but it also depends on where you live, what you'll be driving, how many km's, etc.

[new_vr]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1221.aspx

Bullcrap..like alot of people have said..street racing can be any vehicle..not just modified vehicles...so why are they only crushing modified vehicles?????
Because that is what taxpayers who watch this stuff on the news want to see. Nothing is done simply on it's own merits now. It's done so that they can spin it, to make themselves look like they are doing something.
8/10 accidents are caused by driver distraction....things like talking on the cell phone, or eating while you are driving. Most of these accidents are rather unspectacular, and don't make the news. Going after these problems won't create the positive spin that these politicians are looking for. It will also alienate a lot of the voters they are trying to impress, so it doesn't happen

[Coke355mL]

Because that is what taxpayers who watch this stuff on the news want to see. Nothing is done simply on it's own merits now. It's done so that they can spin it, to make themselves look like they are doing something.
8/10 accidents are caused by driver distraction....things like talking on the cell phone, or eating while you are driving. Most of these accidents are rather unspectacular, and don't make the news. Going after these problems won't create the positive spin that these politicians are looking for. It will also alienate a lot of the voters they are trying to impress, so it doesn't happen

Although off topic now, distraction-related accidents make up 25% of all accidents of which 1.5% is only cellphones.

[new_vr]

Although off topic now, distraction-related accidents make up 25% of all accidents of which 1.5% is only cellphones.
I don't know where you get your numbers, but I heard the 80% on 680news this morning, and this site backs it up:
Distraction Related Accidents (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/cell_phones_distraction.html)

[Shaner]

Although off topic now, distraction-related accidents make up 25% of all accidents of which 1.5% is only cellphones.

I hope you have a source for that information

[BuildBuyBreed]

It's a good law but what I don't like is how they just arbitrarily destroy the car. Strip the damn thing and sell the parts to people, not necessarily the performance mods, but useful stuff like the windshield, headlights, etc. I'm sure there's a huge market for that!

[UrbanPoet]

I hope you have a source for that information

lol.. a distraction could be "oh im too dumb to not estimate the right distance to do this left turn.. oh no! i just got rammed b/c i was too distracted by my dum dum"

[Shaner]

It's a good law but what I don't like is how they just arbitrarily destroy the car. Strip the damn thing and sell the parts to people, not necessarily the performance mods, but useful stuff like the windshield, headlights, etc. I'm sure there's a huge market for that!

They aren't going around destroying the cars, not at all!
What they will do is seize and possibly destroy proceeds of crime, which includes cars.
If John Doe engages in street races for money, his car is a proceed of crime and can be seized.
If John Doe engages in street racing but there was never any money involved, they may seize the car, but they are not going to destroy it. He will get the car back after a period of time and large fee.

And there is nothing arbitrary about this proposed law. It's the same as every other law, it has to stand up in court when challenged.
When was the last time you were picked up for possession of drugs when you didn't even have drugs on you, nor ever had drugs on you? Likely never!

When was the last time a cop lied on stand to get you convicted of any charge? Likely never!

If you aren't street racing you have nothing to worry about. But if you are driving a pimped out car you need to be extra careful. If you're doing 150 km/hr on the highway and you have one of your buddies beside you also doing 150 km/hr, you're going to get nailed for racing. Even if you guys aren't racing and you're just both conveniently speeding, you're going to get nailed for racing.
If you don't like it, don't speed, problem solved!

I've said it many, many times before, if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about.

[UrbanPoet]

accidents are caused by poor judgement, turns, bad weather and SPEED.
eg. You have less time to react if your going 50km over the speed limit...

[Sprite_TM]

yah drunk driving = unconiscous


I think drunk driving needs more attention... probably kills more people

[Slippery_Pete]

accidents are caused by poor judgement, turns, bad weather and SPEED.
eg. You have less time to react if your going 50km over the speed limit...

You'd think that would be obvious to most people but it isn't. The people that it isn't obvious to, will blame the people who go too "slow", ie. people who go less than 50km over the limit.

[65505201]

I drive a 5.0 Mustang...

I'll keep that in mind when you come on RFD in a couple months and complain about how a cop crushed your car.

[Bullseye]

I'll keep that in mind when you come on RFD in a couple months and complain about how a cop crushed your car.

Why would they? I drive very safely, I've only had one ticket ever, and that was 12 years ago. I get pulled over maybe once every five years, cops can't be bothered with guys like me, older, responsible, just enjoying cruising in a nice old car.

[65505201]

Why would they? I drive very safely, I've only had one ticket ever, and that was 12 years ago. I get pulled over maybe once every five years, cops can't be bothered with guys like me, older, responsible, just enjoying cruising in a nice old car.

*shrug* knock on wood that a cop doesn't pull you over. My dad and a couple others were in court a couple days ago for bogus charges. The cop didn't even bother showing up as he had nothing on them.

Like I have said several times, I will be more receptive of this law when the criteria for establishing guilt are well defined.

[anabeces]

You'd think that would be obvious to most people but it isn't. The people that it isn't obvious to, will blame the people who go too "slow", ie. people who go less than 50km over the limit.

actually the ppl that go slow have a lot to do with it.

like a lot of times after work i am going home when i encounter idiots doing EXACTLY 50 on the FAST LANE...

50 might be the posted speed but give me a break...no one actually does 50. even cops go faster.

guess what this does to most ppl... -> pisses em off and then we just start swirving thru traffic to pass all the slow people. and to pass ppl you gotta speed up right? this is EXACTLY how i got my 1 and only speeding ticket (SO FAR).

[st7860]

I wonder if the wise guy who wrote this law realised what will probably happen with a minimum sentence requirement(the perps' will almost certainly not plea bargain, and most likely would go for a full jury trial!)


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=ee0bc858-f03d-4203-a090-fb4ca05e8029&k=79018

Police hail Ottawa's street-racing bill
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font: * * * * Maurice Bridge, Vancouver Sun; with CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, June 16, 2006
Vancouver Police Chief Jamie Graham applauded the federal government Thursday for introducing a bill aimed at curbing street racing.

"If that means you get caught street racing and you're going to lose your car and you're going to do a minimum amount of time in jail, congratulations to the prime minister," Graham said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in Vancouver last month his government would bring in new legislation to toughen penalties for street racers, making street racing a separate Criminal Code offence with minimum jail terms for repeat offenders.

The bill, tabled in the House of Commons Thursday by Justice Minister Vic Toews, includes sentences up to life in prison for street racers who kill someone.

"Street racing is not about kids having fun," Toews said. "Street racers threaten public safety and in some cases tragically take innocent lives."

The new offence, which would piggyback on the current offences of dangerous driving and criminal negligence, would increase maximum penalties and mandatory driving prohibitions, and punishment would escalate for repeat offences.

New sanctions would include up to 14 years maximum imprisonment for dangerous driving causing bodily harm, up from the present 10 years maximum imprisonment.

For dangerous driving causing death, the penalty goes from a maximum of 14 years in prison to lifetime imprisonment.

For criminal negligence causing death, the maximum penalty would remain life imprisonment.

The legislation also calls for mandatory driving prohibitions of up to three years for dangerous driving causing no bodily harm, up to 10 years for dangerous driving causing bodily harm or death, and possible lifetime bans for criminal negligence causing death.

Graham said the bill recognizes a long-standing concern of police across Canada.

"We've had innocent people in Vancouver killed because of street racing, and we've put forward motions through the [Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police] and now the government looks at this, and they agree this is an important initiative and an important program," he said.

His comments were echoed by RCMP "E" Division commanding officer Bev Busson.

"It's causing a great deal of pain and disaster in the Lower Mainland, as well as the rest of British Columbia," she said.

"We appreciate the support we get, both from the community and the government, to move that issue forward and really show it to be the danger that it is to communities."

However, the bill got little support from Nina Rivet, the sister of Irene Thorpe, a Vancouver pedestrian who was struck and killed by a street racer in 2000.

Rivet termed Toews' bill "a Band-Aid" and said she will continue to fight for tougher penalties, particularly driving prohibitions.

She said the escalating bans will not work.

"They're going to drive anyway," she said. "How many guys go through the courts who are driving under suspension?

"They need to take more physical action and not just impound these cars, but squash them, or auction them and put the money back into the victim-services fund."

She said she would continue to press Toews and the federal government for tougher laws.

The proposed legislation arrived in the House of Commons one day ahead of the release of the third film in a popular American series which focuses on street racing.

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift moves the action to Japan, where filming of the plot's races and stunts reportedly destroyed more than 80 vehicles.

[VivienM]

It's ALWAYS an under 25 male, yet these are the ones always complaining about high insurance.

I think there are two groups of under-25 males: the irresponsible ones who think modded Civics are hot, and the ones who just want some boring mid-sized sedan that no one in their right or wrong mind would ever race.

The second group (like me) doesn't like how insurance companies lump them in with the first based on nothing but gender and age. While most drivers of riced-out modded Civics with fartcan exhausts and whatnot may be < 25 males, that doesn't mean most < 25 males are riced-out Civic drivers, thankfully for society at large...


Thankfully, no innocent people were killed this time, but it's still a shame that immature young men are dying so often because of their bad decisions.

It's a shame when innocent third-parties die. I have to admit I'm far less concerned about cases where the immature irresponsible one ends up dead...

I wonder if perhaps having to bury their friends (instead of [not] watching third parties bury their mothers) and co-conspirators would knock some sense into some of these street racer types.

[masterballer]

actually the ppl that go slow have a lot to do with it.

like a lot of times after work i am going home when i encounter idiots doing EXACTLY 50 on the FAST LANE...

50 might be the posted speed but give me a break...no one actually does 50. even cops go faster.

guess what this does to most ppl... -> pisses em off and then we just start swirving thru traffic to pass all the slow people. and to pass ppl you gotta speed up right? this is EXACTLY how i got my 1 and only speeding ticket (SO FAR).

i hate these people, pisses the **** out of me :mad: why go in the fast lane when ur doing speed limit? WHY!!! move biatch

[st7860]

here in BC if you go at the speed limit but are impeding the flow you can in theory get a ticket for that.

[Narci]

Seizing and destroying cars if they are proceeds of crime. Does that mean the gov shouldn't be auctioning off those vehicles and properties if they are purchased from proceeds of crime? I.e. a drug dealers rides?

I have been stopped a few times (I was going the speed limit) because:

1) I look young so they want to make sure the benz was mine. (Would they stop me if I was older looking and black driving a benz?)

2) The cops wanted to take a look at the New Dodge Neon rental I had (It was a new model year)

3) In a little MX-3, I got stopped once because the cop said I was going so fast he had a hard time catching up to me. (I was going speed limit as I was coming off from a left turn).

I'm not argueing the merits of the new proposed law, I welcome it. It's just the way the politician and law enforcemnt present it. (Profiling drivers)

[konfusion666]

I think there are two groups of under-25 males: the irresponsible ones who think modded Civics are hot, and the ones who just want some boring mid-sized sedan that no one in their right or wrong mind would ever race.

Wow! You really hate Civics, don't you? How about "the ones who just want some boring compact car that no one in their right or wrong mind would ever race".

Which "Toronto" do you live in? The one that I live near, and work in, has most under-25's driving compact cars, not "mid-sized sedans"... they're under-25, not over-40. :lol:

[st7860]

Seizing and destroying cars if they are proceeds of crime. Does that mean the gov shouldn't be auctioning off those vehicles and properties if they are purchased from proceeds of crime? I.e. a drug dealers rides?

I have been stopped a few times (I was going the speed limit) because:

1) I look young so they want to make sure the benz was mine. (Would they stop me if I was older looking and black driving a benz?)

2) The cops wanted to take a look at the New Dodge Neon rental I had (It was a new model year)

I'm not argueing the merits of the new proposed law, I welcome it. It's just the way the politician and law enforcemnt present it. (Profiling drivers)

when they stopped you in the benz, did they do anything other than just ask for your drivers licence?

[Narci]

when they stopped you in the benz, did they do anything other than just ask for your drivers licence?

They asked for ownership and insurance, that's it. Checked it and said I can go.

[Bullseye]

I think there are two groups of under-25 males: the irresponsible ones who think modded Civics are hot, and the ones who just want some boring mid-sized sedan that no one in their right or wrong mind would ever race.

The second group (like me) doesn't like how insurance companies lump them in with the first based on nothing but gender and age. While most drivers of riced-out modded Civics with fartcan exhausts and whatnot may be < 25 males, that doesn't mean most < 25 males are riced-out Civic drivers, thankfully for society at large...

Unforunately, there is no way for insurance companies to assess risk when insuring a new driver other than to use the overall stats for similar people (age, gender, location, car, etc), it's the only logical way. How are they to know who is the racer and who is the responsible one? If they let everyone have low rates until given a reason to do otherwise, they wouldn't stay in business for long. Ask any actuary for the reasons why.



It's a shame when innocent third-parties die. I have to admit I'm far less concerned about cases where the immature irresponsible one ends up dead...

I wonder if perhaps having to bury their friends (instead of [not] watching third parties bury their mothers) and co-conspirators would knock some sense into some of these street racer types.

It's easy to say the racer deserved it, and many people do feel this way, however it is still a young life lost for no reason. Young people are not mature or experienced enough to always make the right decisions, we all felt the invincibility of youth at one point.

The solution is to take away the poor decision makers vehicles before they kill themselves or someone else. I would also support raising the license age to 21 at least, most teenagers are far too reckless and emotion driven to really understand the weight of responsibility that comes with driving.

[masterballer]

They asked for ownership and insurance, that's it. Checked it and said I can go.


one reason why this law is not going to work....cops are human, and humans are not perfect.

[masterballer]

The solution is to take away the poor decision makers vehicles before they kill themselves or someone else. I would also support raising the license age to 21 at least, most teenagers are far too reckless and emotion driven to really understand the weight of responsibility that comes with driving.

im sorry but i have seen WAY more 21+ drivers drving like idiots than younge ppl....some of these ppl dont deserve their DL.

[Bullseye]

one reason why this law is not going to work....cops are human, and humans are not perfect.

Doesn't that apply with any law, though? If we can't trust the police to enforce this law fairly, how can we trust them to enforce any law at all? It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.

To me, this is no different than, say, a careless driving charge. This is a major conviction, and would end up costing the driver many thousands of dollars in additional insurance premiums over several years. Police do not often charge people with this, as they know it is a very serious charge, and they will need very clear evidence to prove it in court.

As always, we have to rely on courts to provide the checks and balances on the police system, that's why it's there.

[Bullseye]

im sorry but i have seen WAY more 21+ drivers drving like idiots than younge ppl....some of these ppl dont deserve their DL.

The stats say otherwise, though, your individual observations can not be used as fact. If young people were not getting the bulk of driving charges and being involved in accidents, insurance for them would not be so high. It's high because there is a much higher likelyhood that they will make a claim, that's the facts.

[VivienM]

Wow! You really hate Civics, don't you? How about "the ones who just want some boring compact car that no one in their right or wrong mind would ever race".

Those people don't mod their Civics. Reread my original post.


Which "Toronto" do you live in? The one that I live near, and work in, has most under-25's driving compact cars, not "mid-sized sedans"... they're under-25, not over-40. :lol:

That's probably the same in the Toronto I'm in :) I'd contribute to the "mid-sized sedan" category... if I could actually afford the insurance on one. (When you can get perfectly nice moderately-used big domestic sedans for the same price as equally-used Civics or less, I fail to see the point of driving some undersized little car... especially when said cars cost $1K/year less in insurance than the Civic) So instead I drive nothing.

(Now you understand my anger? Because other under-25 unmarried males are being idiots on the road in their riced up Civics, I'm prevented from driving some boring mid-sized car...)

That being said, compact cars in this country are popular among all age groups, not just < 25s, so... it's not just that they're a phenomenon among the younger crowd. Hell, I've seen 60-year-olds driving Mazda 3 hatchbacks...

[VivienM]

The stats say otherwise, though, your individual observations can not be used as fact. If young people were not getting the bulk of driving charges and being involved in accidents, insurance for them would not be so high. It's high because there is a much higher likelyhood that they will make a claim, that's the facts.

That's the insurance industry's version of the facts.

I'd like them to explain why, for instance, male 24 year olds have more accidents than female 24 year olds, but male 25 year olds apparently have the same number of accidents as female 25 year olds.

Or why do married 24 year olds have less accidents than unmarried ones, but not married 25 year olds?

If being male or single makes you a higher risk (and maybe it does), I don't see why that higher risk suddenly completely disappears at 25.

There's SOMETHING fishy about the insurance industry's treatment of < 25 drivers...

[konfusion666]

(Now you understand my anger? Because other under-25 unmarried males are being idiots on the road in their riced up Civics, I'm prevented from driving some boring mid-sized car...)

Err... last time I checked, insurance rates for the boring mid-sized cars were quite low in comparison to Civics, and the same should apply to you if you're an under-25 unmarried male ;)



That being said, compact cars in this country are popular among all age groups, not just < 25s, so... it's not just that they're a phenomenon among the younger crowd. Hell, I've seen 60-year-olds driving Mazda 3 hatchbacks...

Viven... there *are* compact cars other than the Civic. Just making sure you know :razz: And they're not all underpowered... try one, you may be surprised. Oh and since this is REALLY offtopic, leave this for another thread :lol:

[Bullseye]

That's the insurance industry's version of the facts.

I'd like them to explain why, for instance, male 24 year olds have more accidents than female 24 year olds, but male 25 year olds apparently have the same number of accidents as female 25 year olds.

Or why do married 24 year olds have less accidents than unmarried ones, but not married 25 year olds?

If being male or single makes you a higher risk (and maybe it does), I don't see why that higher risk suddenly completely disappears at 25.

There's SOMETHING fishy about the insurance industry's treatment of < 25 drivers...

Rates don't suddenly plummet at 25, they go down with every year of driving experience, then at 25 you get a 'mature driver' discount.

Insurance companies use teams of actuaries to assess risk and set premiums, it is all based on past statistics. They are also very highly regulated by government in what they can do, so I'd be surprised if they are 'out to get' under 25's just to make extra money off of them.

[VivienM]

Unforunately, there is no way for insurance companies to assess risk when insuring a new driver other than to use the overall stats for similar people (age, gender, location, car, etc), it's the only logical way. How are they to know who is the racer and who is the responsible one? If they let everyone have low rates until given a reason to do otherwise, they wouldn't stay in business for long. Ask any actuary for the reasons why.

I have no problem with location, car, etc. These are things I can control. If a riced up Civic is $8000/year and a Buick Century is $4500, I can pick one or the other. I can't do a damned thing about my gender or age... (I suppose I could get married, but that's another story)

I have a problem with insurance companies looking at somebody and saying "hey, is that a penis dangling in your pants? man, that makes you dangerous".

If this system was biased against women, it would have stopped being tolerated long ago. But hey, the under-25 male has no right to be free from discrimination...


It's easy to say the racer deserved it, and many people do feel this way, however it is still a young life lost for no reason. Young people are not mature or experienced enough to always make the right decisions, we all felt the invincibility of youth at one point.

That's not a reason to justify perpetual paternalism.

There are plenty of 30 year olds out there not making the "right" decisions, too... why not impose paternalistic legal measures on them, too? (Let's start with the smokers... then the LCBO customers... etc...)


The solution is to take away the poor decision makers vehicles before they kill themselves or someone else. I would also support raising the license age to 21 at least, most teenagers are far too reckless and emotion driven to really understand the weight of responsibility that comes with driving.

See, this is the problem with age politics. SOME amount of people under a certain age are being idiots... so what's the solution? Treat ALL of them like little kids. You're no better than the idiots in Macleans who wanted to raise the voting age a few months ago. Yes, there are plenty of younger people with deplorable driving/voting/whatever habits. There are also plenty of others who don't get talked about who don't. But hey, both were born in the same year, so... why care about such a little distinction?

Someone who seemed wise to me (I don't remember who it was...) once said/wrote that if you want people to take responsibility like adults, you have to treat them like adults. Your paternalistic attitude (which, sadly, isn't only yours) goes in the opposite direction. Let's ask ourselves why it is that today's 19 year olds are probably far less responsible and mature than the ones who, 60odd years ago, would have already spent a while fighting for their country in foreign lands. By your logic, the military age should have been 25... after all, why give these young fools guns? They could kill each other instead of the enemy...

I'd support the criminal justice system treating ALL driving offences by under-18s as adult crimes, for starters, if that's not the case already. You want to drive? Go right ahead. But be prepared for the consequences.

Or how about adopting the method they've used to fight smoking? Take totalled cars from street racing accidents and park them in front of high schools with a large sign saying "Someone's best friend didn't get out of that car alive."

Or perhaps change the licencing system? There's NO scare material in the official driver's handbook or on the test. Make people learn the statistics in order to get a licence. A lot of the written tests are actually administered on computerized terminals now - how about a 2-3 minute video being displayed on the screen before the test starts?

Would you support taking away all vehicles owned by seniors over age 75 or 80, too? Or do they get a pass on your beneficent paternalism? Grandpa is allowed to be stupid and possibly kill somebody by not being aware of his declining health, but grandson needs state protection?

[VivienM]

Rates don't suddenly plummet at 25, they go down with every year of driving experience, then at 25 you get a 'mature driver' discount.

I've played with insurance quote web sites. Once the age is 25, the gender and marital status premium vanishes. Try it. Go to kanetix.com, make up a hypothetical 25 year old guy, then go back and make him female. When I did this a year or two ago, the price didn't change at all. Now make our hypothetical person 23 (to avoid him/her turning 25 during the time the policy would be in force), and change his/her gender around. Big $$$ difference.

That's the part I have a problem with. If being male matters when you're 24, why doesn't it matter once you're 25? Same with being married.

Oh, and your driving experience thing... true to some extent, but again, get two insurance quotes based on people who got their licences on the same date, but whose birth year is different. A 25 year old who got a G licence in 2000 and a 23 year old who got a G licence in 2000 (and had G1/G2s for the same period of time before) will pay vastly different rates... yet they have the same driving experience.


Insurance companies use teams of actuaries to assess risk and set premiums, it is all based on past statistics. They are also very highly regulated by government in what they can do, so I'd be surprised if they are 'out to get' under 25's just to make extra money off of them.

Government has every reason in the world to tolerate this, though. That way
- the driving age can stay 16 so people in rural areas don't get angry
- "dangerous" city kids are, at least in theory, kept off the roads by unaffordable insurance

Combine this with the disappointingly low political participation by younger voters, too... and the result is that no one in a position of authority, except for two female judges on the Supreme Court, has the slightest inclination to care about this.

Now, keeping insurance rates low for older people who do vote? That's a political issue.

[VivienM]

Err... last time I checked, insurance rates for the boring mid-sized cars were quite low in comparison to Civics, and the same should apply to you if you're an under-25 unmarried male ;)

If "quite low" means $3500/year instead of, perhaps, $5500 for a Civic (I don't like Civics or compact cars, as you seem to have noticed, so I've never bothered punching a Civic into kanetix), then yes, you're right. $3500/year is still insane, though... (that's the amount I usually get quoted these days, and I'm now 23... though kanetix claims belair direct would insure boring midsized cars for $1400/year, but that HAS to be a bug/mistake, I think)

But a 26 year old guy with identical driving record/experience (in other words, licenced same no. of years as me) would probably be paying about $2000 for his midsized car. (It's been a little while since I actually checked...)


Viven... there *are* compact cars other than the Civic. Just making sure you know :razz: And they're not all underpowered... try one, you may be surprised. Oh and since this is REALLY offtopic, leave this for another thread :lol:

Did I accuse them of being underpowered? I thought I said undersized :)

There are plenty of overpowered compact cars out there... and underpowered ones. Both of which, I might add, are equally dangerous.

There aren't any oversized ones, by definition :)

[Bullseye]

II have a problem with insurance companies looking at somebody and saying "hey, is that a penis dangling in your pants? man, that makes you dangerous".

But if it is statistically true, then what is the problem? What is you solution for a fair way to assess risk otherwise?


If this system was biased against women, it would have stopped being tolerated long ago. But hey, the under-25 male has no right to be free from discrimination...

A paranoid and jaded opinion, I don't buy into that at all.




There are plenty of 30 year olds out there not making the "right" decisions, too... why not impose paternalistic legal measures on them, too? (Let's start with the smokers... then the LCBO customers... etc...)

You consider a street racing law a paternalistic legal measure?? It applies to anyone of any age, so I'm not sure of your point here?




Let's ask ourselves why it is that today's 19 year olds are probably far less responsible and mature than the ones who, 60odd years ago, would have already spent a while fighting for their country in foreign lands. By your logic, the military age should have been 25... after all, why give these young fools guns? They could kill each other instead of the enemy...

I think a good case can be made that young people nowadays are far less mature than their counterparts 60 years ago. Kids are more coddled now, and sheltered from the realities of the world, these things can inhibit maturation. Regardless, I don't see how 'treating them like adults' fits into a discussion on car insurance, in any logical sense.




Or how about adopting the method they've used to fight smoking? Take totalled cars from street racing accidents and park them in front of high schools with a large sign saying "Someone's best friend didn't get out of that car alive."

Or perhaps change the licencing system? There's NO scare material in the official driver's handbook or on the test. Make people learn the statistics in order to get a licence. A lot of the written tests are actually administered on computerized terminals now - how about a 2-3 minute video being displayed on the screen before the test starts?

Great ideas!


Would you support taking away all vehicles owned by seniors over age 75 or 80, too? Or do they get a pass on your beneficent paternalism? Grandpa is allowed to be stupid and possibly kill somebody by not being aware of his declining health, but grandson needs state protection?

Not only do I support it, but it already happens! After a certain age in Ontario, all senior drivers must be retested to show they are still physically and mentally able to drive safely. Surely you have no problem with such a law that protects the public?

[SodiumSulfate]

I've been shopping around for quotes and one guy from Personal told me that they no longer have the male/female distinction with regards to their pricing. They go by years of experience, value of the car, and driving history of the person.

[neospice]

I have no problems with introducing laws to combat street racing, but the approach is where I think the government is doing wrong. As a relatively young male at 25 years, I own 2 cars - a crappy neon, and sports car with a turbo that I like to do mods to. I drive the neon to get to work, park at the GO Station, drive up north, etc. For my other car, I see it as a hobby that I can fix up, make it faster, and enjoy driving it on a nice summer day. I'm a fairly responsible young man, graduated, work everyday 9-5, pay taxes, etc. I also race it too! Not on the street, at Cayuga Speedway once in a while.

What worries me though is being treated differently than other drivers while I'm driving my sports car. If i'm speeding on the highway, and an officer pulls me over, what is prevent me from getting charged with street racing even though I was doing nothing of the sort. Is the father of 2 who is speeding in a mini-van at 150km/h going to get treated the same way as me? Basically, the law needs to state more specifically what street racing is, so its cut and dry. I would think that a street racing charge should only apply if it involves 2 people... i mean, you can't really race yourself can you? In that case, if two parties are involved and they are speeding next to each other, I could see street racing being a valid charge. People might put a lot of faith into our officers, but frankly I don't. I've seen a lot of officers who power-trip and give ridiculous charges to individuals because they can; because the law in those cases is vague.

People might say, well don't mod your car... well my mods are few in # and even then, it pales in comparison to an unmodded corvette that many old guys drive. I enjoy working on the car as a hobby in my spare time, and as such I should have the right to do so and be treated fairly as long as I'm not breaking any laws. It's like telling someone who enjoys home theatre as a hobby not to buy a $2000 receiver.

It's my right to be treated equally and if I were to speed, then I should receive the same treatment as the guy driving the same speed as me in a mini-van. What gives him the right to get a speeding ticket and me to get a racing charge. That is what I have a problem with. Though if the law is more cut and dry and not vague in terms of what "street racing" is, then I'll endorse it.

[VivienM]

But if it is statistically true, then what is the problem? What is you solution for a fair way to assess risk otherwise?

A paranoid and jaded opinion, I don't buy into that at all.

My solution? Do what they do in provinces with public auto insurance. Insurance price depends on your driving record, your location, and your vehicle choice. If it turns out that all responsible < 25 males drive midsized boring cars and all irresponsible ones drive trendy 'youth-oriented' cars, it should work as well as the current system without that ridiculous "the penis in your pants makes you dangerous" stereotyping...


You consider a street racing law a paternalistic legal measure?? It applies to anyone of any age, so I'm not sure of your point here?

No, I consider what you suggested paternalistic. A street racing law is good. Raising the driving age to 21 is paternalistic.

A street racing law punishes the criminals. Criminals should be punished... and harshly. Raising the driving age punishes everybody.


I think a good case can be made that young people nowadays are far less mature than their counterparts 60 years ago. Kids are more coddled now, and sheltered from the realities of the world, these things can inhibit maturation. Regardless, I don't see how 'treating them like adults' fits into a discussion on car insurance, in any logical sense.

It fits into a discussion on raising the driving age. You're simply encouraging the "coddling" and "sheltering" that inhibits maturation, to use your words :)


Not only do I support it, but it already happens! After a certain age in Ontario, all senior drivers must be retested to show they are still physically and mentally able to drive safely. Surely you have no problem with such a law that protects the public?

I didn't say test them, I said take their vehicles away :) Let's punish Mr. Healthy 80 Year Old for the sins of Mr. Unhealthy 80 Year Old. :) (You know, like you want to punish Mr. Responsible 18 Year Old for the sins of Mr. Foolish 18 Year Old?)

Remember, this was a response to your let's-raise-the-driving-age point. If you said test young drivers, I'd say it's already being done... (indeed, today's young drivers get tested WAY more strictly than young drivers 15 years ago)

If it wasn't for the suicidal politics of it, I'd favour a road test on every licence renewal for ALL drivers. Not just seniors. Everybody. What's good for the young and the old should be good for everybody. But hey, that's a political non-starter.

[Bullseye]

What worries me though is being treated differently than other drivers while I'm driving my sports car. If i'm speeding on the highway, and an officer pulls me over, what is prevent me from getting charged with street racing even though I was doing nothing of the sort. Is the father of 2 who is speeding in a mini-van at 150km/h going to get treated the same way as me? Basically, the law needs to state more specifically what street racing is, so its cut and dry.

As I mentioned above, police realize the seriousness of this charge, and like a careless driving charge, they will very likely only use the racing charge in very clear cut cases. The courts will not tolerate abuse of the law by police when the consequences are so serious for the driver, they will have to have a very good case to make it stick.

[Bullseye]

My solution? Do what they do in provinces with public auto insurance. Insurance price depends on your driving record, your location, and your vehicle choice. If it turns out that all responsible < 25 males drive midsized boring cars and all irresponsible ones drive trendy 'youth-oriented' cars, it should work as well as the current system without that ridiculous "the penis in your pants makes you dangerous" stereotyping...

With public auto insurance, the older drivers are merely subsidizing the younger ones accident claims, this has been a big sticking point in the public vs. private debate. When things are left to private business, as most affairs should be, reality reigns, not government incompetence. With private, they base premiums on past stats, the blunt and mystifying hand of government uses god knows what type of system to assess risk between different age groups.


No, I consider what you suggested paternalistic. A street racing law is good. Raising the driving age to 21 is paternalistic.

A street racing law punishes the criminals. Criminals should be punished... and harshly. Raising the driving age punishes everybody.

So if a driving age of 21 is paternalistic, why isn't 16, then? According to your logic, any driving age at all must be paternalistic.

[edgedamage]

If the police showed the public that they were going to use a mobile car crusher on cars they caught in the act of street racing. That would stop more folks.
A sign of a good driver: He/She would NEVER!! do anything that would indanger the lives of inocent people.

[Emancipated]

If the police showed the public that they were going to use a mobile car crusher on cars they caught in the act of street racing. That would stop more folks.
A sign of a good driver: He/She would NEVER!! do anything that would indanger the lives of inocent people.


Do you think people are just going to hand over their keys? You'll have people engaging in high speed chases.

[VivienM]

With public auto insurance, the older drivers are merely subsidizing the younger ones accident claims, this has been a big sticking point in the public vs. private debate. When things are left to private business, as most affairs should be, reality reigns, not government incompetence. With private, they base premiums on past stats, the blunt and mystifying hand of government uses god knows what type of system to assess risk between different age groups.

Now we're getting into a philosophical debate about the purpose of insurance :)

Is it so wrong that the older drivers subsidize the younger, anyways? There's a marked reluctance for older people to subsidize the young these days...
If you want an example, look at what's happened to university tuition... especially in so-called 'professional' programs where tuition is 10-15 times what it was about 10-12 years ago, largely due to diminishing taxpayer (read: older people) funding.


So if a driving age of 21 is paternalistic, why isn't 16, then? According to your logic, any driving age at all must be paternalistic.

Hmm... that would depend on what the rationale for 16 was... but yes, that's quite possibly what an extension of my reasoning would lead to.

I'm generally not too fond of the use of age as a generic proxy for competence in any context, because it can lead to paradoxical outcomes. (e.g. why can Paul Bernardo vote, but a responsible 17 year old who has never gotten in trouble can't?)

Ironically, driving is one of the cases where it would be easiest to get rid of arbitrary age distinctions, given you can easily
a) figure out whether someone is 'big' enough to be able to control a car
and b) using computerized simulators, for example, test their ability to drive without putting any member of the public in harm's way
for every individual person.

Now, where I would support restrictions, possibly based on age or on driving experience generally, is on the number of passengers, as I mentioned in an earlier thread. (And I don't mean the ridiculous rules they've implemented now in Ontario) I'm of the opinion that an inexperienced 17 year old driver, alone or with older (read: parent-age) passengers, is not likely more dangerous than an equally inexperienced 24 year old (it's hard to believe there would be 24 year olds without much driving experience, in my mind, but there seem to be lots without licences in big cities).

But throw in stupid passengers in the back seat, and everything could readily go to hell... It's one thing to drive responsibly. It's quite another to be able to properly deal with the pressure to do stupid things that many younger back seat passengers would exert on a driver... Many would either a) give in, and do the stupid things with possibly lethal consequences, or b) get so distracted arguing with the passengers that they'd get into accidents that way. Not good either way.

[Roninvancouver]

Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

You don't like the rules - take the bus.

end of debate

[VivienM]

Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

Hmm...

I was going to look for court decisions where the court disagreed (there are some), but Westlaw turned up this little gem instead: "Driving automobiles is a privilege most adult Canadians take for granted. It is important to their lives and work. While the privilege can be removed because of risk, it must not be removed on the basis of discriminatory assumptions founded on stereotypes of disability, rather than actual capacity to drive safely."

I love Chief Justice McLachlin!

(for any legal geeks who may read this, the exact citation is
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia
(Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 at para. 1... I hope you'll excuse me for not providing parallel citations)

[anabeces]

As I mentioned above, police realize the seriousness of this charge, and like a careless driving charge, they will very likely only use the racing charge in very clear cut cases. The courts will not tolerate abuse of the law by police when the consequences are so serious for the driver, they will have to have a very good case to make it stick.

damn...i wish i had as much trust in cops as you.

[65505201]

Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

You don't like the rules - take the bus.

end of debate

As long as I can't opt out of taxes destined for the MoT, it is a right, not a privilege.

[Shaner]

As long as I can't opt out of taxes destined for the MoT, it is a right, not a privilege.

I don't care what you pay, driving is NOT a right!
How many people in this country have their license suspended right now?
Tell me again that it's a right..

[65505201]

I don't care what you pay, driving is NOT a right!
How many people in this country have their license suspended right now?
Tell me again that it's a right..

So...you're saying that driving is a privilege because there are people in this country that have their license suspended and still have to pay taxes?

That's a pretty weak way to support your argument.

People that break the law go to jail. Are you saying that freedom is a privilege because there are people that have their freedom 'temporarily suspended'?

BTW, I just sick and tired of people that repeat 'driving is a privilege, not a right' over and over w/o actually questioning the acts that the government are pushing through. I'm inclined to believe that everyone that completely supports this bill on RFD does so because it doesn't affect them.

[Shaner]

So...you're saying that driving is a privilege because there are people in this country that have their license suspended and still have to pay taxes?

That's a pretty weak way to support your argument.

People that break the law go to jail. Are you saying that freedom is a privilege because there are people that have their freedom 'temporarily suspended'?

BTW, I just sick and tired of people that repeat 'driving is a privilege, not a right' over and over w/o actually questioning the acts that the government are pushing through. I'm inclined to believe that everyone that completely supports this bill on RFD does so because it doesn't affect them.

You're right, it doesn't affect me because I don't race on the streets.
Why should I be concerned about tough street racing laws when I don't race on the streets?

Also, in case you missed it, there's already been a court decision about driving being a privilege and not a right.

If you are so hell bent on saying driving is a right, show me where it states that in the Charter.

[gman]

So...you're saying that driving is a privilege because there are people in this country that have their license suspended and still have to pay taxes?

That's a pretty weak way to support your argument.

People that break the law go to jail. Are you saying that freedom is a privilege because there are people that have their freedom 'temporarily suspended'?

BTW, I just sick and tired of people that repeat 'driving is a privilege, not a right' over and over w/o actually questioning the acts that the government are pushing through. I'm inclined to believe that everyone that completely supports this bill on RFD does so because it doesn't affect them.

Do you know if you don't pass the driving exam to get a licence, you are not allowed to drive and you are still required to pay tax?

Do you know if you are blind, you are not allowed to drive and you are still required to pay tax?

Do you know people who were send to jail are still required to pay tax too?

[65505201]

You're right, it doesn't affect me because I don't race on the streets.
Why should I be concerned about tough street racing laws when I don't race on the streets?

Also, in case you missed it, there's already been a court decision about driving being a privilege and not a right.

If you are so hell bent on saying driving is a right, show me where it states that in the Charter.

1. So you're saying that you don't care about questionable laws if they don't affect you?

2. There have also been court decisions that say driving is a right that can be revoked (much like freedom, which can be revoked).

3. If you're so hell bent about the Charter, do you think that everything that is a right should be written into it?

4. My question to you is this, other than being told over and over that 'driving is a privilege', have you actually thought about why it should be that way?

5. Since you're so adament that driving is a privilege, I suppose that you'll support any idiotic law that the MoT pushes throught, since it's 'their' road and it's a privilege to drive on them?

[65505201]

Do you know people who were send to jail are still required to pay tax too?

Did you just support my last point? Freedom is a privilege because it can be taken away?

[dark169]

As long as I can't opt out of taxes destined for the MoT, it is a right, not a privilege.

that assumes your not gaining any benift from others use of the MoT and the roads, ever wonder how that food gets to your super market :lol:

I've been paying taxes from the ffirst day I got my first paycheque, even before that my allowance was taxed a 7% :lol: does that mean I shouldn't have to obye the rules of the road? Or does that mean people who pay more taxes should get more warnings becuase they pay more...

Driving is not a right any arguement for it being a right (which I haven't seen from you) would be pretty weak. Now everyone who meets the critia for the abilty to drive does have the right to apply but doing so means you agree to the rules/regulations.

BTW, freedom isn't taken away its restricted in prison.

[gman]

Did you just support my last point? Freedom is a privilege because it can be taken away?

Freedom is a right (we are talking about Canada and we are talking about human being here). It is something you are supposed to be born with. You don't need to apply for it. You don't need to qualify for it. However, a right can be taken away.

As a driver licence, you don't born with it. You need to 'earn' it. You need to 'maintain' it in 'good' standing. You need to qualify to have it. Hence, it is a privilege. A privilege is not something you can get without any effort. And, in this case, a driver licence is not something you can keep without "ongoing" effort. You can think having a driver licence is like being a licenced medical doctor in a much smaller scale of effort.

[65505201]

Regardless of whether it's a right or a privilege, why have we been raised with 'driving is a privilege, not a right' ingrained in our heads? If both can be taken away (or restricted - just semantics), what difference is there, really?

[Shaner]

Regardless of whether it's a right or a privilege, why have we been raised with 'driving is a privilege, not a right' ingrained in our heads? If both can be taken away (or restricted - just semantics), what difference is there, really?

Why are you even arguing about whether it's a right or not? Does it even matter?

Whether it's a right or a privilege, it can be taken away from you for many reasons, so who cares.

[gman]

Regardless of whether it's a right or a privilege, why have we been raised with 'driving is a privilege, not a right' ingrained in our heads? If both can be taken away (or restricted - just semantics), what difference is there, really?

The difference is (if you really care):

You don't need to earn 'right'. You get that automatically but you can lose it.
You need to do something really bad in order to lose it.

You need to earn 'privilege'. You don't necessary get that even if you try your best. Of course, you can also lose it. You don't need to do something really bad to lose that. You can lose your driver's licence just because you did not pay your licence fee.

[65505201]

Ok, so why is it when people question certain laws, such as this one, people automatically say 'driving is a privilege, not a right,' essentially telling one to shove it?

[alv077]

This is complete garbage.

It is too much power to give to the police. Its a free pass for them to destroy your car and suspend your liscence because they feel like it. With no appeals, whos going to stop them? Its their word against yours.

As a senior highschool student, this is really unfair to me. I dont intend to take part of any race, but we all know theyll start picking innocents in order to fill their quotas.

[BeaverLiquor]

So...you're saying that driving is a privilege because there are people in this country that have their license suspended and still have to pay taxes?

That's a pretty weak way to support your argument.

People that break the law go to jail. Are you saying that freedom is a privilege because there are people that have their freedom 'temporarily suspended'?

BTW, I just sick and tired of people that repeat 'driving is a privilege, not a right' over and over w/o actually questioning the acts that the government are pushing through. I'm inclined to believe that everyone that completely supports this bill on RFD does so because it doesn't affect them.

are you the type of person who parks in front of a hydrant/in an emergency lane and in order to get to the emergency when the fire department/police/ems has to get your vehicle out of the way you get angry at them? anyways last time i checked there is no direct mto tax.


This is complete garbage.

It is too much power to give to the police. Its a free pass for them to destroy your car and suspend your liscence because they feel like it. With no appeals, whos going to stop them? Its their word against yours.

As a senior highschool student, this is really unfair to me. I dont intend to take part of any race, but we all know theyll start picking innocents in order to fill their quotas.

like they do for their murder quota?

========

first "test" for this law?

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1166.aspx

[masterballer]

like they do for their murder quota?


omg lmaoooooooooooo that was jokessssssssssssssssssssss :D

[Ghost_Rider]

This is complete garbage.

It is too much power to give to the police. Its a free pass for them to destroy your car and suspend your liscence because they feel like it. With no appeals, whos going to stop them? Its their word against yours.

As a senior highschool student, this is really unfair to me. I dont intend to take part of any race, but we all know theyll start picking innocents in order to fill their quotas.

:D agreed !!!! :cool:

[alv077]

like they do for their murder quota?
========

first "test" for this law?

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_1166.aspx

no, like their speeding quota.

again, its the fact that there are no appeals which bugs me. If we said the government can execute you if they have SUSPITION of murder, i bet we would be taking more attention.

the news story is tragic, but we cant let ourselves be so overcome by emotions as to forget to be careful of what law becomes. This is way too much power for some police officers to handle: id bet that any experienced police officier can tell you there are some *******s in their stations.

[VivienM]

no, like their speeding quota.

Uhm... I don't need they need to arrest any innocents to meet a speeding quota, that's for sure.

They can start by arresting all the guilty people they're not arresting now...

[VivienM]

Ok, so why is it when people question certain laws, such as this one, people automatically say 'driving is a privilege, not a right,' essentially telling one to shove it?

Because driving is one of very few activities where somebody can kill a total innocent stranger.

That's the point. It's hard to argue YOU have a right to engage in a dangerous activity where your 3500 lbs weapon could easily kill someone's wife or mother.

[VivienM]

As a senior highschool student, this is really unfair to me.

Please explain how you being a high school student makes this unfair to you.

[SoNgMaN]

i have neverseen this many stupid people in one place.

[masterballer]

i have neverseen this many stupid people in one place.

:D :D :D :D :D

[65505201]

Because driving is one of very few activities where somebody can kill a total innocent stranger.

That's the point. It's hard to argue YOU have a right to engage in a dangerous activity where your 3500 lbs weapon could easily kill someone's wife or mother.

So, since driving is an activity where an innocent can be killed, we accept whatever laws the government decides to pass without question?

BTW, I should add that street racers should be punished. I just have a problem with the amount of power given to the police without a reasonable system to hold them accountable. Going to court 12 months after your car is crushed is not a reasonable system.

[jetway1212]

the statement driving is privilege not a right does not have anything to do with the topic.

So whoevers say that need to shove it to their asses.

Previlege is that you have to follow a certain "conditions" to be "rewarded". Thus driving is previlege in a sense. However the "conditions" has to be carefully set. If the law said you have to do a stupid condition to get your license would ppl still claim "driving is privilege not a right?"

The topic here is that the new law is very questionable and totally not effective for its purpose. Giving out a stupid law and use the statement above to shove it is just so wrong.

[jetway1212]

i have neverseen this many stupid people in one place.


lol how ironic, do you even know what that means?

[65505201]

The topic here is that the new law is very questionable and totally not effective for its purpose. Giving out a stupid law and use the statement above to shove it is just so wrong.

Not to mention that this new law is more of a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well thought out plan...

[VivienM]

Not to mention that this new law is more of a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well thought out plan...

Democracy tends to produce knee-jerk reactions, not well-thought-out plans...

(Though, what would a well-thought-out anti-street racing plan look like?)

[gman]

Not to mention that this new law is more of a knee-jerk reaction rather than a well thought out plan...

BTW, which new law are you talking about? Where is the detail? Are you still talking about Klees's private member's bill? Who care about that one? If it can go through the 2nd reading, for sure, it will be amended by Liberals. What are you so worry about?

[st7860]

vin diesel appears in the new fast and furious.


http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=9dbcb862-47d6-42db-b9ec-9ab27668d130&k=66187

Some critics, including the RCMP and B.C.'s solicitor-general, are furious about The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift -- a new film that they say celebrates street racing.

Their concerns come as the federal Conservative government tables legislation to crack down on the illegal pursuit, which has caused alarm in cities across Canada.

They also follow predictions by Toronto police that there will be a surge in street racing as thrill-seeking movie buffs step out of the cinema and into their cars.

B.C. Solicitor-General John Les was unavailable for an interview, but issued a blunt, terse statement through an official by e-mail.

"The producers of these movies are irresponsible," Les said.

A spokesman for the Mounties in B.C. also slammed the movie.

"Having only seen the trailers, I can say that, from what I have seen, it does nothing to help the problems we have on our streets and, I imagine, other major centres by promoting this type of activity," said Cpl. Tom Seaman.

"It's promoting something that's extremely dangerous and has caused many deaths."

But Const. Howard Chow, a Vancouver Police Department spokesman, downplayed the film's possible impact. He said that even young viewers are "quite capable of seeing what's Hollywood and what's reality."

Premier Gordon Campbell yesterday said he too was wary about linking on-screen behavior to real-world behavior, adding that "it's up to us as parents, up to us as a society, to point out that that's not the kind of behaviour anyone should endorse or encourage."

Tokyo Drift, which ranked second at the American box office as of yesterday, is the third in a series of movies released since 2001. The first, The Fast and the Furious, earned $232 million worldwide on a $42-million budget after it was released in 2001. The sequel, 2 Fast 2 Furious, made $264 million worldwide.

Drift has an American high-school senior played by Lucas Black dispatched to Tokyo to avoid jail for his racing habits. There he gets involved in the racing culture, with an emphasis on "drift" manoeuvres on the road.

In a televised message on the film's website, Black seems to acknowledge the possible danger of the driving depicted in the film.

"The drifting and driving stunts in Tokyo Drift are amazing and they're also fantasy," he says, noting that "experienced professionals" did them on closed streets.

"City streets and highways are no place for reckless behaviour. Stunt driving belongs in the movies and not on city streets."

The movie is likely, if nothing else, to open old wounds for families whose members have fallen victims to street racers.

The father of RCMP Const. Jimmy Ng -- killed in 2002 when his cruiser was struck in a hit and run involving a pair of street racers in Richmond -- said he was unable to comment on the film because he and his wife are going to Mongolia on a missionary trip and have not seen it.

"Unfortunately, it is a choice for the individual to see those [movies]," Christopher Ng said in an e-mail to The Province.

"It is definitely has a certain effect on the youngsters to venture and take risks to beat the odds

[65505201]

vin diesel appears in the new fast and furious.


http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=9dbcb862-47d6-42db-b9ec-9ab27668d130&k=66187

Some critics, including the RCMP and B.C.'s solicitor-general, are furious about The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift -- a new film that they say celebrates street racing.

Their concerns come as the federal Conservative government tables legislation to crack down on the illegal pursuit, which has caused alarm in cities across Canada.

They also follow predictions by Toronto police that there will be a surge in street racing as thrill-seeking movie buffs step out of the cinema and into their cars.

B.C. Solicitor-General John Les was unavailable for an interview, but issued a blunt, terse statement through an official by e-mail.

"The producers of these movies are irresponsible," Les said.

A spokesman for the Mounties in B.C. also slammed the movie.

"Having only seen the trailers, I can say that, from what I have seen, it does nothing to help the problems we have on our streets and, I imagine, other major centres by promoting this type of activity," said Cpl. Tom Seaman.

"It's promoting something that's extremely dangerous and has caused many deaths."

But Const. Howard Chow, a Vancouver Police Department spokesman, downplayed the film's possible impact. He said that even young viewers are "quite capable of seeing what's Hollywood and what's reality."

Premier Gordon Campbell yesterday said he too was wary about linking on-screen behavior to real-world behavior, adding that "it's up to us as parents, up to us as a society, to point out that that's not the kind of behaviour anyone should endorse or encourage."

Tokyo Drift, which ranked second at the American box office as of yesterday, is the third in a series of movies released since 2001. The first, The Fast and the Furious, earned $232 million worldwide on a $42-million budget after it was released in 2001. The sequel, 2 Fast 2 Furious, made $264 million worldwide.

Drift has an American high-school senior played by Lucas Black dispatched to Tokyo to avoid jail for his racing habits. There he gets involved in the racing culture, with an emphasis on "drift" manoeuvres on the road.

In a televised message on the film's website, Black seems to acknowledge the possible danger of the driving depicted in the film.

"The drifting and driving stunts in Tokyo Drift are amazing and they're also fantasy," he says, noting that "experienced professionals" did them on closed streets.

"City streets and highways are no place for reckless behaviour. Stunt driving belongs in the movies and not on city streets."

The movie is likely, if nothing else, to open old wounds for families whose members have fallen victims to street racers.

The father of RCMP Const. Jimmy Ng -- killed in 2002 when his cruiser was struck in a hit and run involving a pair of street racers in Richmond -- said he was unable to comment on the film because he and his wife are going to Mongolia on a missionary trip and have not seen it.

"Unfortunately, it is a choice for the individual to see those [movies]," Christopher Ng said in an e-mail to The Province.

"It is definitely has a certain effect on the youngsters to venture and take risks to beat the odds

:rolleyes:

I suppose they should be furious about every movie about gangs, drugs, explosions, guns, etc. etc.

[baseline]

I can see more and more people will just drive without a license and insurance

[alv077]

Uhm... I don't need they need to arrest any innocents to meet a speeding quota, that's for sure.

They can start by arresting all the guilty people they're not arresting now...

They dont need to arrest them, they take away their liscence or give them demerit ;p As in this case too.

Why not hunt down guilty people first? Its harder.


Please explain how you being a high school student makes this unfair to you.

Its the target group. Just like how insurance screws us over because we're "wreckless"

[VivienM]

They dont need to arrest them, they take away their liscence or give them demerit ;p As in this case too.

Why not hunt down guilty people first? Its harder.

It's not exactly HARD to find guilty speeders, given that probably 90% of the cars on the road, at least, are speeding at any given moment.

Let's make something very clear: somebody arrested for speeding at 110km/h, for example, is NOT an innocent person targetted to meet a quota. They are guilty.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with your MPP.


Its the target group. Just like how insurance screws us over because we're "wreckless"

Most street racers are probably a taaaaaad older than high school age...

The danger here is not to people who are young, IMO, the danger is to people who have vehicles that look like street racer vehicles. 17 year old driving a F*rd Taurus is not going to be a target... but a 24 year old in a modded Civic that announces its presence with its fart can exhaust? Now that's a different story.

[fastlayne]

An Oshawa woman is charged with stunt driving for tailgating!

Toronto Sun article (http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/06/28/9959321-sun.html)

The article states that, "although the woman wasn't travelling in excess of 150 km/h -- the speed at which the legislation kicks in -- following too close falls under the law."

This law is becoming a joke, but I'm not laughing. It seems that every HTA infraction is destined to be promoted to "stunt driving" or "street racing", all of course, at the officer's whim.

Not wearing your seat belt - stunt driving.

Talking on your cell phone - stunt driving.

Faling to signal a lane change - stunt driving.

Rolling a stop sign - street racing.

It is no wonder that "street racing" charges have increased by a factor of 10 since HTA 172 was adopted.

[Piro21]

If 90% of the cars on the road are speeding at any given moment, and the average speed on an Ontario highway is 120 kph (transport Canada did a study), why are our speed limits so low? Is the government truly so out of touch?

[fastlayne]

If 90% of the cars on the road are speeding at any given moment, and the average speed on an Ontario highway is 120 kph (transport Canada did a study), why are our speed limits so low? Is the government truly so out of touch?

And from my experience at least that many, 90%, are tailgating.

I think this is the government's way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

With the HTA 172, even a tailgater can be charged with stunt driving and lose their car for a week.

If the OPP had enough manpower, a weekend blitz could take most of the GTAs vehicles off the road with a tailgating/stunt driving charge. Think of the reduction in traffic congestion, the fuel savings and smog reduction.

[Piro21]

And from my experience at least that many, 90%, are tailgating.

I think this is the government's way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

With the HTA 172, even a tailgater can be charged with stunt driving and lose their car for a week.

If the OPP had enough manpower, a weekend blitz could take most of the GTAs vehicles off the road with a tailgating/stunt driving charge. Think of the reduction in traffic congestion, the fuel savings and smog reduction.

And if that happened, every single political figure that had ever said the words 'speed' or 'traffic' while in office would be out of a job come the next election. Serious legal reform is really needed in this country, and new knee-jerk laws put in place to win votes from the old and ignorant don't help things.