"Shock and awe" all over again..

[d_jedi]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/261595
Some pretty harsh penalties there..
I like it!

[woodstock827]

And there is no right of appeal in the case of a suspension or impoundment, police say.

Am I suppose to trust that no police is ever gonna abuse their power?
Man I hate politicians.

[Tijuana]

Whats wrong with that? 50 over on a highway maybe its kinda dumb, but 50 over in any other zone your just askn for it

[d1sc0veryy]

I am happy about this.
I hate dumb kids speeding like crazy

[Spray]

Works for me, so long as the dumbasses going 50 under get the same treatment.

[65505201]

Am I suppose to trust that no police is ever gonna abuse their power?
Man I hate politicians.

I wonder how many people going 140 will get "clocked" at 152. O well, I guess I'm glad I no longer have to drive the 407. I would totally fall asleep driving at "safe" speeds.

Hopefully some lawyer will find a pay to punish the cops and the government when they're unable to prove the charge in court.

[kuqdew]

got what they deserve

[Ziggy007]

I wonder how many people going 140 will get "clocked" at 152. O well, I guess I'm glad I no longer have to drive the 407. I would totally fall asleep driving at "safe" speeds.

Hopefully some lawyer will find a pay to punish the cops and the government when they're unable to prove the charge in court.

If you are going 140 you are still a bonehead. God I can only imagine the jerks out on the road who will try and argue they were only doing 145 and not 150.

Look I can understand sometimes going 10 km over the limit to go with traffic, even 120 if you are keeping pace, but I have never seen the flow of the road going more than that ever, except for the 401 heading to Montreal, around the Kingston area.

And at first I though the no appeal system was dumb, but then I thought about how with our joke penal system everyone that appealed would probably get a full pardon from any kind of punishment so I like it.

[Sohjonn]

i don't know if this is related, but wasn't there a poll here re: speed limiters in cars and many ppl opposed to it. if you opposed the car speed limiter idea, why would you support this?

also if i'm going 160km/h (which i won't of course) maybe 158.7km/h, and a cop were to chase me, knowing that i would be fined $2000 min, have my car impounded and license suspended, why should i stop?

[nalababe]

thank god...

Ok, I do drive 130 on the 401....but really 150! Sorry, I no longer have any sympathy...and around Kingston, 120-130 is more than sufficient....I have done it too many times...

[konfusion666]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/261595
Some pretty harsh penalties there..
I like it!

Me too. Only because the sorry state of our driving education/licensing system has made such draconian laws necessary to reduce the amount of anarchy and chaos on many of our roads...

I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a proliferation in the number of b!tchfests on RFD about people getting hit by this new law. Then we'll know who the real bastard drivers here are. :twisted:

[felixdd]

Look I can understand sometimes going 10 km over the limit to go with traffic, even 120 if you are keeping pace, but I have never seen the flow of the road going more than that ever, except for the 401 heading to Montreal, around the Kingston area.

Or the stretch of 401 from London to Toronto. Any slower than 120 (literally) and cars will be passing you. Even if you're in the slow lane.

[Zeev20]

Or the stretch of 401 from London to Toronto. Any slower than 120 (literally) and cars will be passing you. Even if you're in the slow lane.

I got a speeding ticket come back from Toronto from my birthday dinner at 2am in the morning around Feb. The cop told me to follow the speed limit on my drive back to kitchener.

I kid you not I was going 100km in the center lane and TRUCKS were passing me on the left and right lanes! So by following the police officer instruction I was impeding traffic and not driving safe! :twisted:

[corrupt123]

First of all, if you're not passing, get in the right ****ing lane.

Second of all, drive the flow of traffic. No cop is going to pull over a group of 20 cars, so you're in the clear. I've driven 110 beside a cop without issue... because that's flow.


I got a speeding ticket come back from Toronto from my birthday dinner at 2am in the morning around Feb. The cop told me to follow the speed limit on my drive back to kitchener.

I kid you not I was going 100km in the center lane and TRUCKS were passing me on the left and right lanes! So by following the police officer instruction I was impeding traffic and not driving safe! :twisted:

[65505201]

Look I can understand sometimes going 10 km over the limit to go with traffic, even 120 if you are keeping pace, but I have never seen the flow of the road going more than that ever, except for the 401 heading to Montreal, around the Kingston area.


The flow of traffic on the 407 pretty much 140-150ish on the left lane any time of the day, unless some douchbag wants to make a statement. Anywhere ~120km outside of the GTA area is pretty much deserted after midnight, so there are insufficient number of cars to really dictate a flow of traffic.

While driving from Toronto -> Minneapolis, I think I did the entire Waterloo -> Sarnia stretch doing 140+, passing maybe 10 cars at most. Hell, even the trucks were going 120ish. Now are you telling me that driving anything over 110 on a deserted, smooth stretch of highway is unsafe? Please. I'm in greater danger of falling asleep on the wheel than losing control of my car.

[65505201]

Me too. Only because the sorry state of our driving education/licensing system has made such draconian laws necessary to reduce the amount of anarchy and chaos on many of our roads...


Are you serious? How many people have actually died from people going 150+ compared to dumbass drivers (18-60 I should add, not just 18-25) acting like douchbags on their daily drives to work?

Did it not cross your mind that....maybe....just maybe the government is targeting a non-existent issue to say they accomplished something and grab votes?

[ChrisBa]

There is really no need to go 50+ over the speed limit, now time to crack down on the rest of the idiots on the road

[Codegen]

I know on the Gatineau A-50, it's not uncommon to see traffic moving at 130

[Nikita]

Yeah, gotta love it when punishment comes before a determination of guilt. Even more, that we're going to trust our cops to mete out the punishment. But then, Canadians are so apathetic, we'll be led down this slippery slope like the sheeple we're known to be, without so much as a wimper.

I can almost understand why there will be no appeals allowed. After all, how do you go back and undo the punishment once someone has been acquitted on appeal?


thank god...

Ok, I do drive 130 on the 401....but really 150! Sorry, I no longer have any sympathy...and around Kingston, 120-130 is more than sufficient....I have done it too many times...

Ok, I do drive 110 on the 401...but really 130! I have no sympathy for you.:rolleyes: While I do have sympathy for you not being able to see the blatant hypocrisy of your own statement.

[gman]

i don't know if this is related, but wasn't there a poll here re: speed limiters in cars and many ppl opposed to it. if you opposed the car speed limiter idea, why would you support this?

Because you have the option to speed and get your car in pound. That is your choice and option. Putting a speed limiter, you don't have that option. Also, you may choose to run above 150 in a race track.



also if i'm going 160km/h (which i won't of course) maybe 158.7km/h, and a cop were to chase me, knowing that i would be fined $2000 min, have my car impounded and license suspended, why should i stop?

Why? If you don't stop, the punishment will be a lot higher such as becomes a criminal offense (in addition to you may kill yourself). And, you will consider $2000 min, car impounded and license suspended a deal. Do you seriously think if you don't stop, you won't be caught?


I got a speeding ticket come back from Toronto from my birthday dinner at 2am in the morning around Feb. The cop told me to follow the speed limit on my drive back to kitchener.

I kid you not I was going 100km in the center lane and TRUCKS were passing me on the left and right lanes! So by following the police officer instruction I was impeding traffic and not driving safe! :twisted:

Why do you stay in center lane? I always drive on the right lane even if my car is the fastest car on the road. I stayed on the right until I need to pass a car in front of me.

[masterballer]

If you are going 140 you are still a bonehead. God I can only imagine the jerks out on the road who will try and argue they were only doing 145 and not 150.

Look I can understand sometimes going 10 km over the limit to go with traffic, even 120 if you are keeping pace, but I have never seen the flow of the road going more than that ever, except for the 401 heading to Montreal, around the Kingston area.

And at first I though the no appeal system was dumb, but then I thought about how with our joke penal system everyone that appealed would probably get a full pardon from any kind of punishment so I like it.

So Democracy is dumb? Lets just give away all of our rights lol

Ever drive at 2 am on the 401? Your telling me the flow of traffic is not 140?

[KonniXeoN]

noooo my bmw =(
M-M-M-mUsttttt re-re-re-sisttt frommm speedddddddinnn....

[kleptodathief]

another power trip law! i've had reoccuring dreams where i did 150 and it was NOT on the hiways :cheesygri ....no more WOTs :twisted:

[ES_Revenge]

And at first I though the no appeal system was dumb, but then I thought about how with our joke penal system everyone that appealed would probably get a full pardon from any kind of punishment so I like it.

Saying the penal system is a joke without some kind of basis to back that up is more a popularised stereotype than anything. Like an overplayed punchline to a bad joke.

Furthermore this is barely to do with the "penal system" it's regulatory law, and regulatory law overstepping it's boundaries, IMO. Not it's jurisdictional boundaries, obviously, but just the realm of what's realistic IMO.

This is one of the most ******** traffic laws they ever dreamt up and passed yet it'll stay law and everyone will applaud it (or at least the majority will) becuase the majority can't see farther than the hand in front of their face. This has little to do with road safety and everything to do with pleasing the public who don't have a clue about road safety. Instead of putting resources and effort into actually making roads safer they waste time on this total BS and continue to push the agenda that the only thing unsafe about vehicles and roads is speeding :rolleyes:

No eligebility for appeal is not unlike the [primarily US] anti-terrorism laws that make a mockery of the [their] constitution, while everyone sits back and applauds them ignoring their true implications, due to the fear instilled in them by politicians. We might say those laws are ridiculous but then we go ahead and applaud nonsense like this?

This isn't another one of those ******** ON laws where the government takes advantage of everyone and everyone falls back and does nothing about it. Instead this is one of those ******** ON laws where they've fooled the public into believing the nonsense propaganda they spew about alleged "road safety" and everyone backs it up without thinking about it. :(

[ES_Revenge]

Me too. Only because the sorry state of our driving education/licensing system has made such draconian laws necessary to reduce the amount of anarchy and chaos on many of our roads...
Nonsense. So instead of better education and training, let's substitute unreasonable and unncessary penalties?

That's like saying, hey let's stop sex ed in classrooms and instead just start sterilising people and take away their right to have sex should they do so unprotected :rolleyes:

Punishment/penalty is never a good substitute for better education, IMO. I'm not saying penalties are not necessary (they are) but I'm just saying where you can use education/training instead, it's a much better option--everyone is better for it. Let's improve that "sorry state" of driver education/licensing, not just start making stupid laws that address nothing and fool the public.


I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a proliferation in the number of b!tchfests on RFD about people getting hit by this new law. Then we'll know who the real bastard drivers here are. :twisted:
Again, more nonsense. Just because people argue that a law isn't right or shouldn't be, doesn't mean that they are the "real bastard drivers" (whatever that means?) :rolleyes: It could just mean they could think for themselves, and not have to have the government tell them what to think and go along with it ;)

[Ziggy007]

Saying the penal system is a joke without some kind of basis to back that up is more a popularised stereotype than anything. Like an overplayed punchline to a bad joke.

Furthermore this is barely to do with the "penal system" it's regulatory law, and regulatory law overstepping it's boundaries, IMO. Not it's jurisdictional boundaries, obviously, but just the realm of what's realistic IMO.

This is one of the most ******** traffic laws they ever dreamt up and passed yet it'll stay law and everyone will applaud it (or at least the majority will) becuase the majority can't see farther than the hand in front of their face. This has little to do with road safety and everything to do with pleasing the public who don't have a clue about road safety. Instead of putting resources and effort into actually making roads safer they waste time on this total BS and continue to push the agenda that the only thing unsafe about vehicles and roads is speeding :rolleyes:

No eligebility for appeal is not unlike the [primarily US] anti-terrorism laws that make a mockery of the [their] constitution, while everyone sits back and applauds them ignoring their true implications, due to the fear instilled in them by politicians. We might say those laws are ridiculous but then we go ahead and applaud nonsense like this?

This isn't another one of those ******** ON laws where the government takes advantage of everyone and everyone falls back and does nothing about it. Instead this is one of those ******** ON laws where they've fooled the public into believing the nonsense propaganda they spew about alleged "road safety" and everyone backs it up without thinking about it. :(

The problem is the penal system has always been way too soft on street racing and speeding. Even after repeated talk by the government on crackdowns the sentence early in the year for the two kids street racing that killed a cabbie (one year house arrest) basically made a joke out of it all.

Speeding and in particular street racing is a serious threat to the road. Sure, there is other stuff like drinking and driving but speeding is just as equal a threat. Just the other day I was driving home on a stretch of 2 lane road where the limit was 80k/h. I saw two Mazda 3's racing eachother at well over 110km/h dangerously swerving in between cars to pass them, including a large work van that they almost clipped.

If you want to do something stupid that might get you killed go for it, just don't do something that puts other peoples live at risk, they aren't as stupid, or suicidal as you.

[konfusion666]

That's like saying, hey let's stop sex ed in classrooms and instead just start sterilising people and take away their right to have sex should they do so unprotected :rolleyes:

Bad analogy since the privilege to drive a vehicle is not being infringed upon, in this instance.


Punishment/penalty is never a good substitute for better education, IMO. I'm not saying penalties are not necessary (they are) but I'm just saying where you can use education/training instead, it's a much better option--everyone is better for it. Let's improve that "sorry state" of driver education/licensing, not just start making stupid laws that address nothing and fool the public.

I have no faith in any political party/government to perform any concrete actions to significantly improve the "sorry state" of driver licensing and driver education. And so, we go to Plan B.



Again, more nonsense. Just because people argue that a law isn't right or shouldn't be, doesn't mean that they are the "real bastard drivers" (whatever that means?) :rolleyes: It could just mean they could think for themselves, and not have to have the government tell them what to think and go along with it ;)

You can argue that the law is wrong if you want, which is what you are doing right now. When I refer to an increase in the number of bitchfests, I am obviously referring to the "whine" sort of threads that some people tend to post on here after they get in trouble with the law or something. You will find a few threads where someone will admit to going over the speed limit, but looking for "tips" on how to "get out of trouble". With the new law, these same whiners will be looking for ways to get their cars back! And hilarity ensues. :twisted:

[bembol]

As long as DRUNK DRIVERS get this type of Penalty/Fines, I'm okay with this.




Let me guess, they don't...the media didn't even make a fuss when there was 4 Drunk Driving Fatalities a month/two ago.

[konfusion666]

As long as DRUNK DRIVERS get this type of Penalty/Fines, I'm okay with this.




Let me guess, they don't...the media didn't even make a fuss when there was 4 Drunk Driving Fatalities a month/two ago.

Sadly, that is quite true. While speeders are indeed a menace on the roads, drunk drivers are 10x as bad. Lifetime ban for driving (in Ontario) is the only solution.

[ES_Revenge]

The problem is the penal system has always been way too soft on street racing and speeding. Even after repeated talk by the government on crackdowns the sentence early in the year for the two kids street racing that killed a cabbie (one year house arrest) basically made a joke out of it all.
Sure perhaps they are way too soft on street racing; but you realise you've just dragged the same red herring that the government did in getting popular approval for this law, right? Hint: The law has nothing to do with street racing.

I don't think the penal system is at all too soft on speeding. Speeding isn't like you're murdering someone. Again it's regulatory law. You don't need to go to jail if you broke the speed limit :rolleyes: Now if you broke the speed limit, drove like a wild person and killed a bunch of people (or even endangered them), that's a different story. But simple speeding? C'mon, it's not the end of the world. And truth be told the regulatory offence of Careless Driving (in ON) and the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving already deal with this.


Speeding and in particular street racing is a serious threat to the road. Sure, there is other stuff like drinking and driving but speeding is just as equal a threat.
Again there is no street racing here. Speeding can become a threat to safety but it isn't on it's own. The fact that you think that only proves that you believe the nonsense about speeding being this crazy threat to the safety of everyone (which it certainly isn't).

What if I told you that many higher performance automobiles out there can outbrake and outhandle cars at speeds 40-50km/h greater than average, run of the mill econoboxes? (This is true incidentally.) That some cars can haul down shorter from 80MPH than some cars can from 60MPH? That their safety systems can prevent accidents that cars not-so-equipped would be far less likely to prevent?

Surely we can't say that these cars should be able to go faster as in a faster speed limit, I'm not saying that. But at the same time you can't just say oh all speeding is dangerous.

What if I were to inform everyone of another fact. There are some drivers out there that can probably react faster at 160km/h than others can at 100km/h. Again of course we can't say that drivers with better reaction time should be able to go faster, because well there are still drivers that can't react as fast as them on the road too. But the problem here isn't necessarily going 160km/h. The problem is there are some drivers that just shouldn't be on the road.

Instead of condemning speeding as some kind of evil, let's talk about the real problems on the road. Drunk driving is one of them, there's a criminal charge for that. But did you know that driving drowsy has been proven time and time again to be more dangerous in many cases, than driving impaired?

This may seem irrelevant at first, but what I'm getting at is there are bigger problems on the road than speeding. It isn't just the guy doing 150km/h that's dangerous. It's the people that can't handle a car at any particular speed regardless of it's absolute value.

If someone's on a cell phone or pre-occupied with something while driving I'm pretty sure they can get a ticket for that. Heck you can get one for eating and driving, which is probably warranted. But do you get your car taken away and your license suspended? No. Should you? Well considering they can do it to speeders, why not do it for people not paying attention? Because the speeder may well be paying more attention and have more control over their car and situation than the person eating a sandwich in one hand and talking on the phone in the other, trying to apply make up at the same time, LOL.




Just the other day I was driving home on a stretch of 2 lane road where the limit was 80k/h. I saw two Mazda 3's racing eachother at well over 110km/h dangerously swerving in between cars to pass them, including a large work van that they almost clipped.
So what? I can tell you at least 20-40 instances for everyday where people are doing things that are quite dangerous while not speeding at all. In fact I could tell you about far more people that are breaking the speed limit that aren't doing anything even remotely as unsafe.


If you want to do something stupid that might get you killed go for it, just don't do something that puts other peoples live at risk, they aren't as stupid, or suicidal as you.
Right, certainly. But again it has nothing to do with simple speeding. Simply speeding does not necessarily create that situation, nor is it necessarily stupid enough that it might get you or someone else killed. In fact every time you get in a car at all you're doing something stupid that might get you or someone else killed for it. And that is an undeniable fact.

And that's the fact that people don't get. Let's blame road accidents on everything but the fact that there should be better driver training and better standards for licensing. Why not weed out those people that cannot react fast enough. Why don't we have reaction and reflex tests for drivers? Certainly we could use them out there. Driving just isn't following the speed limit and parallel parking, there's a lot more out there than that. And if you aren't paying attention, can't or won't react or just don't know what you're doing? You're far more unsafe than the person who does know what they are doing and is simply going faster than the speed limit.

[romsan04]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/261595
Some pretty harsh penalties there..
I like it!

We also need to decrease speed on highway to 60Km/h. 100km/h is too much. So many people die because of speed.

Or better let's make driving illegal in Ontario.

[masterballer]

Saying the penal system is a joke without some kind of basis to back that up is more a popularised stereotype than anything. Like an overplayed punchline to a bad joke.

Furthermore this is barely to do with the "penal system" it's regulatory law, and regulatory law overstepping it's boundaries, IMO. Not it's jurisdictional boundaries, obviously, but just the realm of what's realistic IMO.

This is one of the most ******** traffic laws they ever dreamt up and passed yet it'll stay law and everyone will applaud it (or at least the majority will) becuase the majority can't see farther than the hand in front of their face. This has little to do with road safety and everything to do with pleasing the public who don't have a clue about road safety. Instead of putting resources and effort into actually making roads safer they waste time on this total BS and continue to push the agenda that the only thing unsafe about vehicles and roads is speeding :rolleyes:

No eligebility for appeal is not unlike the [primarily US] anti-terrorism laws that make a mockery of the [their] constitution, while everyone sits back and applauds them ignoring their true implications, due to the fear instilled in them by politicians. We might say those laws are ridiculous but then we go ahead and applaud nonsense like this?

This isn't another one of those ******** ON laws where the government takes advantage of everyone and everyone falls back and does nothing about it. Instead this is one of those ******** ON laws where they've fooled the public into believing the nonsense propaganda they spew about alleged "road safety" and everyone backs it up without thinking about it. :(


+1 great post...something needs to be done. Rally anyone?

[corrupt123]

I'm with ES_Revenge. However I don't totally dislike this law. 50km/h over the limit is a lot, and for speeding that much there really should be a stiff penalty. I agree with what you said - There are people and cars that could drive at 50km/h over better then some people could at 50km/h under, but laws are in place to effect everyone, so there has to be a line drawn somewhere. It is also partly the responsibility of the cop: If he yanks someone driving an M5 at 160 on the 401 at 2 am, he's got to decide if this person was doing something unsafe and deserves the maximum punishment, or perhaps a lesser concequence.

Whats silly is that they've decorated this as the "anti street racer" law, saying it'll save lives and prevent street racing. Unfortunately, it's the unsafe lane changes and reckless driving that claim lives, not the speed. If this had been marketed as a law to generally make the roads safer, I'd be more willing to swallow it.

As ES_Revenge already said, the problems in this provence (and contenent for that matter) is the education system. In europe it's much tougher to get your license (at least, in many places) and because of that, people can drive better. I've been on the autobahn in a car doing 240km/h. I've been in traffic over there moving at 130km/h that most people would crawl through here at 60-80km/h. Unfortunately, transportation as a whole is better over there. If you can't drive, the public/alternative transit can get you around at a reasonable price in a reasonable amount of time. Here, well, public transit sucks. I used to go piantballing every weekend, and I'd spend an hour and a half in transit to go 15km. Because of that, people need to drive. In the city it's a little better, but Toronto is surrounded by suburbs for 25+km in every direction, and if you dont drive in oakville/ajax/aurora/whatever, you ain't gettin' around. Plain and simple. For that reason, you get your drivers license sooner than you get alcohol or smokes. You get taught by a "certified" driving instructor who is actually nothing more than your mom, dad, or some Joe who applied for a driving school permit.

This law might be a joke, but thats only because it's a part of a system [transportation] that is a joke. If we wanted things to be satisfactory, the entire country would need overhaul.

[Ziggy007]

Sure perhaps they are way too soft on street racing; but you realise you've just dragged the same red herring that the government did in getting popular approval for this law, right? Hint: The law has nothing to do with street racing.

I don't think the penal system is at all too soft on speeding. Speeding isn't like you're murdering someone. Again it's regulatory law. You don't need to go to jail if you broke the speed limit :rolleyes: Now if you broke the speed limit, drove like a wild person and killed a bunch of people (or even endangered them), that's a different story. But simple speeding? C'mon, it's not the end of the world. And truth be told the regulatory offence of Careless Driving (in ON) and the criminal offence of Dangerous Driving already deal with this.

Like most traffic offenses, there is a very high dismissal rate if you choose to appeal it at all. All you need is for the officer to not show up (extremely frequent) and you are good to go. Even if the officer does show up, the crown will try to offer a much reduced ticket, and all of that is just for you appealing the ticket.



Again there is no street racing here. Speeding can become a threat to safety but it isn't on it's own. The fact that you think that only proves that you believe the nonsense about speeding being this crazy threat to the safety of everyone (which it certainly isn't).

What if I told you that many higher performance automobiles out there can outbrake and outhandle cars at speeds 40-50km/h greater than average, run of the mill econoboxes? (This is true incidentally.) That some cars can haul down shorter from 80MPH than some cars can from 60MPH? That their safety systems can prevent accidents that cars not-so-equipped would be far less likely to prevent?

Surely we can't say that these cars should be able to go faster as in a faster speed limit, I'm not saying that. But at the same time you can't just say oh all speeding is dangerous.

What if I were to inform everyone of another fact. There are some drivers out there that can probably react faster at 160km/h than others can at 100km/h. Again of course we can't say that drivers with better reaction time should be able to go faster, because well there are still drivers that can't react as fast as them on the road too. But the problem here isn't necessarily going 160km/h. The problem is there are some drivers that just shouldn't be on the road.

The problem is a posted limit is a posted limit. These limits are made to generalize over the whole standard population, sure there are probably people on the road who have a reaction time good enough to drive Formula 1, but who cares, the posted limits are just that, the LIMITS. It is thinking such as your own that there are special cases which void these limits where driving becomes dangerous. This is the same train of thought that leads people down the path to "I am a big guy, I handle liquor well, I am fine to go on 5-7 drinks".

And at 50+ km/h (ie. a minimum 50% increase over the posted limit assuming we are speaking about freeways, local roads with 50-80km/h are an even bigger discrepancy), regardless of whether or not you are racing against another person you become exactly the kind of driver who "shouldn't be on the road" that you are speaking about.



Instead of condemning speeding as some kind of evil, let's talk about the real problems on the road. Drunk driving is one of them, there's a criminal charge for that. But did you know that driving drowsy has been proven time and time again to be more dangerous in many cases, than driving impaired?

This may seem irrelevant at first, but what I'm getting at is there are bigger problems on the road than speeding. It isn't just the guy doing 150km/h that's dangerous. It's the people that can't handle a car at any particular speed regardless of it's absolute value.

If someone's on a cell phone or pre-occupied with something while driving I'm pretty sure they can get a ticket for that. Heck you can get one for eating and driving, which is probably warranted. But do you get your car taken away and your license suspended? No. Should you? Well considering they can do it to speeders, why not do it for people not paying attention? Because the speeder may well be paying more attention and have more control over their car and situation than the person eating a sandwich in one hand and talking on the phone in the other, trying to apply make up at the same time, LOL.




So what? I can tell you at least 20-40 instances for everyday where people are doing things that are quite dangerous while not speeding at all. In fact I could tell you about far more people that are breaking the speed limit that aren't doing anything even remotely as unsafe.


Right, certainly. But again it has nothing to do with simple speeding. Simply speeding does not necessarily create that situation, nor is it necessarily stupid enough that it might get you or someone else killed. In fact every time you get in a car at all you're doing something stupid that might get you or someone else killed for it. And that is an undeniable fact.

And that's the fact that people don't get. Let's blame road accidents on everything but the fact that there should be better driver training and better standards for licensing. Why not weed out those people that cannot react fast enough. Why don't we have reaction and reflex tests for drivers? Certainly we could use them out there. Driving just isn't following the speed limit and parallel parking, there's a lot more out there than that. And if you aren't paying attention, can't or won't react or just don't know what you're doing? You're far more unsafe than the person who does know what they are doing and is simply going faster than the speed limit.


Please educate yourself on the subject of speeding a bit more. Ontario roads are not designed to be driven like the Molson Indy, nor are the cars built to perform like, and nearly none of the drivers have "quick reflexes" making their speeding any more safe than another persons.

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS030064.pdf
A link explaining the direct link between speed and crashes, and more importantly fatal crashes

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000044.pdf
Again linking the speed to risk of accident

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/speed.html
A wide collection of links and information for you to read but more importantly:

Two key points that motorists should be aware of are:


1. Half of all fatal accidents occur at an impact speed of less than 55km/h. "Low speed" collisions can be deadly. This is due to Newton's physics and the frailty of the human body.

2. Every 5km/h above the speed limit doubles the risk of being involved in a casualty accident. In a 60 zone, travelling at 65km/h doubles the risk and travelling at 70km/h quadruples the risk.

[ES_Revenge]

Like most traffic offenses, there is a very high dismissal rate if you choose to appeal it at all. All you need is for the officer to not show up (extremely frequent) and you are good to go.
What's wrong with that? Certainly the rules of evidence should apply in a court of law no? If you think they should not, that's a whole other topic and it almost makes arguing useless due to the fact that you're not really respecting the rule of law to begin with.


Even if the officer does show up, the crown will try to offer a much reduced ticket, and all of that is just for you appealing the ticket.
Just from reading this I have a feeling you are confusing the term appeal and the term trial. Trials and appeals are two different things. When you go to court after getting a ticket that's a trial, not an appeal.


The problem is a posted limit is a posted limit. These limits are made to generalize over the whole standard population, sure there are probably people on the road who have a reaction time good enough to drive Formula 1, but who cares, the posted limits are just that, the LIMITS.
They are not really the limits. How many police officers do you see giving tickets to people going less than 20km/h over outside of a school zone? Speeding tickets are largely about a bottom line--the government's. But you'd know that if you didn't believe the nonsense about road safety they throw at you. Speeding can be dangerous, it just isn't necessarily dangerous. Speeding can bring in a lot of $$$ for the government, and it does.


It is thinking such as your own that there are special cases which void these limits where driving becomes dangerous. This is the same train of thought that leads people down the path to "I am a big guy, I handle liquor well, I am fine to go on 5-7 drinks".
Give me a break. :rolleyes: That's not my thinking at all. In fact if you READ what I wrote you'd see that I said I don't think there should be any special cases to raise the limit.

Before making it seem like I said something I didn't try to read what I did say.


And at 50+ km/h (ie. a minimum 50% increase over the posted limit assuming we are speaking about freeways, local roads with 50-80km/h are an even bigger discrepancy), regardless of whether or not you are racing against another person you become exactly the kind of driver who "shouldn't be on the road" that you are speaking about.
Okay fine, let's say that (for argument's sake). Then what about all the other people that shouldn't be on the road???? They just get a by and no consequences while speeders get singled out? :rolleyes: Don't tell me singling out speeders is going to make the roads significantly safer--IT ISN'T.



Please educate yourself on the subject of speeding a bit more. Ontario roads are not designed to be driven like the Molson Indy, nor are the cars built to perform like, and nearly none of the drivers have "quick reflexes" making their speeding any more safe than another persons.
I didn't say anything was designed for driving like the Molson Indy. I actually agree the roads aren't supposed to be driven on like it's the Molson Indy. First of all CART cars aren't street legal, second of all, it's not the Molson Indy, lol.

As for the please educate nonsense... Please educate yourself on reading the English language properly. Or laying off the drugs that are causing you to read it improperly, either or. The stuff you're talking about I never said, nor did I imply.



A link explaining the direct link between speed and crashes, and more importantly fatal crashes
No really? Higher speed at impact is more likely to be fatal? Holy &$(!, breaking news!!! I could never have imagined that if you go faster and hit something it'll be more severe in most cases. Wait hold on I have to try this theory... Okay I just walked into the wall and I just stopped. Now I'll try running into it. Oh wow that hurt a bit more! You and that useless article should get a Nobel Prize in physics for discovering this! :rolleyes:



Two key points that motorists should be aware of are:


1. Half of all fatal accidents occur at an impact speed of less than 55km/h. "Low speed" collisions can be deadly. This is due to Newton's physics and the frailty of the human body.
Oh right Newton. Darn he already figured out physics before you did. I guess no prize for you then :(


2. Every 5km/h above the speed limit doubles the risk of being involved in a casualty accident. In a 60 zone, travelling at 65km/h doubles the risk and travelling at 70km/h quadruples the risk.
Point out statistics all you want. They don't mean much. It's convenient that you've left out the statistics from all the other causes of accidents that aren't necessarily speed-related. Oh right they probably don't exist. Why? Well let's take a look at the interest groups and politicians that dictate what statistics are studied/published.

Oh wait, I can't do that, I have to make up things that someone else never said; and, then go to meaningless stats showing one narrow side of a story that's much larger than I can comprehend because, I'm too focused on what's being presented and not who's presenting it and the vast area of what isn't being presented. :rolleyes:

People that don't see farther than stats don't think at all IMO. Stats are very persuasive to those that don't look any further than the stats they are presented. (Incidentally this goes back to what I said about people that can't see further than the hand in front of their face.)

Start thinking, stop tunneling in on one thing that is really not the answer to how to get safer roads.

[Asad_A203]

noooo my bmw =(
M-M-M-mUsttttt re-re-re-sisttt frommm speedddddddinnn....

If you have anything below a 5 or an M, trust me there won't be much a temptation to speed, haha.

[VivienM]

As ES_Revenge already said, the problems in this provence (and contenent for that matter) is the education system.

As usual, blame the young! Again, that's a feel-good-measure. You make it harder for the young to get a licence, but a) that does nothing about the older ppl with bad driving habits, and b) six months after passing the test, at most, your young drivers will have forgotten all their 'good' driving habits. It doesn't help that half of the things that the Ontario road test cares about are irrelevant in the real world (e.g. why do they dock points if you shift your manual transmission car in an intersection?). I'm not sure they can fix the test, but they CAN make it harder so
a) parents (falsely) feel their kids are safe
b) socialists feel kids are being forced into public transit
You call that progress?

And BTW, you may talk about Europe like it's some amazing place, but go drive in Paris someday, and trust me, you'd MUCH rather drive in Toronto. They drive crazily aggressively over there... Same with the French autoroutes - speed limit is 130, but in the left lane you can see lots of 180-190... in cars with the undersized engine redlining. Some European countries may have civilized drivers, but not all do.

[ES_Revenge]

As usual, blame the young! Again, that's a feel-good-measure. You make it harder for the young to get a licence, but a) that does nothing about the older ppl with bad driving habits, and b) six months after passing the test, at most, your young drivers will have forgotten all their 'good' driving habits.
Well I don't exactly blame the young. Not at all really. When I talk about licensing reform it doesn't only mean I think the initial test should be made harder for new drivers. I mean that everyone should be retested under new standards, and that testing should be given again every few years. It's hillarious how you renew your license for 5 years every 5 years by paying them money. And again that's mainly what driving is about to the province--a way of collecting revenue. If they really cared about safety they'd start spending money on things like better training/education/testing. Testing incidentally which after your initial license test, shouldn't cost you much. If the government was really concerned about safety they would easily do this. But that's right they won't. Spending money to make things safer? That makes total sense. But they mainly care about making $$$. Because they don't actually spend any real money on road safety, instead they set up laws to make themselves money in the name of "road safety" :rolleyes: Money spent on road safety is simply to propagate nonsense about how speeding is the root of all evil on the road and how all these "street racers" cause all the accidents and deaths. :rolleyes:


It doesn't help that half of the things that the Ontario road test cares about are irrelevant in the real world (e.g. why do they dock points if you shift your manual transmission car in an intersection?).
Exactly. Why do they dock you points for that? Well probably because doing so increases your chances to fail and increases the money they get from retesting you later! LOL.


And BTW, you may talk about Europe like it's some amazing place, but go drive in Paris someday, and trust me, you'd MUCH rather drive in Toronto. They drive crazily aggressively over there... Same with the French autoroutes - speed limit is 130, but in the left lane you can see lots of 180-190... in cars with the undersized engine redlining. Some European countries may have civilized drivers, but not all do.
That's likely true, however I wonder if you think that they drive "crazily aggressive" because the "180-190" they're doing is something you've been conditioned here to know as "crazy", "aggressive" and "unsafe". I'm not going to say what driver's are like there is safe (because I've never been there) but I am willing to question whether that feeling that they are unsafe stems from them actually being unsafe or just from the fact that here they tell everyone speeding is the devil and those type of speeds are simply ludicrous and not possibly anything else?

[65505201]

Please educate yourself on the subject of speeding a bit more. Ontario roads are not designed to be driven like the Molson Indy, nor are the cars built to perform like, and nearly none of the drivers have "quick reflexes" making their speeding any more safe than another persons.

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS030064.pdf
A link explaining the direct link between speed and crashes, and more importantly fatal crashes

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000044.pdf
Again linking the speed to risk of accident

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/speed.html
A wide collection of links and information for you to read but more importantly:

Two key points that motorists should be aware of are:


1. Half of all fatal accidents occur at an impact speed of less than 55km/h. "Low speed" collisions can be deadly. This is due to Newton's physics and the frailty of the human body.

2. Every 5km/h above the speed limit doubles the risk of being involved in a casualty accident. In a 60 zone, travelling at 65km/h doubles the risk and travelling at 70km/h quadruples the risk.

It's late at night, so I may have missed something. However, have you considered that:

1. Someone working at the transportation board has an agenda? For example, I saw the average published speeds of HOV lanes in the Star to be 100 kph, which I found laughable and full of bullcrap. Have you EVER seen ANYONE on a HOV lane going less than 120 unless there's an accident? Rather, have you ever seen anyone going on a HOV lane less than 120 WITHOUT a clear section of road ahead and 20 cars piled up behind trying to pass?

2. Since 1/2 of all fatal accident occur less than 60kph, I suppose we should limit all speeds to 60kph. You'll get a 50% reduction in fatalities right there!

3. Looking at figures 1, 2, and table 2 in the RS030064 paper...did you notice that their conclusion was based on data of a range from 99kph - 103 kph? What kind of a ridiculous sample range is that? Are you telling me that you can notice a difference when driving at 99kph vs. 103? Also, what was the variation in the speeds? Sample size? Time/date/condition? I can ramble on and on about how they collected and analyzed their data, but if this is what "road safety experts" base their arguments on....well, I don't think it's possible to have less than zero respect for the people that mindlessly spout "speed kills! speed kills!"

4. Looking at table 1 in your RS000044 paper, 109/151 of what I assume to be fatal accidents fall within +/- 10kph of the speed limit, and yet doing 75, 80, 85, and 85+ are respectively 11X, 32X, 57X, and 100X as risky? :lol: Keep this in mind, because, as they say, these relative risks form the basis of the estimation of crash reductions in this paper.

How exactly are they defining their controls? This is very important because instead of the absolute number of accidents (which I'm guessing is the total number of fatalities that year), they base speed reductions to "modified relative risks" when making their conclusions.

5. Looking at table 2 in your RS000044 paper, what the hell kind of math are they doing? Does what they're doing even make sense to you? Hell, even if they defined their modified risk values correctly, if just by doing nothing else, they've already eliminated 11 collisions by downshifting (a 7% reduction) the multiplication matrix.

Did you notice that according to their model, if the limit was bumped down, the category with the most number of collisions is now the speed limit, and not the category just above it? Does this make sense to you?

Also, they are assuming that the driving/collision distribution will be the same if the limit was set 5 kph lower. Never mind a PhD level dissertation. I would get my ass kicked if I was presenting something like this for my undergraduate thesis. Granted, if I do it at a transportation safety conference, I'll probably get some award and funding to continue my line of research at the graduate level. :rolleyes:

6. Still looking at table 2 of the RS000044 paper, if you do the math, 72% of collisions occur +/- 10kph of the speed limit, which I think is generally accepted to be what people normally drive at. Now, if the limit were to be pushed down 5 kph, with their own data, you will see that 79% of collisions will occur at +/- 10kph of the new limit. So...how will a speed limit reduction help again, when the police won't crack down on the speed range that accounts for almost 4 out of 5 fatal accidents?

And please, don't give me that "every little bit helps" bullcrap. Using your references again, table 1 of RS030064, it takes 10 000 citations to force (if you believe that's even the cause) a 1 kph reduction in mean speed. Just think of how our police resources could be better spent. Just think of the revenue city hall can generate, and continue with the "speeding kills" campaign.

7. Lastly....they're basing their conclusion, in a 60 zone, travelling at 65km/h doubles the risk and travelling at 70km/h quadruples the risk , on a sample size of 604 "controls?" Think about how many cars travel through the streets daily.

Ziggy, have you even read the entire paper and thought about how they came to their conclusions? I'm asking because you are exhibiting the hallmarks of government thinking - using "stats" to "prove" things and avoiding the major issues that are harder to tackle.

[VivienM]

That's likely true, however I wonder if you think that they drive "crazily aggressive" because the "180-190" they're doing is something you've been conditioned here to know as "crazy", "aggressive" and "unsafe". I'm not going to say what driver's are like there is safe (because I've never been there) but I am willing to question whether that feeling that they are unsafe stems from them actually being unsafe or just from the fact that here they tell everyone speeding is the devil and those type of speeds are simply ludicrous and not possibly anything else?

No. You're mixing up two different things:
- high speeds on the left lane of divided restricted-entry highways (I hesitate to call them freeways because they all have tolls)
- extremely aggressive driving in the cities. They don't drive QUICKLY in the cities (too much traffic, too short distances, etc. for that), just aggressively. They also have tons of roundabouts right outside cities, which are another place for aggressive driving.
What do I call aggressive? Typically, turning without ANY consideration for the person in your blind spot. e.g. you and another person are turning left from a two-lane one-way street into a one-lane one-way street. The driver in the RIGHT lane will quite happily turn and cut you off in the left lane. Same thing if you have a two-lane roundabout: some people will just head straight from the inner lane of the roundabout into the exit...
Also, STARTING when a light turns green. I think it has to do with the prevalence of manual transmissions there (which make aggressive starting easier), but cars just JUMP forward in a way that's extremely uncommon here. Then they stop 100m later, then repeat, etc.
I would probably have other examples, but it's been a while since I've been there...

The two phenomena may be caused by the same cultural factors or they may not.

[VivienM]

I mean that everyone should be retested under new standards, and that testing should be given again every few years. It's hillarious how you renew your license for 5 years every 5 years by paying them money.

Well, that's called democracy, my friend.

If you tell your average voter (read: someone who self-identifies as "a responsible adult", as opposed to those pesky irresponsible "kids" who have no respect for anything) that they HAVE to be re-tested every X years (or when the rules change), then you're going to get turfed out of office so fast you won't even know what hit you.

People are willing to accept a LOT more regulation and governmental crap when they know fully well that it's someone else (e.g. the much maligned "kids") who gets to put up with the inconvenience.

To quote one wise American judge...

“The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority be imposed generally. Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected.” Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106, 112—113 (1949) (concurring opinion).

[Sohjonn]

Because you have the option to speed and get your car in pound. That is your choice and option. Putting a speed limiter, you don't have that option. Also, you may choose to run above 150 in a race track.


aren't speed limiters controlled at the ECU level. Those who take their cars to the track probably have an aftermarket ECU anyway, and how many ppl here take their cars to the track?

driving at 150km/h shouldn't be a choice, do i get to choose if wanted to be rear-ended by a speeder going 150km/h?

my 2 cents

[kleptodathief]

i think u guys r missing the pt..i think they meant to have this law to combat street racing thats NOT on the hiways... going 50 over in a 60zone for xample ;) course i think 150kms/hr on the 400 series is perfectly fine, 200 is when they shud impound :cheesygri

[DJ_Peanuts22]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/261595
Some pretty harsh penalties there..
I like it!

I like how the CR-V driver was pulled over, drivers of those vehicles I've noticed are among the most agressive on the roads around here.

[Slippery_Pete]

i think u guys r missing the pt..i think they meant to have this law to combat street racing thats NOT on the hiways... going 50 over in a 60zone for xample ;) course i think 150kms/hr on the 400 series is perfectly fine, 200 is when they shud impound :cheesygri

I think 150 on 400 series highways under some circumstances is quite fine. I personally never go that fast, I usually top out at 140, and when I realize I'm going that fast I usually will slow to 130. But I beleive there are certain situations where going 150 with proper due care, is acceptable. The problem lies in those who don't know how to take due care. There's situations when 150 is fine and there's situations where 150 is ludicrous....the problem is that some people don't know the difference.

[gman]

aren't speed limiters controlled at the ECU level. Those who take their cars to the track probably have an aftermarket ECU anyway, and how many ppl here take their cars to the track?

There are wannabes taking their own cars to the track to kill themselves (without killing others).



driving at 150km/h shouldn't be a choice, do i get to choose if wanted to be rear-ended by a speeder going 150km/h?

my 2 cents

There is but you won't like it.

[65505201]

driving at 150km/h shouldn't be a choice, do i get to choose if wanted to be rear-ended by a speeder going 150km/h?


Actually, yes, you do have a choice - check your bloody mirrors before you make a lane change! Regardless of what the actual speed is (110, 130, 150), make sure you have enough room to accelerate and match the flow of traffic speed before make the lane change.

If you want to drive slow, stay in the right lanes.

[Canuck_2005]

Here are some things that the police consider stunting in which you will face the 2000 dollar fine and inpoundment

- turning left on a red
- turning left on a red when the guy on the other side of the intersection is also turning left but has stopped
- turning left when the lights turn green, trying to beat the traffic opposite of the intersection
- wheelies on motorcycles
- LOL at fineprint on wheelies (lifting of wheels from road) does not include commercial vehicles
- drifting
- donuts / handbrake turns
- brake checking

[Canuck_2005]

http://i23.tinypic.com/5npyd3.jpg

http://i23.tinypic.com/25yua1z.jpg

http://i24.tinypic.com/nlbvxj.jpg

http://i21.tinypic.com/2larfr9.jpg

[ES_Revenge]

No. You're mixing up two different things:
I didn't think I was and still don't after reading your post, but yeah...



Also, STARTING when a light turns green. I think it has to do with the prevalence of manual transmissions there (which make aggressive starting easier), but cars just JUMP forward in a way that's extremely uncommon here. Then they stop 100m later, then repeat, etc.
I would probably have other examples, but it's been a while since I've been there...
Now here I'm unsure of what you mean... Like what do you mean by "starting"??? I'm really puzzled over that term.

When the light turns green you require tenths of a second to understand the intersection is safe. If unsure it still should take less than a second to determine if other drivers on the cross-flow traffic are doing anything out of the ordinary or not. After those tenths or perhaps one second passes, you should have already started to open that throttle. That's your responsibility. Anything more than perhaps a couple seconds at maximum, shows you either aren't paying attention or just don't have the reaction time to be a driver, IMO. Now certainly if you do see something out of the ordinary or get the impression someone is going to do something strange (like run a red) then perhaps hesitation is warranted. But I hardly call opening the throttle right after the light turns green a bad thing. In fact it's the right thing. Anything else is simply another cause of traffic.

Stopping 100m later is not the fault of the driver who correctly follows lights and does so with a high level of observation and good reflexes. The fact that they might have to stop 100m later is the fault of morons who decide that lights should turn red at every light you come to (again CAUSING traffic) instead of promoting flow (read: BRAMPTON! :mad: ).


Ziggy, have you even read the entire paper and thought about how they came to their conclusions? I'm asking because you are exhibiting the hallmarks of government thinking - using "stats" to "prove" things and avoiding the major issues that are harder to tackle.
Applauded. Wasn't going to quote the whole thing but clearly 65505201 knows at least a bit about statistics. Nice that someone can point out some more detailed/technical info about these stats instead of just thinking "oh here's some stats that say this" not even thinking about what they really say. :)

That's a big problem with using simple stats to try to prove some point. It just doesn't work out. Stats are just lies. LOL. Well they aren't but the way they are used just plays on the fact that they are't really understood so whatever they might appear to present is taken as some kind of fact.

Though the post referred to above is much more in-depth you can even tell people some of the simplest rules like "correlation does not prove causation" and get a puzzled look on the face of the people you're telling it to.

Statistics are certainly useful, but they aren't very useful when they're used in the fashion they commonly are.

[ES_Revenge]

Here are some things that the police consider stunting in which you will face the 2000 dollar fine and inpoundment

- turning left on a red
********. If you're in the intersection on a green, you may well be forced to turn when it turns red if opposing traffic does not haul down for the amber signal. However stupid laws like this make it so technically all a cop has to do is not like you and they can ticket you for this.


- turning left on a red when the guy on the other side of the intersection is also turning left but has stopped
WTF? So wait this means no two people going opposite directions can turn left at the same time? That's pretty much what that says and that's far from reality. But again this creates another ******** situation where an officer can just use their discretion to do whatever the hell they want :rolleyes:



- turning left when the lights turn green, trying to beat the traffic opposite of the intersection
That one is interesting because I always thought of this one... Because techically you can turn left provided there's no chance of opposing traffic hitting you, which you might argue pulling a stunt (lol yeah I said stunt!) like that. I guess this law makes that an unacceptable defense though.


- wheelies on motorcycles
Yeah, I'd have to call that a stunt! :lol:


- LOL at fineprint on wheelies (lifting of wheels from road) does not include commercial vehicles
So if you're a motorcycle doing it for fun you get in trouble. However if you're a motorcycle delivering some goods, it's fair game? LMAO. Just goes to show the crookedness of the ON government. Make acceptions where $$$ are concerned.



- drifting
Purposely? Yeah I'd say that's a stunt.



- donuts / handbrake turns
How these two get to be in the same category I'm not sure. Doughnuts I would have to agree, handbrake on a turn I would not. Retracted: I changed my mind here, lol; I'd think if you had to invoke the handbrake to right the car you were already in an understeer drift, which meant you were either doing that on purpose or just driving too fast to begin with and got into trouble.

But it's still amazing how legislators that clearly have no idea about technical aspects of driving can make/pass ******** laws like this. :rolleyes:


- brake checking
I don't know what that is nor have I ever really heard of that term. Is this another one of those things where legislators make up terms because they don't know what they're talking about or is this just archaic? I mean if I take that literally it means it's illegal to have your brakes checked to make sure they are operating right? LMFAO.

[jollyeskimo]

I don't know what that is nor have I ever really heard of that term. Is this another one of those things where legislators make up terms because they don't know what they're talking about or is this just archaic? I mean if I take that literally it means it's illegal to have your brakes checked to make sure they are operating right? LMFAO.

When some people are being tailgated, they tap or momentarily "check" the brake to (in theory) force the tailgater to back off in a sudden panic... but you can see how it could cause accidents if misused. Neither tailgating nor brake checking is a good practice... both just cause and/or escalate road rage.

[65505201]

I don't know what that is nor have I ever really heard of that term. Is this another one of those things where legislators make up terms because they don't know what they're talking about or is this just archaic? I mean if I take that literally it means it's illegal to have your brakes checked to make sure they are operating right? LMFAO.

Brake checking is when someone is tailgating you and you tap your brakes, or "brake check" to tell them to F off.

I must say, some of the points in the act are quite hilarious, since the self professed "speed police" commit so many of those offenses, i.e. brake checking, preventing other vehicles from passing, purposely slowing down to block traffic, etc. It's just a shame they'll probably never get dinged on it.

[VivienM]

Now here I'm unsure of what you mean... Like what do you mean by "starting"??? I'm really puzzled over that term.

When the light turns green you require tenths of a second to understand the intersection is safe. If unsure it still should take less than a second to determine if other drivers on the cross-flow traffic are doing anything out of the ordinary or not. After those tenths or perhaps one second passes, you should have already started to open that throttle. That's your responsibility. Anything more than perhaps a couple seconds at maximum, shows you either aren't paying attention or just don't have the reaction time to be a driver, IMO. Now certainly if you do see something out of the ordinary or get the impression someone is going to do something strange (like run a red) then perhaps hesitation is warranted. But I hardly call opening the throttle right after the light turns green a bad thing. In fact it's the right thing. Anything else is simply another cause of traffic.

It's hard to explain with words. The cars there just seem to accelerate... faster... when the car turns green?

I don't think it has to do with long it takes people to open the throttle; I think it has to do with a) how much they're opening the throttle, and b) the things you can do with a manual transmission to get moving quicker. But who knows...

[deuce]

Here are some things that the police consider stunting in which you will face the 2000 dollar fine and inpoundment

- wheelies on motorcycles
- LOL at fineprint on wheelies (lifting of wheels from road) does not include commercial vehicles


the fine print is for transports/dumptrucks/etc that have the extra set of wheels that they can rise and lower.

[Flyer]

Hmm, looks like that annoying idiot who is always speeding through the school zone here is losing his car soon...

[actng]

Here are some things that the police consider stunting in which you will face the 2000 dollar fine and inpoundment

- turning left on a red
- turning left on a red when the guy on the other side of the intersection is also turning left but has stopped
- turning left when the lights turn green, trying to beat the traffic opposite of the intersection
- wheelies on motorcycles
- LOL at fineprint on wheelies (lifting of wheels from road) does not include commercial vehicles
- drifting
- donuts / handbrake turns
- brake checking

you're actually stealing my posts from vortex and posting them here as if they were yours???

[Canuck_2005]

Ueah I cut and post quickly from vortex because it is important that people see this info

[kleptodathief]

did u guys read bout the stories of the first few impoundments??? some mama's boy cried when they took his mom's car away LMAO! another idiot just got his car 2 days ago, as for me no more WOTs :cheesygri

[TenzoR]

did u guys read bout the stories of the first few impoundments??? some mama's boy cried when they took his mom's car away LMAO! another idiot just got his car 2 days ago, as for me no more WOTs :cheesygri

nope but post them up ;)

I find this topic quite interesting

[gq_fuzion]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_15302.aspx

Dozens Of Drivers Caught, Cars Impounded As New Road Rules Take Effect
Monday October 1, 2007
CityNews.ca Staff

Tough new laws against aggressive drivers have resulted in 41 drivers being nabbed by provincial police over the past 24 hours.

The legislation, aimed at street racers and other offending motorists, allows police to seize vehicles on the spot for seven days and suspend drivers' licences for the same amount of time. If found guilty the person behind the wheel may also face a hefty fine of $2,000 or more, not including impound charges.

OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley said the first person was caught minutes after the new laws took effect at 12am Sunday. The driver was allegedly going 160km/h in a black Hyundai. It was the first of 24 cars impounded throughout the day.

"One young man burst into tears as his mother's car was towed away," Woolley noted. "Two of the vehicles were rental cars and of course the drivers will be responsible for an extra week's rental."

The OPP sergeant said he wants aggressive driving to be viewed in the same light as impaired driving.

Under the new legislation vehicles can be seized and fines handed out when drivers:

* Drive 50 km/h or more over the speed limit
* Race and/or stunt drive
* Drive with someone in the trunk

i still find it shocking how in canada, a law such as this has passed
seizing your car is going against our charter right of unlawful search/seizure as you haven't been convicted of anything yet

our government is ********, just like our police force

[TenzoR]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_15302.aspx


i still find it shocking how in canada, a law such as this has passed
seizing your car is going against our charter right of unlawful search/seizure as you haven't been convicted of anything yet

our government is ********, just like our police force

Don't like it, challenge the law. No one is stopping you.

[konfusion666]

I love it.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/262112

:twisted:

[VivienM]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_15302.aspx


i still find it shocking how in canada, a law such as this has passed
seizing your car is going against our charter right of unlawful search/seizure as you haven't been convicted of anything yet

our government is ********, just like our police force

Hey, if you get your car impounded, call a lawyer. Unlawful seizure (maybe), violation of the presumption of innocence, etc. - at the very least, you'll lose some more money in legal fees...

[squireglig]

It's hard to explain with words. The cars there just seem to accelerate... faster... when the car turns green?

I don't think it has to do with long it takes people to open the throttle; I think it has to do with a) how much they're opening the throttle, and b) the things you can do with a manual transmission to get moving quicker. But who knows...

Most auto's can get going quite fast as well if u mash on the throttle... unless they're peeling out i dont think manual has much to do with this.

It's funny tho, cuz i drive manual and tend to start off a bit slower than most auto's around here, as i find i have to slip the clutch less at lower rpms when starting..

[konfusion666]

Most auto's can get going quite fast as well if u mash on the throttle... unless they're peeling out i dont think manual has much to do with this.

It's funny tho, cuz i drive manual and tend to start off a bit slower than most auto's around here, as i find i have to slip the clutch less at lower rpms when starting..

with most 4 cylinder engined vehicles, i find the Auto to be substantially more sluggish than the Manual.

although for some of the modern vehicles, with their "drive by wire, 5 speed/6 speed" Auto's, the problem seems to be less evident...

still, the nature of a fluid-based torque converter is that there will always be power loss compared to the "clamp"-like flywheel/clutch combo.

[woodstock827]

I wonder how many people going 140 will get "clocked" at 152. O well, I guess I'm glad I no longer have to drive the 407. I would totally fall asleep driving at "safe" speeds.

Hopefully some lawyer will find a pay to punish the cops and the government when they're unable to prove the charge in court.

I don't know how many people got "overclocked" before.
But my dad got a ticket once for driving 92kph on a 60. He came out of a gas station and saw the police already, so he consciously drove at the speed limit (not to mention the road was filled with cars and there's no way for him to go 92). The police just pulled him over and gave him a ticket which my dad KNOWS he didn't speed.
When he went to the court on the court date, he talked with other motorists charged by the same officer, and LOTS of people had the same experience. Guess what, the officer then called in sick and everyone could either settle for a lesser fine, or waste another day to set up another date.

It only takes one bad cop to ruin the whole system.

[actng]

i still find it shocking how in canada, a law such as this has passed
seizing your car is going against our charter right of unlawful search/seizure as you haven't been convicted of anything yet

our government is ********, just like our police force

I am against this new legislation as well, not against the seizure but against the power instilled into the police of performing the seizure.

but your reasoning/argument is weak / does not make sense. you don't need to be convicted to be searched - only reasonable suspicion is needed for the cop to search your car. otherwise it would mean all the people getting arrested can't be searched by police??



Don't like it, challenge the law. No one is stopping you.

you can't just walk up to the court house and "challenge" the law. in order to fight a legislation, you must have standing, i.e. you must be negatively affected. in this case it means you need to be charged with this law in order to have standing to fight it in court. but by then the police would already have exercised their new power.

[TenzoR]

you can't just walk up to the court house and "challenge" the law. in order to fight a legislation, you must have standing, i.e. you must be negatively affected. in this case it means you need to be charged with this law in order to have standing to fight it in court. but by then the
police would already have exercised their new power.

I never said it was easy.

[LT1rulez]

Personally I would prefer getting my car impounded and fined rather then CRUSHED.... or is that still an option for them?

[anycee]

Is my roadster at 150 more dangerous than an 18 wheeler at 125?
What about the SUV driver on her cell phone doing 140?

Personally, I think having such penalties at 150 is ridiculous: I have been passed on both sides by minivans while doing 130 on the 401. Last time I was on the 407, the standard speed in the left lane seemed to be faster than 140.


When some people are being tailgated, they tap or momentarily "check" the brake to (in theory) force the tailgater to back off in a sudden panic... but you can see how it could cause accidents if misused. Neither tailgating nor brake checking is a good practice... both just cause and/or escalate road rage.

What am I supposed to do when someone istailgating me as I pass a truck (which was going about 125) and I'm at 140? (happened to me yesterday on the 401).

[curtis]

This garbage is actually similar to the accepted level of study in our society... I kid you not.

The Fraser Institute is even worse.


It's late at night, so I may have missed something. However, have you considered that:

1. Someone working at the transportation board has an agenda? For example, I saw the average published speeds of HOV lanes in the Star to be 100 kph, which I found laughable and full of bullcrap. Have you EVER seen ANYONE on a HOV lane going less than 120 unless there's an accident? Rather, have you ever seen anyone going on a HOV lane less than 120 WITHOUT a clear section of road ahead and 20 cars piled up behind trying to pass?

2. Since 1/2 of all fatal accident occur less than 60kph, I suppose we should limit all speeds to 60kph. You'll get a 50% reduction in fatalities right there!

3. Looking at figures 1, 2, and table 2 in the RS030064 paper...did you notice that their conclusion was based on data of a range from 99kph - 103 kph? What kind of a ridiculous sample range is that? Are you telling me that you can notice a difference when driving at 99kph vs. 103? Also, what was the variation in the speeds? Sample size? Time/date/condition? I can ramble on and on about how they collected and analyzed their data, but if this is what "road safety experts" base their arguments on....well, I don't think it's possible to have less than zero respect for the people that mindlessly spout "speed kills! speed kills!"

4. Looking at table 1 in your RS000044 paper, 109/151 of what I assume to be fatal accidents fall within +/- 10kph of the speed limit, and yet doing 75, 80, 85, and 85+ are respectively 11X, 32X, 57X, and 100X as risky? :lol: Keep this in mind, because, as they say, these relative risks form the basis of the estimation of crash reductions in this paper.

How exactly are they defining their controls? This is very important because instead of the absolute number of accidents (which I'm guessing is the total number of fatalities that year), they base speed reductions to "modified relative risks" when making their conclusions.

5. Looking at table 2 in your RS000044 paper, what the hell kind of math are they doing? Does what they're doing even make sense to you? Hell, even if they defined their modified risk values correctly, if just by doing nothing else, they've already eliminated 11 collisions by downshifting (a 7% reduction) the multiplication matrix.

Did you notice that according to their model, if the limit was bumped down, the category with the most number of collisions is now the speed limit, and not the category just above it? Does this make sense to you?

Also, they are assuming that the driving/collision distribution will be the same if the limit was set 5 kph lower. Never mind a PhD level dissertation. I would get my ass kicked if I was presenting something like this for my undergraduate thesis. Granted, if I do it at a transportation safety conference, I'll probably get some award and funding to continue my line of research at the graduate level. :rolleyes:

6. Still looking at table 2 of the RS000044 paper, if you do the math, 72% of collisions occur +/- 10kph of the speed limit, which I think is generally accepted to be what people normally drive at. Now, if the limit were to be pushed down 5 kph, with their own data, you will see that 79% of collisions will occur at +/- 10kph of the new limit. So...how will a speed limit reduction help again, when the police won't crack down on the speed range that accounts for almost 4 out of 5 fatal accidents?

And please, don't give me that "every little bit helps" bullcrap. Using your references again, table 1 of RS030064, it takes 10 000 citations to force (if you believe that's even the cause) a 1 kph reduction in mean speed. Just think of how our police resources could be better spent. Just think of the revenue city hall can generate, and continue with the "speeding kills" campaign.

7. Lastly....they're basing their conclusion, in a 60 zone, travelling at 65km/h doubles the risk and travelling at 70km/h quadruples the risk , on a sample size of 604 "controls?" Think about how many cars travel through the streets daily.

Ziggy, have you even read the entire paper and thought about how they came to their conclusions? I'm asking because you are exhibiting the hallmarks of government thinking - using "stats" to "prove" things and avoiding the major issues that are harder to tackle.

[curtis]

It's actually amazing that anything works at all.

[jollyeskimo]

What am I supposed to do when an cellphoning SUVer is tailgating me as I pass a truck at 140? (happened to me yesterday on the 401).

The cellphone and the SUV should have little to do with it, and ideally I should yield the lane after passing (hoping that he gets caught doing faster than 140)... but heck, if it were me, I'd check him even if there was no truck. Never said I was a perfect motorist ;)

[VivienM]

you can't just walk up to the court house and "challenge" the law. in order to fight a legislation, you must have standing, i.e. you must be negatively affected. in this case it means you need to be charged with this law in order to have standing to fight it in court. but by then the police would already have exercised their new power.

In theory, you can get standing even if you're not directly affected... but that's unlikely on these facts.

In practice, not so likely... and most people affected by this aren't going to hire aggressive lawyers with a solid background in admin and constitutional law. Unfortunately.

Bigger problem: courts don't like idiots who do stupid things on the road, so it'd be an uphill battle anyways...

[VivienM]

Personally, I think having such penalties at 150 is ridiculous: I have been passed on both sides by minivans while doing 130 on the 401. Last time I was on the 407, the standard speed in the left lane seemed to be faster than 140.

That's ridiculous.

If the normal practice is to go 40% over the posted limit, then there's a problem. Either the limit is too low (in which case our elected officials should increase them...) or there's a serious lack of enforcement. Or both.

[profguy]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/261595
Some pretty harsh penalties there..
I like it!

I think the highways just got a bit safer - time to get all the wantabe racers off the road.

All this talk of going 140, 150 kph is ridiculous - the roads were not engineered for that type of speed nor are most of the vehicals out there - ie brakes and tires. The problem is that most of these high flyers end up causing accidents that hurting other people and not themselves with their driving antics.

[anycee]

Things that I have done that have nearly caused me to be in accidents:
Been inatentive, eg: on a cellphone
Not seen people crossing the road
Not shoulder checked properly when changing lanes
Not given enough following distance
Not maintained proper lane posistion
Changed lanes right in front of trucks
Looking out for police

All of the above have nearly caused accidents. Going 30-40% over the limit has not. Perhaps one day it will, and I will end up in pieces on the side of the road

[romsan04]

I think the highways just got a bit safer - time to get all the wantabe racers off the road.

All this talk of going 140, 150 kph is ridiculous - the roads were not engineered for that type of speed nor are most of the vehicals out there - ie brakes and tires. The problem is that most of these high flyers end up causing accidents that hurting other people and not themselves with their driving antics.

What a bunch of load of crap. My Camry's top speed is 220-240km/h, my tiers top speed is 220km/h. I can bet you $100 if we go to track I'll be able to do it no problem.

I cannot believe how many people blame the speed.
If the speed is the problem why not make 60km/h is top speed on HWY???
It does make sense.

I would love to see how many accidents on 407 vs 401. I bet considerably less even then people going 140km/h. Speed by itself does not cause an accident, stupid drivers do.

I want to see next year statistics, the rates probably would be even higher than this year.

[romsan04]

That's ridiculous.

If the normal practice is to go 40% over the posted limit, then there's a problem. Either the limit is too low (in which case our elected officials should increase them...) or there's a serious lack of enforcement. Or both.

Or people know how to drive.

[TenzoR]

What a bunch of load of crap. My Camry's top speed is 220-240km/h, my tiers top speed is 220km/h. I can bet you $100 if we go to track I'll be able to do it no problem.

Well a track is designed for those speed. Our roads are not.

[romsan04]

Well a track is designed for those speed. Our roads are not.

My reply was that my car was designed and tested to handle these speeds and not fall apart like profguy car.

[konfusion666]

I highly doubt a Camry was "designed to handle 220-240 km/h" on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

What is the speed rating of the Camry's stock tires?

[TenzoR]

My reply was that my car was designed and tested to handle these speeds and not fall apart like profguy car.

Your logic is flawed ...

[curtis]

Lots of talk with no back up.

Any 'design speed' is based on estimates and guesswork. Safety cannot be absolutely determined. It's just chosen by deciding what rate of death/danger is acceptable.

Brakes and tires not rated for 140-150km/hr? You obviously don't own a vehicle.


I think the highways just got a bit safer - time to get all the wantabe racers off the road.

All this talk of going 140, 150 kph is ridiculous - the roads were not engineered for that type of speed nor are most of the vehicals out there - ie brakes and tires. The problem is that most of these high flyers end up causing accidents that hurting other people and not themselves with their driving antics.

[romsan04]

I highly doubt a Camry was "designed to handle 220-240 km/h" on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

What is the speed rating of the Camry's stock tires?

Well I dont think if you drive Lamborgini at the top speed 24/7 it will last you long.

I have V6 XLE so, stock tires were H92 I think....

[romsan04]

Your logic is flawed ...

So does your reply....

[65505201]

That's ridiculous.

If the normal practice is to go 40% over the posted limit, then there's a problem. Either the limit is too low (in which case our elected officials should increase them...) or there's a serious lack of enforcement. Or both.

Yes, in many cases the limits are set too low. However, when enforcement is a source of income for city coffers, what incentive is there to change it to a more reasonable limit? I may consider driving at the limit when the people sworn to uphold the law are respecting the same rules.

It was a while back that I read an article about the City of Toronto purposely not working towards better temporary parking policies/strategies for delivery companies in the downtown core. Instead, they're just sitting back and raking in the money with fines.

[65505201]

I think the highways just got a bit safer - time to get all the wantabe racers off the road.

All this talk of going 140, 150 kph is ridiculous - the roads were not engineered for that type of speed nor are most of the vehicals out there - ie brakes and tires. The problem is that most of these high flyers end up causing accidents that hurting other people and not themselves with their driving antics.

Certain roads are - think straight stretches of smooth highway in the middle of the night, which is when most people go that high anyways.

As for max speeds, I believe my car is good for 220ish kph and tires good for 190kph.

Again, when was the last time you've heard of a deadly crash at "extreme" (160ish) speeds? Everything I've heard has been in the sub-130 range.

[TenzoR]

So does your reply....

Lets think about this a moment

You are confident that your car (Camry V6 XLE) can get up to speed of 200km/h + (which I do believe you) and handles well enough to be safe at that speed (e.g. sudden brake, make sudden emergency lane change, etc) in the worst part (road condition) of the 400 series hwy?

[TenzoR]

Certain roads are - think straight stretches of smooth highway in the middle of the night, which is when most people go that high anyways.

As for max speeds, I believe my car is good for 220ish kph and tires good for 190kph.

Again, when was the last time you've heard of a deadly crash at "extreme" (160ish) speeds? Everything I've heard has been in the sub-130 range.

Your car engine may be able to handle 220ish kph but can your chassis, aerdynamics (creating the necessary downforce, decrease uplift, etc), suspension (make sure all tires maintain a good contact with the road), etc cope with the road condition, weather condition, at that speed?

[romsan04]

Lets think about this a moment

You are confident that your car (Camry V6 XLE) can get up to speed of 200km/h + (which I do believe you) and handles well enough to be safe at that speed (e.g. sudden brake, make sudden emergency lane change, etc) in the worst part (road condition) of the 400 series hwy?

Well If you put it in this context, any car, even going at 100km/h when in need of sudden brake, lane change e.t.c. might loose control. And if it is bad weather/road condition... why would you speed?

I never drove more than 180km/h (in Corolla :cheesygri ) on empty hwy in the middle of the night. Plus i did it for couple of min anyway....

P.S. I'll let you know how my Camry handles at 200km/h. :D

[romsan04]

Your car engine may be able to handle 220ish kph but can your chassis, aerdynamics (creating the necessary downforce, decrease uplift, etc), suspension (make sure all tires maintain a good contact with the road), etc cope with the road condition, weather condition, at that speed?

Don't you think car engineers test all that crap before putting max speed on speedometer? If not, I am off to sue Toyota :twisted:

[TenzoR]

Well If you put it in this context, any car, even going at 100km/h when in need of sudden brake, lane change e.t.c. might loose control. And if it is bad weather/road condition... why would you speed?

I never drove more than 180km/h (in Corolla :cheesygri ) on empty hwy in the middle of the night. Plus i did it for couple of min anyway....

P.S. I'll let you know how my Camry handles at 200km/h. :D

You speed based on your judgement of current condition. However, human judgement is what cause most accident. At extreme speed, the ability of the car comes into factor as well, same for road condition, etc. AFAIK Canadian Hwy (NA in general) are not design for such speed. Take a look at Autobahn (limited or unrestricted). They are built much nicer, very smooth, etc.

[TenzoR]

Don't you think car engineers test all that crap before putting max speed on speedometer? If not, I am off to sue Toyota :twisted:

Try reading their legal terms and conditions, also their disclaimers too.

[profguy]

Don't you think car engineers test all that crap before putting max speed on speedometer? If not, I am off to sue Toyota :twisted:

Good luck to you. Where does it say in the owners manual that you can go up to 220 kph? Your car was speced and designed for use on north american roads.

[profguy]

What a bunch of load of crap. My Camry's top speed is 220-240km/h, my tiers top speed is 220km/h. I can bet you $100 if we go to track I'll be able to do it no problem.

I cannot believe how many people blame the speed.
If the speed is the problem why not make 60km/h is top speed on HWY???
It does make sense.

I would love to see how many accidents on 407 vs 401. I bet considerably less even then people going 140km/h. Speed by itself does not cause an accident, stupid drivers do.

I want to see next year statistics, the rates probably would be even higher than this year.

You are very foolish if you have driven your camry at 220/kph - anyone can can get a car up fast but we are talking about sustained driving at high speeds. Why don't you make a call to Toyota Canada and ask them about your car's capacity. You are not trained nor capable of driving at those speed regardless of your own foolish beliefs.

What I am surpised at is why you are not in FI or Indy racing with all you apparent skills at high speed driving instead. I for one don't want to be anywhere near you when you are on the road.

[romsan04]

Good luck to you. Where does it say in the owners manual that you can go up to 220 kph? Your car was speced and designed for use on north american roads.

Thank you.

My car is not only sold in NA, it was sold in other countries as well, same car, different name, and there they can go 200km/h (autobahn). Why would they put something what car is not capable of???


You are very foolish if you have driven your camry at 220/kph - anyone can can get a car up fast but we are talking about sustained driving at high speeds. Why don't you make a call to Toyota Canada and ask them about your car's capacity. You are not trained nor capable of driving at those speed regardless of your own foolish beliefs.


I can drive at 150Km/h in a good weather, straight empty highway for couple of hours. Why do you think I would be unable to handle the car at the higher speeds???
As I said, I wouldn't drive at that speeds if the highway full of cars, you never know what next idiot will do.


What I am surpised at is why you are not in FI or Indy racing with all you apparent skills at high speed driving instead. I for one don't want to be anywhere near you when you are on the road.

I am not into racing.

[profguy]

Lots of talk with no back up.

Any 'design speed' is based on estimates and guesswork. Safety cannot be absolutely determined. It's just chosen by deciding what rate of death/danger is acceptable.

Brakes and tires not rated for 140-150km/hr? You obviously don't own a vehicle.

I have a car but dont' drive it a 140-150 kph. Yes the car is capable of reaching those speeds and that capacity is part of a "safety margin" but your car (unless you own a ferrari or simular vehical) was not designed for sustained driving or regular at those speeds. Most drivers unless specifically trained are not capable of driving well at those speeds.

I don't think you know very much about cars or have done much driving from your response. I speak from much experience with a range of vehicals.

Lets hear from some professional auto engineers and mechanics.

[profguy]

Thank you.

My car is not only sold in NA, it was sold in other countries as well, same car, different name, and there they can go 200km/h (autobahn). Why would they put something what car is not capable of???

FYI - cars may have the same name but the european versions have different specs - and different parts from the NA version.

Unless you have a high performance car (ferrari, MB, etc.) people in germany do not drive the autobahn at 200 kph - they know better. maybe you can over there but their drivers are more sensible than to push their car to the limited - that's why we need limits here because we don't have the sense to know better - ask anyone that hads lived in germany.

Why do speedometers go to 200 kph - to impress people who think they are buying a race car.

[romsan04]

FYI - cars may have the same name but the european versions have different specs - and different parts from the NA version.

Unless you have a high performance car (ferrari, MB, etc.) people in germany do not drive the autobahn at 200 kph - they know better. maybe you can over there but their drivers are more sensible than to push their car to the limited - that's why we need limits here because we don't have the sense to know better - ask anyone that hads lived in germany.

Why do speedometers go to 200 kph - to impress people who think they are buying a race car.

LOL, You make everything up. 200km/h might be pushing, but here is the quote from wikipedia "The average speed traveled on the autobahn in unregulated areas by automobiles not regulated by other laws is about 150 km/h." Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn)

By the way, European cars have considerably smaller engines, mostly 4 cyl, ranging from 1.3-2.0l displacements. Even they have no problem doing 150Km/h.

[VivienM]

Or people know how to drive.

If people know how to drive (a dubious assumption), then the limit ought to be raised.

A situation where it is normal, safe, respectable, and so on to exceed the limit by 40% indicates a problem with the limit. If everybody (safely) breaks the law, then the law needs fixing.

[VivienM]

By the way, European cars have considerably smaller engines, mostly 4 cyl, ranging from 1.3-2.0l displacements. Even they have no problem doing 150Km/h.

It's worth noting that in Europe, manufacturers publish maximum speed figures (presumably redline @ highest gear?) for their models. Typically the smallest engines max out at 150-160km/h...

[VivienM]

Don't you think car engineers test all that crap before putting max speed on speedometer? If not, I am off to sue Toyota :twisted:

A lot of cars have max speeds on the speedometer that can't be reached because a speed limiter kicks in...

Max speed on the speedometer is about psychological mind games, not safety.

[Asad_A203]

I have driven at speeds around 170 km/h on the Trans Canada Highway in my Honda Accord V6, and I was having Grand Ams pass me...

Manitoba highways are pretty clear for the most of the route, only time you know you are driving fast is when you go on to a highway that branches into a residental street.

You really can't say a certain speed is considered safe. Doing 50 km/h on a icy road is still dangerous. Doing 80 km/h on a congested highway where you are literally a bumper away from the car infront of you is also dangerous. As long as the road is clear, weather permitting, and you are putting no one but yourself at risk, go ahead and drive as fast as you want.

I won't be telling anyone to speed, but once I get my Valentine radar detector installed, I doubt I will be going near the speed limit on the highway unless it is crowded. Can't tell people not to speed, when I do it all the time.

[ES_Revenge]

Brake checking is when someone is tailgating you and you tap your brakes, or "brake check" to tell them to F off.

I must say, some of the points in the act are quite hilarious, since the self professed "speed police" commit so many of those offenses, i.e. brake checking, preventing other vehicles from passing, purposely slowing down to block traffic, etc. It's just a shame they'll probably never get dinged on it.
Ahh okay "brake checking" I've never heard of that term, to me it's just people using the brakes unncessarily, lol. I see it in the regulation there at 8(3), ii. or whatever. I wonder if this part of the regulation will ever get enforced because going by that you could take away the cars and licenses of a like hundreds of people everyday in rush hour. People are always hitting the brakes unnecessarily there, always. Yes you do have to apply the brakes in traffic but many people are far to brake happy which is a large cause of traffic to begin with.


What a bunch of load of crap. My Camry's top speed is 220-240km/h, my tiers top speed is 220km/h. I can bet you $100 if we go to track I'll be able to do it no problem.

I cannot believe how many people blame the speed.
If the speed is the problem why not make 60km/h is top speed on HWY???
It does make sense.
Hold on there Hoss, LOL. While I obviously agree that simple speeding is not the end of the world, I would really hope that you aren't doing "220-240km/h" in your Camry on the road, thinking it's "safe" just because the car can travel that fast. That kind of speed, particularly in a Camry, sounds excessive.

While I think this law is indeed moronic, I still have to say that going ludicrous speed (140km/h over the limit???) is perhaps just as stupid.

[Asad_A203]

Ahh okay "brake checking" I've never heard of that term, to me it's just people using the brakes unncessarily, lol. I see it in the regulation there at 8(3), ii. or whatever. I wonder if this part of the regulation will ever get enforced because going by that you could take away the cars and licenses of a like hundreds of people everyday in rush hour. People are always hitting the brakes unnecessarily there, always. Yes you do have to apply the brakes in traffic but many people are far to brake happy which is a large cause of traffic to begin with.


Hold on there Hoss, LOL. While I obviously agree that simple speeding is not the end of the world, I would really hope that you aren't doing "220-240km/h" in your Camry on the road, thinking it's "safe" just because the car can travel that fast. That kind of speed, particularly in a Camry, sounds excessive.

While I think this law is indeed moronic, I still have to say that going ludicrous speed (140km/h over the limit???) is perhaps just as stupid.

If you think that is insane, youtube "3000GT top speed in youtube". They have a stock 3000GT going at speeds around 180 MP/H. Looks incredibly fast, and how fast everything is going by the driver. Would be ****** if say they hit a pothole and watched their 15 year old 4000LB car swerve into the median.

[65505201]

If people know how to drive (a dubious assumption), then the limit ought to be raised.

A situation where it is normal, safe, respectable, and so on to exceed the limit by 40% indicates a problem with the limit. If everybody (safely) breaks the law, then the law needs fixing.

Your assumption is that government policy is based on logic, and not to get votes or fill coffers.

[Colargo]

Do these new laws target aggressive drivers who constantly make risky lane changes just so they can get a few car lengths ahead and arrive a few minutes earlier to their destination?

I think they along with drunk drivers cause more damage than people who drive faster but don't weave in and out of traffic.

[profguy]

LOL, You make everything up. 200km/h might be pushing, but here is the quote from wikipedia "The average speed traveled on the autobahn in unregulated areas by automobiles not regulated by other laws is about 150 km/h." Source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn)

By the way, European cars have considerably smaller engines, mostly 4 cyl, ranging from 1.3-2.0l displacements. Even they have no problem doing 150Km/h.

150 kph is a lot different than 200 kph. Did you check with wikipedia on the capcity of you NA spec car? Do you know anyone that has driven a 1.3 liter dsiplayment car at 200 kph.

Most of the autobahn is regulated and the higher speeds are for supercars not your 4-banger or toyotas. Let us know when you get it up to 200 kph.

[profguy]

Don't you think car engineers test all that crap before putting max speed on speedometer? If not, I am off to sue Toyota :twisted:


I'm surprised that you haven't already taken your toyota camry to 200+ kph after all we all know that you can take your car to max shown on the speedometer.

If not why not.

[DJ_Peanuts22]

Most of the autobahn is regulated and the higher speeds are for supercars not your 4-banger or toyotas. Let us know when you get it up to 200 kph.

Not everyone in germany owns a supercar. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of 4-cylinder cars that are capable of hitting 200km/h right from the factory. Whether they can, because of tire and ECU computer limitations is another story.

[VivienM]

Your assumption is that government policy is based on logic, and not to get votes or fill coffers.

My assumption is that, in a democracy, voters won't tolerate an "acceptable" activity being labelled criminal by some out-of-touch bureaucracy.

Then again, I live in a city filled with cars stuck in traffic jams, yet where the voters CONTINUALLY and KNOWINGLY elect car-hating socialists. So perhaps democracy is really far more broken than I was assuming...

[DJ_Peanuts22]

Brake checking is when someone is tailgating you and you tap your brakes, or "brake check" to tell them to F off.

I must say, some of the points in the act are quite hilarious, since the self professed "speed police" commit so many of those offenses, i.e. brake checking, preventing other vehicles from passing, purposely slowing down to block traffic, etc. It's just a shame they'll probably never get dinged on it.

I encounter plenty of aggressive drivers on my daily commute on the 400-series highways. What do I do? Just mind my own business and let them pass and be on their way.

The majority of drivers who practice brake checking are more likely to cause a pileup on the highway if the tailgater is not able to react fast enough. Not only is it equally as reckless as driving 150+km/h, it will only escalate the level of rage more.

To be fair; police should also lay charges on those who are trying to take the law into their own hands by doing stupid things like brake checking, preventing people from passing, etc.

[romsan04]

Hold on there Hoss, LOL. While I obviously agree that simple speeding is not the end of the world, I would really hope that you aren't doing "220-240km/h" in your Camry on the road, thinking it's "safe" just because the car can travel that fast. That kind of speed, particularly in a Camry, sounds excessive.

While I think this law is indeed moronic, I still have to say that going ludicrous speed (140km/h over the limit???) is perhaps just as stupid.

Please read my posts.
Thank you.


150 kph is a lot different than 200 kph. Did you check with wikipedia on the capcity of you NA spec car? Do you know anyone that has driven a 1.3 liter dsiplayment car at 200 kph.

Most of the autobahn is regulated and the higher speeds are for supercars not your 4-banger or toyotas. Let us know when you get it up to 200 kph.

It's only 50km/h different. I have driven Corolla 1.8l 4 cyl doing 180Km/h. I don't see why V6 Camry cannot do 200Km/h.


I'm surprised that you haven't already taken your toyota camry to 200+ kph after all we all know that you can take your car to max shown on the speedometer.

If not why not.

Yeah, I am surprised myself. Now you put doubts in my Camry, I have to find out if it can do 200km/h. :D

[Asad_A203]

A Toyota Camry V6 should have no difficult reaching speeds in excess of 220 KM/H. The question about it being safe is another whole concern. Also top speed does not equate performance, if you made the gears long enough, you could get a Toyota Yaris doing 180 MPH. There are plenty of 4 bangers that could give alot of cars including a bunch of Mercedes a run for their money. For example the WRX STi. Displacement does not equal performance! 200 KM/H is not some huge mark, geez you guys sound like all you have ever driven in your life has been a Honda Civic. Any performance vehicle, can surpass that mark easily, the question is why would they want to. After a point, it just goes down to who has the longest gear, and not really how quick a car accelerates.

There is no two tiers speed on the Autobahn, that sounds horrible. "If your car is capable of reaching 200 KM/H, go ahead, if not keep below 120 KM/H". The car still repersent a risk to everyone around them. Speeding is not an issue as long as you have maintained a safe distance from everyone, and that includes a safe distance of probably a km considering the length of slowing down at these speeds, weather allows for it, and you are not putting anyone besides yourself and the other occupants of your vehicle at risk. I can understand why cops would give tickets to people doing that on a crowded highway, but on a open stretch of road they would only be putting themselves at risk. Oh well, the government is just looking out for us I guess..

[VivienM]

Yeah, I am surprised myself. Now you put doubts in my Camry, I have to find out if it can do 200km/h. :D

What tires do you have on your Camry?

[romsan04]

What tires do you have on your Camry?

Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge V rated. :)

Do I have now your permission father??? :D

[65505201]

My assumption is that, in a democracy, voters won't tolerate an "acceptable" activity being labelled criminal by some out-of-touch bureaucracy.

Then again, I live in a city filled with cars stuck in traffic jams, yet where the voters CONTINUALLY and KNOWINGLY elect car-hating socialists. So perhaps democracy is really far more broken than I was assuming...

Voters don't care about anything, regardless of how it violates the laws of common sense, unless it affects them directly. Also, is our system really democratic? Did we get a vote on whether this should be passed or not?

Nearly 100% of the time, we get a packaged deal with politicians. More often than not, these packages are mislabeled or just outright lies.

[VivienM]

Voters don't care about anything, regardless of how it violates the laws of common sense, unless it affects them directly.

If enough people who aren't 17 year olds driving riced-up Integras get their cars impounded under this law, then people will be affected directly..

[VivienM]

Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge V rated. :)

Do I have now your permission father??? :D

That seems MIGHTY sporty a tire for a Camry, but hey... what do I know?

If you want to get your car impounded, you know what to do...

[profguy]

Not everyone in germany owns a supercar. :rolleyes:

There are plenty of 4-cylinder cars that are capable of hitting 200km/h right from the factory. Whether they can, because of tire and ECU computer limitations is another story.

You missed the point, any car is capable of reach a high speed under the right condtion - strong tailwind and downhill but wheather they can be driven safely or should be is the point. You can drive it off a cliff and hit 200 kph too.

Yes that was was my point not everyone has a supercar and most people over there do not drive around at 200 kph - it is is clear that you have never been there and all you know is the words autobahn and unlimited speed. Check it out and you will find the unlimited speed is the exception and very few people go 200 kph and many cars cannot get up that high no matter how much you floor it - try it and let us know when you do so.

[Maxspeed]

in dubai, i was able to do 200 km/hr in 2.4L camry quite easily.....

[m4gician]

thank god...

Ok, I do drive 130 on the 401....but really 150! Sorry, I no longer have any sympathy...and around Kingston, 120-130 is more than sufficient....I have done it too many times...

They position a heck of a lot of OPP close to and slightly past Kingston, for good reason to save face.

One place where I see disregard for the law is the 400 north and south bound.

[DVDManiac]

Please bring this to BC...and also cut off the left hands of people that don't signal, since they don't seem to use the hand when they drive, or just shoot them.

[DJ_Peanuts22]

You missed the point, any car is capable of reach a high speed under the right condtion - strong tailwind and downhill but wheather they can be driven safely or should be is the point.

Safety is dependant on the drivers experience, skill and comfort level with their car.

Does anyone who's life is not in danger, wife's not giving birth or they don't know someone who is on their death bed need to drive at that speed?


You can drive it off a cliff and hit 200 kph too.

You're the one who deserves to drive off a cliff after including that pointless plug.


Yes that was was my point not everyone has a supercar

Read my previous post, that was a point I made, not you.



and most people over there do not drive around at 200 kph

I agree, they either drive more or less than that.




- it is is clear that you have never been there and all you know is the words autobahn and unlimited speed.

Where in my previous post did I even make any mention of an autobahn or travelling to Germany? :lol:



Check it out and you will find the unlimited speed is the exception and very few people go 200 kph

Right, they either go more or less than 200km/h. Many travel 120km/h, some 300km/h. Why do you like the number 200 so much? :D



and many cars cannot get up that high no matter how much you floor it

Yeah, it's called a speed governor. Implemented on most passenger cars because of the low speed ratings of the tires usually. Remove both and you'll find that a lot of cars are quite capable of reaching those kinds of speeds.



- try it and let us know when you do so.

Try and do what? Break the law?

Obviously someone missed the entire point of this thread.

[kleptodathief]

im sure most of us who OPPOSE this new 50over law has gone over 200klicks :cheesygri

not sure how 'floaty' u guys felt in ur cars but stock 4x4 feeling is scary! when its lowered with nice suspension thats another store;) im suprised they havn't gotten any motorcycles morons yet...

[profguy]

Safety is dependant on the drivers experience, skill and comfort level with their car.

Does anyone who's life is not in danger, wife's not giving birth or they don't know someone who is on their death bed need to drive at that speed?



You're the one who deserves to drive off a cliff after including that pointless plug.



Read my previous post, that was a point I made, not you.



I agree, they either drive more or less than that.




Where in my previous post did I even make any mention of an autobahn or travelling to Germany? :lol:



Right, they either go more or less than 200km/h. Many travel 120km/h, some 300km/h. Why do you like the number 200 so much? :D



Yeah, it's called a speed governor. Implemented on most passenger cars because of the low speed ratings of the tires usually. Remove both and you'll find that a lot of cars are quite capable of reaching those kinds of speeds.



Try and do what? Break the law?

Obviously someone missed the entire point of this thread.

Re "Germany" - see your own post #112 you brought it up. This is typical of your entire response - circular reasoning.

Please enlighten us on where you have seen a road car driven at 200 kph ( not in your dreams or on a race track) and what mdodels were these.

For the record I for one am happy for the new laws to take those drivers off the highways that insist on driving here in Ontario at speeds of 140 - 150 or more kph.

[ES_Revenge]

Goodyear Eagle ResponsEdge V rated. :)

Do I have now your permission father??? :D
All-season tyres :rolleyes:

LMAO. And no, you don't have permission not for speeds in excess of 200km/h on public roads especially not in your Camry, on all-seasons :rolleyes: Again "220-240km/h" is excessive, if you really are doing those speeds I would hope that if anyone, this new legislation finds you, LOL.

[Nikita]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_15302.aspx


i still find it shocking how in canada, a law such as this has passed
seizing your car is going against our charter right of unlawful search/seizure as you haven't been convicted of anything yet

our government is ********, just like our police force


Yeah, gotta especially love the following:

"The legislation, aimed at street racers and other offending motorists, allows police to seize vehicles on the spot for seven days and suspend drivers' licences for the same amount of time. If found guilty the person behind the wheel may also face a hefty fine of $2,000 or more, not including impound charges."

You get punished by police in two ways and then IF you're found guilty you get more punishment from the court. Sounds awfully backward to me. What if your found NOT guilty? Oh well, sucks to be you, cuz you've now got to pay impound fees to get your car back and you've been unable to drive for 7 days.....and you weren't guilty of a damned thing.

I find it disappointing but not shocking. Canadians are amoung the most apathetic bunch when it comes to just following whatever the government wants to do.



Personally, I think having such penalties at 150 is ridiculous: I have been passed on both sides by minivans while doing 130 on the 401. Last time I was on the 407, the standard speed in the left lane seemed to be faster than 140.

What am I supposed to do when someone istailgating me as I pass a truck (which was going about 125) and I'm at 140? (happened to me yesterday on the 401).

Sorry but I find it kind of hard to feel sorry for a speeder complaining about someone speeding faster than you were.

[anycee]

Sorry but I find it kind of hard to feel sorry for a speeder complaining about someone speeding faster than you were.
By that logic, only the .005% of 401 drivers who have never gone above 100 on the 401 have the right to complain about people doing 150.
I have no problem with speeding. Go 150, 170 even 200. Just don't do it in a manner that unnecessarily indangers me IE: tailgating and swerving through traffic.

[Polaren]

im sure most of us who OPPOSE this new 50over law has gone over 200klicks :cheesygri

not sure how 'floaty' u guys felt in ur cars but stock 4x4 feeling is scary! when its lowered with nice suspension thats another store;) im suprised they havn't gotten any motorcycles morons yet...

They did get a guy on a motorcycle yesterday. 205 km/h They happened to get him at an off-ramp down the highway. :)
Got the radar detector back in the car now..well a new one. Been using my old cobra for the past 2 years. Have a Escort 8500 x50 now.

[actng]

They did get a guy on a motorcycle yesterday. 205 km/h They happened to get him at an off-ramp down the highway. :)
Got the radar detector back in the car now..well a new one. Been using my old cobra for the past 2 years. Have a Escort 8500 x50 now.

what good is a radar detector when the cops are using LIDAR?

[Polaren]

what good is a radar detector when the cops are using LIDAR?

it detects lidar...

[camber]

OK... people this new law is an atrocity and gives police carte blanche powers to what they please to Ontario motorists. This new law spits in the face of all the citizens of Ontario and is turning the police into Gestapo. Police are here to protect and serve the people of this province, not to charge people for what they feel like on any given day. This new law actually has little to do with "street racing" or even "extreme" speeding.

Police now have the power under this new law to charge even if the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you have done something illegal on our roads in the past. That's right.... Police do not even have to catch you in the act anymore to charge you under this new law, they can now just act on basically suspicion.

The power given to police by bill 203 is mind boggling and undermines the basic rights which make Canada.... Canada....

We have to let our politcians now that we do not want police to become Gestapo. The police are her to "protect and serve" and not "punish and enslave."

The Ontario government(this includes all major political parties in our province) and OPP took us for a ride for their own gain. We have to hold them accountable and get Bill 203 repealed and start from scratch again. The negative aspects of this law far outweigh any postive safety gains for society.

If you do not understand why we have basic rights, why they never should be infringe, and the sacrifices people have made to uphold these principles maybe you don't deserve to be Canadian.

[65505201]

im sure most of us who OPPOSE this new 50over law has gone over 200klicks

not sure how 'floaty' u guys felt in ur cars but stock 4x4 feeling is scary! when its lowered with nice suspension thats another store im suprised they havn't gotten any motorcycles morons yet...


I haven't. 160 is the highest I've gone.

[bobbings]

OK... people this new law is an atrocity and gives police carte blanche powers to what they please to Ontario motorists. This new law spits in the face of all the citizens of Ontario and is turning the police into Gestapo. Police are here to protect and serve the people of this province, not to charge people for what they feel like on any given day. This new law actually has little to do with "street racing" or even "extreme" speeding.

Police now have the power under this new law to charge even if the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you have done something illegal on our roads in the past. That's right.... Police do not even have to catch you in the act anymore to charge you under this new law, they can now just act on basically suspicion.

The power given to police by bill 203 is mind boggling and undermines the basic rights which make Canada.... Canada....

We have to let our politcians now that we do not want police to become Gestapo. The police are her to "protect and serve" and not "punish and enslave."

The Ontario government(this includes all major political parties in our province) and OPP took us for a ride for their own gain. We have to hold them accountable and get Bill 203 repealed and start from scratch again. The negative aspects of this law far outweigh any postive safety gains for society.

If you do not understand why we have basic rights, why they never should be infringe, and the sacrifices people have made to uphold these principles maybe you don't deserve to be Canadian.

I'm thinking of becoming a police officer now...

Think of the POWER I will have as a cop!

[actng]

it detects lidar...

one of us is incredibly stupid for having this conversation. what good is detecting lidar when lidar is on/off. by the time it's detected, you've already been tagged by police...

[blainehamilton]

About damn time the police get some teeth. Now maybe other areas of the country will start cracking down like this.

150 in a 100 zone. Stupid.
130 in a 80 zone. Idiot.
100 in a 50 zone. Moron.
80 in a 30 zone. (playground) Brain Dead.

The motorcycle rider who was nabbed doing 200. Good catch. 5 years without a licence might put some sense into him. Tack on a $10000 fine and take away the bike for good just to make sure he gets the point.

People are so worried about families losing the commuter bmw or suv by going 50 over the limit. This isn't much different than the driver being drunk when you factor in those speeds. The parents driving like that doesn't teach the young drivers very well...

[camber]

About damn time the police get some teeth. Now maybe other areas of the country will start cracking down like this.

150 in a 100 zone. Stupid.
130 in a 80 zone. Idiot.
100 in a 50 zone. Moron.
80 in a 30 zone. (playground) Brain Dead.

The motorcycle rider who was nabbed doing 200. Good catch. 5 years without a licence might put some sense into him. Tack on a $10000 fine and take away the bike for good just to make sure he gets the point.

People are so worried about families losing the commuter bmw or suv by going 50 over the limit. This isn't much different than the driver being drunk when you factor in those speeds. The parents driving like that doesn't teach the young drivers very well...

If you prefer for the police to have carte blanche power over an important aspect of your life maybe you more to China if you want the police to violate your basic rights?

Today in Belleville(Thurlow) a person in the early twenties popped a wheelie on their four wheeler in an empty field and fell off and hurt himself. The police showed up and charged rider under the new "street racing" law because the field had public access and did not have no trespassing signs. The rider had their four wheeler confiscated, license revoked and 2k fine for hurting themselves in an empty field!

This law has very little to do with speed or street racing. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario(MTO) does not even keep statistics on accidents caused by extreme speed or street racing. The government had no real statistics to base this new law off of. This was done purely off of feeling and to generate revenue because it seen as more politcal friendly form of photo radar.

IIRC the last person to look into the subject of extreme speed and street racing came to the conclusion your more likely to die from a police chase in the province Ontario.

For people that think it is ok to strip people of the Charter Rights and do not understand the implications. Please, do us a true Canadian a favour and move to a communist country, dictatorship or theocracy.

[65505201]

About damn time the police get some teeth. Now maybe other areas of the country will start cracking down like this.

150 in a 100 zone. Stupid.
130 in a 80 zone. Idiot.
100 in a 50 zone. Moron.
80 in a 30 zone. (playground) Brain Dead.

People are so worried about families losing the commuter bmw or suv by going 50 over the limit. This isn't much different than the driver being drunk when you factor in those speeds. The parents driving like that doesn't teach the young drivers very well...

Thinking all 100 zones are equal. Stupid.
Thinking that going 150 = driving drunk. Very stupid.
Parents that teach their kids to unquestioningly follow the government. Brain dead.

[65505201]

If you prefer for the police to have carte blanche power over an important aspect of your life maybe you more to China if you want the police to violate your basic rights?

Today in Belleville(Thurlow) a person in the early twenties popped a wheelie on their four wheeler in an empty field and fell off and hurt himself. The police showed up and charged rider under the new "street racing" law because the field had public access and did not have no trespassing signs. The rider had their four wheeler confiscated, license revoked and 2k for hurting themselves in an empty field!

This law has very little to do with speed or street racing. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario(MTO) does not even keep statistics on accidents caused by extreme speed or street racing. The government had no real statistics to base this new law off of. This was done purely off of feeling and to generate revenue because it seen as more politcal friendly for of photo radar.

IIRC the last person to look into the subject of extreme speed and street racing came to the conclusion your more likely to die from a police chase in the province Ontario.

For people that think it is ok to strip people of the Charter Rights and do not understand the implications. Please, do us a true Canadian a favour and move to a communist country, dictatorship or theocracy.

I'm sure someone will make note that these are American court decisions, but until someone from the "privilege" side makes an argument better than "driving is a privilege because it can be taken away and the government saids so," enjoy:

http://teamliberty.net/id18.html

Key point:
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so.

[camber]

Oh by the way....

Once the Province issues you a license that is your property. Therefore, it becomes a property right to have that license. Legally, no one should be able to take away your property(ie License, car) without a due process.

[tmash]

Anyone arguing this law is just being ridiculous....

It's not like they are saying any speeding and we will impound your car, suspend your license and fine you....

This is only if you're going 50 km/h over the posted speed, think about that, 50km/h in excess is ALOT. I don't care how you slice it, that is way too damn fast to be going.

Think about it, you live in a quiet neighbourhood, not alot of traffic, you go out to get your morning paper, and a car zooms by at 100 or 110 km/h, that's absolutely ridiculous! Or in a school zone, going 80 or 90 km/h, how is that safe in any way with children all around?

Anyone going that fast deserves to have their license and car taken away until they learn better.

[camber]

Anyone arguing this law is just being ridiculous....


Your being ridiculous and if you don't believe in the Charter Rights why do you live in Canada?

You could move to North Korea.

Have you actually read bill 203?

You do realize this new law has little to do with just extreme speeding over the legal limit?

Do you actually have any statistics from Ontario back any of your claims?

I'm guessing your going to answer no to the three previous questions. Your doing a disservice to this thread and Canadians by not being informed to make an intelligent response in such an important matter. Please, refrain from posting until you can contribute something useful.

I'll give you a hand and give you a link to the MTO(Ministry of Transportation of Ontario) statistics page.http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/orsar/

[bembol]

My sister and I were discussing this...

Everyone seems to be focused on Speed, the problem is really DRIVING TRAINING. It's way too easy getting your Driver's License. I'm surprised Government isn't putting more focused on it and I certainly don't have a problem with them jacking the price up.

It's been said, some weren't just meant to DRIVE and when you add a new driver trying to impress his/her friends, it usually doesn't end good.

I've been driving for 10+ years and it took me about 5 years before I started "pushing" it.

[VorteC]

My sister and I were discussing this...

Everyone seems to be focused on Speed, the problem is really DRIVING TRAINING. It's way too easy getting your Driver's License. I'm surprised Government isn't putting more focused on it and I certainly don't have a problem with them jacking the price up.

It's been said, some weren't just meant to DRIVE and when you add a new driver trying to impress his/her friends, it usually doesn't end good.

I've been driving for 10+ years and it took me about 5 years before I started "pushing" it.

but who are you to say a person can't drive?

[VivienM]

It's way too easy getting your Driver's License. I'm surprised Government isn't putting more focused on it and I certainly don't have a problem with them jacking the price up.

Isn't Ontario one of the toughest jurisdictions in North America when it comes to new driver licensing?

Stricter licencing/testing doesn't solve the real problem: people who drive perfectly responsibly on their road tests, but then go crazy 6 months later driving their riced up Integras...

[VivienM]

I'm sure someone will make note that these are American court decisions, but until someone from the "privilege" side makes an argument better than "driving is a privilege because it can be taken away and the government saids so," enjoy:

There's a case from Alberta in the early 80s that supported the 'driving is a near right' position. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the precise quote or citation, but it is out there...

[camber]

Just to let you know, Ontario is one of the safest districts to drive in North America!

The government and law enforcement spun minority behaviour to suit their needs and strip you of your fundamental rights.

Do you realize that you can now be considered a "street racer" and charged under this same bill if you pop a wheelie on a bicycle on a public road, parking lot or land with public access?

Look out you stunt riding kiddies.

[65505201]

Isn't Ontario one of the toughest jurisdictions in North America when it comes to new driver licensing?

Stricter licencing/testing doesn't solve the real problem: people who drive perfectly responsibly on their road tests, but then go crazy 6 months later driving their riced up Integras...

Sigh, always bashing the ricers when it's the everyday drivers that account for far more accidents.

However, I do agree with your point. People do drive differently during the exams. But, there's really no good way of examining. The rules on paper are rarely near practical for everyday driving, and it doesn't help that examining is privatized.

[VivienM]

There's a case from Alberta in the early 80s that supported the 'driving is a near right' position. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the precise quote or citation, but it is out there...

Aha.


At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the Minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver's licence -- and consequently to drive upon the :highways of Alberta -- is a privilege and not a right. Since time Immemorial the Queen's subjects have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only they kept the Queen's peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition

to the issue of a licence to drive -- and the consequent right to drive -- that requirement does not reduce a "right" to a "privilege". Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen's peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty's subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen's Highway remains intact and unimpaired.

I know of no legislation which has reduced my inviolable right to drive into a privilege to be granted or refused at the uncontrolled whim of some petty bureaucrat.

REGINA ex rel. CHRISTOFFERSEN v. MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS (1959), 123 C.C.C. 275 (Alta. S.C.)


In the context of today's society it, I believe, is unrealistic to say that an individual's entitlement to a motor vehicle operator's licence, and consequently his right to move freely on public highways, is a privilege. In my view, every individual has a right to use public highways, and consequently to an operator's licence, [page732] subject only to the right of the Legislature to pass laws and regulations in the interests of public safety for the purpose of controlling the use of public highways and the fitness and competence of those individuals who use them. The contention that an operator's licence is a privilege must be based upon the proposition that no one has the right to use the public highways except those individuals granted permission to do so by the Legislature. I cannot accept that proposition.

R. v. Rowland, (1984) 10 D.L.R. (4th) 724 (Alta. Q.B.)

I wonder what courts in other provinces have said...

[65505201]

Just to let you know, Ontario is one of the safest districts to drive in North America!

The government and law enforcement spun minority behaviour to suit their needs and strip you of your fundamental rights.

Do you realize that you can now be considered a "street racer" and charged under this same bill if you pop a wheelie on a bicycle on a public road, parking lot or land with public access?

Look out you stunt riding kiddies.

Just out of curiosity, can they spin this to hammer the people driving on tracks? Technically, there is public access....

[VivienM]

Sigh, always bashing the ricers when it's the everyday drivers that account for far more accidents.

It's not about who accounts for the accidents. It's about who accounts for the political impulses behind the regulation.

No one says "oh, some 35 year old soccer mom driving a rusty Chrysler minivan did something stupid, time to restrict how many kids you can put in a car".

Plenty of people say "those stupid punks with their f***ing civics with those #$%#%#$%#$%% fartcan exhausts".

So the politicians respond to the second situation, even if the first causes more accidents/deaths on average.


However, I do agree with your point. People do drive differently during the exams. But, there's really no good way of examining. The rules on paper are rarely near practical for everyday driving, and it doesn't help that examining is privatized.

Well, that's because the test is overly strict on certain things... the "you fail if you do something illegal" is nothing but a money grab, since in most urban areas it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to avoid doing something illegal.

(e.g. if you try and follow the "do not enter an intersection unless there is room for you on the other side" rule, which I believe is a law, then you WILL get honked at...)

[65505201]

Aha.



REGINA ex rel. CHRISTOFFERSEN v. MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS (1959), 123 C.C.C. 275 (Alta. S.C.)



R. v. Rowland, (1984) 10 D.L.R. (4th) 724 (Alta. Q.B.)

I wonder what courts in other provinces have said...

Heh heh. I'm considering starting a thread called "Driving is a right!!!" to rub it into the faces of the "privilege" crowd. It's a shame that I'm too lazy to make sure there are no opposing statements/rulings from Canadian judges.

When I got my Minnesota driver's license, the first question was:

Driving is a:
A. Right
B. Privilege

I wonder if DMV's can be sued for propagating false information...

[65505201]

It's not about who accounts for the accidents. It's about who accounts for the political impulses behind the regulation.

No one says "oh, some 35 year old soccer mom driving a rusty Chrysler minivan did something stupid, time to restrict how many kids you can put in a car".

Plenty of people say "those stupid punks with their f***ing civics with those #$%#%#$%#$%% fartcan exhausts".

So the politicians respond to the second situation, even if the first causes more accidents/deaths on average.


Fair enough. That I do agree with. However, instead of "respond," I would use the word "exploit."




Well, that's because the test is overly strict on certain things... the "you fail if you do something illegal" is nothing but a money grab, since in most urban areas it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to avoid doing something illegal.

(e.g. if you try and follow the "do not enter an intersection unless there is room for you on the other side" rule, which I believe is a law, then you WILL get honked at...)

Heh heh. Did I tell you how the first time I attempted my G2 exit test, I did the entire test driving with one hand? I would've passed too, if I had rocked the car at the stop sign (I came to a full stop but I guess I needed to rock the car to prove it was stopped).

[VivienM]

Heh heh. I'm considering starting a thread called "Driving is a right!!!" to rub it into the faces of the "privilege" crowd. It's a shame that I'm too lazy to make sure there are no opposing statements/rulings from Canadian judges.

Do you have access to Quicklaw? (No, Westlaw doesn't count - IMO Quicklaw is better for finding obscure Canadian cases that no one has ever cared about before) And ideally, a free account is good, unless you want to spend your employer's money on this...

[VivienM]

Heh heh. Did I tell you how the first time I attempted my G2 exit test, I did the entire test driving with one hand? I would've passed too, if I had rocked the car at the stop sign (I came to a full stop but I guess I needed to rock the car to prove it was stopped).

Oh yes, the "no rolling stop rule". No one in the real world actually stops as seriously as is required on those road tests...

There are other weird things, too, like the eye rules (though those aren't instant fails). They don't look at your eyes, though, they look at your head... so if you move your eyes without visibly moving your head, oops.

[camber]

Just out of curiosity, can they spin this to hammer the people driving on tracks? Technically, there is public access....

Well, technically the owner shouldn't allow public access to the actual race track(during such activities) but you are supposed to have written approval from the owner to participate in such actitivities on their property

Even better for you true speed junkies that do it the supposed safe and "legal"(The claim by law enforcement and your going to laugh as read read farther down) way by taking it to a track. Let say you drive home on the tires that you raced on. ....

Since, those tires show "racing" wear and your on public streets that is enough reasonable or probably grounds under this new law for police to charge you under this new law. Police actually don't have to observe your doing anything illegal under this new law. If the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you may have participated in something illegal on our roads they can suspend your license for a week, impound your car for a week and give you a $2k-10k ticket on just officer's suspicion. Therefore, legally participating on a race track then driving home(while breaking no laws) can get you in a lot of trouble and you have no legal recourse.

[65505201]

Well, technically the owner shouldn't allow public access to the actual race track(during such activities) but you are supposed to have written approval from the owner to participate in such actitivities on their property

Even better for you true speed junkies that do it the supposed safe and "legal"(The claim by law enforcement and your going to laugh as read read farther down) way by taking it to a track. Let say you drive home on the tires that you raced on. ....

Since, those tires show "racing" wear and your on public streets that is enough reasonable or probably grounds under this new law for police to charge you under this new law. Police actually don't have to observe your doing anything illegal under this new law. If the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you may have participated in something illegal on our roads they can suspend your license for a week, impound your car for a week and give you a $2k-10k ticket on just officer's suspicion. Therefore, legally participating on a race track then driving home(while breaking no laws) can get you in a lot of trouble and you have no legal recourse.

It's just a shame that the eventual lawsuit will be paid out of public coffers instead of the geniuses' that pushed this law through in the first place.

EDIT: Regarding doing this on private property, I vaguely remember Shaner saying that you can still be charged with reckless driving or some other charge that is now a criminal offense.

[Slippery_Pete]

Heh heh. I'm considering starting a thread called "Driving is a right!!!" to rub it into the faces of the "privilege" crowd. It's a shame that I'm too lazy to make sure there are no opposing statements/rulings from Canadian judges.

When I got my Minnesota driver's license, the first question was:

Driving is a:
A. Right
B. Privilege

I wonder if DMV's can be sued for propagating false information...

No, driving is not a right, no matter what YOU think. Rights are enshrined in the constitution. Last I checked the constitution makes no mention of driving. Anything outside of what is mentioned in the constitution is not a right and therefore may be revoked by the government. Get your head around it, its true. Why you would ever think driving is a right is beyond me. I'm sure you believe whatever you do is a right, which in fact is not the case. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

[camber]

The question isn't so much that is driving is an explicit right or not.

It is if the Charter applies to the act of driving and owning a motor vehicle and a driver's license. The short answer is that the Charter is valid throughout all aspects of society and the provincial government cannot put arbitrary limitations on its scope. Therefore, Canada's Charter of of Rights and Freedoms protects driver's and the property required to drive(ie. license and vehicle). Just like it would protect your rights to own your house and not have it abitrarly taken away, a murderer's due process in a criminal trial or even your ability to travel freely within our country without being monitored.

[65505201]

No, driving is not a right, no matter what YOU think. Rights are enshrined in the constitution. Last I checked the constitution makes no mention of driving. Anything outside of what is mentioned in the constitution is not a right and therefore may be revoked by the government. Get your head around it, its true. Why you would ever think driving is a right is beyond me. I'm sure you believe whatever you do is a right, which in fact is not the case. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it true.

Have you read the last couple posts? There are numerous rulings by judges saying just the opposite.

Last I checked, it's only been the DMV's and police officers saying that it's a privilege.

Granted, it would be impossible to obtain insurance with a license, thereby opening yourself up for a whole can of civil litigation whoopass.

[VivienM]

Rights are enshrined in the constitution.

Your conception of rights is mighty narrow.

For example, let's say I agree to buy a Buick from you for $10,000. I take delivery of the car from you, but don't pay you.

You have a legal right to $10,000 from me. You can go to court, sue me for breach of contract, and get a piece of paper signed by a judge ordering me to pay you $10,000. If I don't pay you, then you can go through some more hoops, then send somebody to my bank and order them to hand you $10,000 out of my account. If that doesn't work, then you can send somebody to my house and seize $10,000 of my stuff.

If I file for bankruptcy instead of paying you, then you can file a claim with my trustee in bankruptcy, and you have a legal right to a share of my estate. (e.g. if I owe a total of $50K, and my assets are $20K, then you have a legal right to have the trustee pay you $4K)

Yet I don't read "Slippery_Pete shall have the right to $10,000 if VivienM fails to pay for a Buick" in the constitution or Charter.

[VivienM]

Have you read the last couple posts? There are numerous rulings by judges saying just the opposite.

Last I checked, it's only been the DMV's and police officers saying that it's a privilege.

In all fairness, all the judges are willing to accept restrictions on that right. What they don't accept is the broad "It is a privilege. You have no entitlement to anything." rhetoric widely used by driver licencing and enforcement officials.

[65505201]

In all fairness, all the judges are willing to accept restrictions on that right. What they don't accept is the broad "It is a privilege. You have no entitlement to anything." rhetoric widely used by driver licencing and enforcement officials.

Well, it's easier to scare the general public into submission once you've convinced them that they are not entitled to anything.

[Slippery_Pete]

Your conception of rights is mighty narrow.

For example, let's say I agree to buy a Buick from you for $10,000. I take delivery of the car from you, but don't pay you.

You have a legal right to $10,000 from me. You can go to court, sue me for breach of contract, and get a piece of paper signed by a judge ordering me to pay you $10,000. If I don't pay you, then you can go through some more hoops, then send somebody to my bank and order them to hand you $10,000 out of my account. If that doesn't work, then you can send somebody to my house and seize $10,000 of my stuff.

If I file for bankruptcy instead of paying you, then you can file a claim with my trustee in bankruptcy, and you have a legal right to a share of my estate. (e.g. if I owe a total of $50K, and my assets are $20K, then you have a legal right to have the trustee pay you $4K)

Yet I don't read "Slippery_Pete shall have the right to $10,000 if VivienM fails to pay for a Buick" in the constitution or Charter.

******** example. Contracts are based in common law and can be changed by law. Rights are inherent, and are protected by the constitution. There's a difference. I am entitled to that money you owe me....its not my RIGHT to that money. I may have a narrow concept of rights....but so does the constitution. Your rights are limited....get used to it.

[Slippery_Pete]

Well, it's easier to scare the general public into submission once you've convinced them that they are not entitled to anything.

There's a differenece between rights and entitlement....it doesn't take a lawyer to know the difference....

And I'm not arguing that its right for them to be able to take you car away for driving too fast.....but lets face it, this isn't the first example of this. For example....bringing contraband over the border, they seize your car. Grow dope in your home, they seize your house....catch fish illegaly they seize you boat. YOUR RIGHTS ARE LIMITED. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[65505201]

There's a differenece between rights and entitlement....it doesn't take a lawyer to know the difference....

And I'm not arguing that its right for them to be able to take you car away for driving too fast.....but lets face it, this isn't the first example of this. For example....bringing contraband over the border, they seize your car. Grow dope in your home, they seize your house....catch fish illegaly they seize you boat. YOUR RIGHTS ARE LIMITED. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I was responding in the vein of Viven's post. I guess a better way to phrase it is:



Well, it's easier to scare the general public into submission once you've convinced them that driving is a privilege and not a right.


However, I do agree with your last point, and am guilty of standing by and not doing anything about it. I blame 50% on my laziness (because it hasn't hit me yet) and 50% on my cynicism that the system actually works.

[camber]

I may have a narrow concept of rights....but so does the constitution. Your rights are limited....get used to it.

You right in a way but I don't think your understand why.

There is a "limitations clause" and "notwithstanding clause". Which can only be used in extrodinary cases(unless your Quebec:lol: ). Infringements of rights are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified."

The Ontario provincial government has not demonstrated that Bill 203 is actually needed. Like, I mentioned before the MTO doesn't keep statistics on any of the key elements or behaviour that Bill 203 "intended"(the scope and power this law has is simply preposterous and goes much farther then simply street racing or extreme speeding) to curb. We have no actual real metrics to say that there is true "carnage" occuring on our roads here in Ontario for the specific that Bill 203 "intended" to curb.

[65505201]

******** example. Contracts are based in common law and can be changed by law. Rights are inherent, and are protected by the constitution. There's a difference.

If you're going to put it that way, the constitution can be amended as well, which will affect which rights are protected and to what extent.

[Slippery_Pete]

If you're going to put it that way, the constitution can be amended as well, which will affect which rights are protected and to what extent.

Of course it can be amended but do you realize how hard it is to do so? And trust me, it will never be amended with regards to anything that has to do with driving.

[Slippery_Pete]

You right in a way but I don't think your understand why.

There is a "limitations clause" and "notwithstanding clause". Which can only be used in extrodinary cases(unless your Quebec:lol: ). Infringements of rights are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified."

The Ontario provincial government has not demonstrated that Bill 203 is actually needed. Like, I mentioned before the MTO doesn't keep statistics on any of the key elements or behaviour that Bill 203 "intended"(the scope and power this law has is simply preposterous and goes much farther then simply street racing or extreme speeding) to curb. We have no actual real metrics to say that there is true "carnage" occuring on our roads here in Ontario for the specific that Bill 203 "intended" to curb.

You don't understand...If the Ontario government came out with a law that was contrary to the freedom of speech, that would be contrary to the constitution. And if they felt it was truly necasary, they would try to use the "notwithstanding clause" to make it law (ie the Quebec language laws). However it would be really hard for someone to argue that it was unconstitutional, if a province said revoked a persons "right" to drive....its a ridiculous thing to argue.

[camber]

Of course it can be amended but do you realize how hard it is to do so? And trust me, it will never be amended with regards to anything that has to do with driving.



Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers all aspects of society. It does not need to be amended to explicitly say driving is a right.

[Slippery_Pete]

Charter of Rights and Freedoms covers all aspects of society. It does not need to be amended to explicitly say driving is a right.

So I have a right to fly an airplane? I have a right to grow marijuana? I have a right to carry a concealed weapon? I have a right to hunt snowy owls? So basically I have a right to everything. Riiiigggghhht.

By the way the Charter of rights and freedoms is a toothless tiger compared to the constitution.

[camber]

You don't understand...If the Ontario government came out with a law that was contrary to the freedom of speech, that would be contrary to the constitution. And if they felt it was truly necasary, they would try to use the "notwithstanding clause" to make it law (ie the Quebec language laws). However it would be really hard for someone to argue that it was unconstitutional, if a province said they wouldn't let that person drive....its a ridiculous thing to argue.

:confused:

I wasn't talking about the nonwithstanding clause per se. I was talking about the two clauses or instances which can overide your basic rights.

BTW- in you example makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread.

Having a license is a property right once it has been issued by the province to the driver. Only, piece in HTA(Up until bill 203) that did not reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the DUI laws. Which the provinces had to demonstrate that it was worth the limitations of rights. The Province of Ontario has yet to demonstrate that anything like that for Bill 203.

[camber]

So I have a right to fly an airplane? I have a right to grow marijuana? I have a right to carry a concealed weapon? I have a right to hunt snowy owls? So basically I have a right to everything. Riiiigggghhht.

By the way the Charter of rights and freedoms is a toothless tiger compared to the constitution.


:confused:

Poor example's to prove your point but keep trying this is getting amusing.

[Slippery_Pete]

[QUOTE=camber;5708885]:confused:

Having a license is a property right once it has been issued by the province to the driver. QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue anything else you said in your post because its nonsense. How is having a licencse a property right??? You don't own it. You didn't purchase it. Do you even know what a license is? Its like buying a Windows Vista license....you don't own the software and do what you want with it.....you have a license to USE it. Thats all.

[camber]

[QUOTE=camber;5708885]:confused:

Having a license is a property right once it has been issued by the province to the driver. QUOTE]

I'm not going to argue anything else you said in your post because its nonsense. How is having a licencse a property right??? You don't own it. You didn't purchase it. Do you even know what a license is? Its like buying a Windows Vista license....you don't own the software and do what you want with it.....you have a license to USE it. Thats all.

I knew this was going to get amusing and it's getting better:lol:

Please, stop before you get hurt.

BTW - Notice, how I said once it has been issued to the driver. This has nothing to do with issuing a license but once a driver has a license. A license for Intellectual material, copyrighted material or patent is not the same as a driver's license. However, you know everything about licenses right?:lol:

[65505201]

Only piece in HTA(Up until bill 203) that did not reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the DUI laws. Which the provinces had to demonstrate that it was worth the limitations of rights. The Province of Ontario has yet to demonstrate that anything like that for Bill 203.

If the province had to demonstrate that DUI laws were worth the limitations of rights, how did they get away with getting this recent law passed? Surely someone up top would've noticed this omission....:confused:

[ES_Revenge]

Heh heh. I'm considering starting a thread called "Driving is a right!!!" to rub it into the faces of the "privilege" crowd. It's a shame that I'm too lazy to make sure there are no opposing statements/rulings from Canadian judges.

When I got my Minnesota driver's license, the first question was:

Driving is a:
A. Right
B. Privilege

I wonder if DMV's can be sued for propagating false information...

LOL. Driving anywhere in Canada is pretty much a privilege. R. v. Ladouceur (which went to the SCC) pretty much defines that it's a privilege in that it holds police officers can pull you over without any real reason, just to check your license/documents and that is completely within their power.

However I always like to ask "What about Roncarelli v. Duplessis?" LOL. Though this is a civil case and has nothing to do with driving it did state that licenses granted by a province (in this case it was a liquor license) are more than just a mere privilege... Roncarelli wasn't even considered in Ladouceur I don't think. Still it seems to be related enough to me.

[VivienM]

******** example. Contracts are based in common law and can be changed by law. Rights are inherent, and are protected by the constitution. There's a difference. I am entitled to that money you owe me....its not my RIGHT to that money. I may have a narrow concept of rights....but so does the constitution. Your rights are limited....get used to it.

So you're telling me I've spent $50K on law school tuition only to have them use the WRONG terminology every single day?

[VivienM]

If the province had to demonstrate that DUI laws were worth the limitations of rights, how did they get away with getting this recent law passed?

You demonstrate it in court... and believe me, DUI laws are easy to justify. It's called judicial notice.

[ES_Revenge]

If you're going to put it that way, the constitution can be amended as well, which will affect which rights are protected and to what extent.
LOL. The constitution is incredibly difficult to amend. Just ask Brian Mulroney ;)


You don't understand...If the Ontario government came out with a law that was contrary to the freedom of speech, that would be contrary to the constitution. And if they felt it was truly necasary, they would try to use the "notwithstanding clause" to make it law (ie the Quebec language laws). However it would be really hard for someone to argue that it was unconstitutional, if a province said revoked a persons "right" to drive....its a ridiculous thing to argue.
Suspending a license is hard to argue as unconstitutional, perhaps; but the state imposing sanctions such as vehicle impoundment without any conviction or finding of guilt, I'm sure that can be argued as unconstitutional. Because, as someone stated, you get this penalty guilty or not; and even if you're found not guilty you still incur that penalty.

As for nothwithstanding, if they resorted to that nonsense I would hope the sun would eventually set on it and have it not rise again, lol--perhaps under another government...

[camber]

If the province had to demonstrate that DUI laws were worth the limitations of rights, how did they get away with getting this recent law passed? Surely someone up top would've noticed this omission....:confused:

Meh.. Province is supposed to demonstrate the merit of this law in court but that would have cost time, money and the politicians who drew up this bill would have been out of office and wouldn't recieve any positive political spin. Government doesn't like court challenges.

It's better to give the bill the go ahead and let average citizen disprove your wrong or hope they won't go that far as to actually challenge the law.

Politicians must appeal to the voting base($) and don't think they don't push the boundaries of the rules.

[65505201]

You demonstrate it in court... and believe me, DUI laws are easy to justify. It's called judicial notice.

I meant how did they get this street racing bill passed without demonstrating it was worth the limitation of rights.

[65505201]

LOL. Driving anywhere in Canada is pretty much a privilege. R. v. Ladouceur (which went to the SCC) pretty much defines that it's a privilege in that it holds police officers can pull you over without any real reason, just to check your license/documents and that is completely within their power.

However I always like to ask "What about Roncarelli v. Duplessis?" LOL. Though this is a civil case and has nothing to do with driving it did state that licenses granted by a province (in this case it was a liquor license) are more than just a mere privilege... Roncarelli wasn't even considered in Ladouceur I don't think. Still it seems to be related enough to me.

I haven't read the ruling yet, but how does empowering a police officer to check your documents make driving a privilege? When I cross the border, I have to show them my citizenship papers, but it is a right for me to enter Canada.

[ES_Revenge]

EDIT: Regarding doing this on private property, I vaguely remember Shaner saying that you can still be charged with reckless driving or some other charge that is now a criminal offense.

While I'm unsure if you can be charged with it on private property if you didn't do anything like kill someone, lol; you're talking about Dangerous Driving which is indeed a criminal offence.

Careless Driving is the provincial (in ON) counterpart of that law. It's ******** though, they are two very close laws. The former is criminal the latter is regulatory, but police can charge you with either in pretty much the same situations.

This one also went to the SCC (don't remember the case now) where it was claimed one or the other was ultra vires because there are two laws covering the same thing one federal and one provincial--someone there ought to be out of their jurisdiction. However, no, once again the SCC decides both these laws can co-exist.

What's funny here is that it gets even better. Say you get charged with Dangerous and the Crown decides they can't prove the case at some point or can't get you with that, they can then turn around and charge you with the lesser Careless instead :rolleyes:

The thing about Careless v. Dangerous is that it's usually pretty consequence-based. Like say you just blow a stop sign... If nothing happens but a cop catches you, you'll probably just get a ticket for running the stop sign. Cause an accident and you'll probably get one for Careless. Kill somone and you'll probably get charged criminally, with Dangerous. All the exact same wrongdoing, but with very different outcomes. However the worse the outcome, the worse you get screwed despite your initial action being the same no matter what.

At least if you get charged with Dangerous instead of Careless because the officer is just a moron and wanted to nail you when nothing bad happened and you have no record already, you actually have a better time if you can get found not guilty... Because there is a chance the Crown won't go for anything lesser and you won't even end up with a single demerit point and it won't even go on your driving record (however have fun having a CPIC record despite never being found NOT guilty :rolleyes: ). Whereas if you get charged initially with Careless it could end up being harder to get off completely and you'll probably only get it knocked down at best, to some other regulatory offence with like 2 demerit points.

[ES_Revenge]

I haven't read the ruling yet, but how does empowering a police officer to check your documents make driving a privilege? When I cross the border, I have to show them my citizenship papers, but it is a right for me to enter Canada.

You have to read it to understand what I mean. I think Lamer (I think it was him) actually went as far as saying right out that "driving is a privilege" LOL.

[65505201]

So you're telling me I've spent $50K on law school tuition only to have them use the WRONG terminology every single day?

Lakehead has a law school?

I kid, I kid....:lol:

[VivienM]

LOL. The constitution is incredibly difficult to amend. Just ask Brian Mulroney ;)

That depends on what you want to amend...

Amending it to remove the guaranteed ferry service to PEI, or the religious public schools in Quebec, was so easy to do I doubt newspapers even bothered reporting it.

Amending it to change the Senate, though, would be incredibly difficult.

[VivienM]

I meant how did they get this street racing bill passed without demonstrating it was worth the limitation of rights.

That's not how it works.

They only have to demonstrate a limitation of rights is justified if somebody challenges it in court. That may... start happening soon, if some of these people hire lawyers and are prepared to spend the money on a losing constitutional/administrative challenge...

[VivienM]

You have to read it to understand what I mean. I think Lamer (I think it was him) actually went as far as saying right out that "driving is a privilege" LOL.

Cory J. wrote the majority judgment. I'm reading it now...

[65505201]

You have to read it to understand what I mean. I think Lamer (I think it was him) actually went as far as saying right out that "driving is a privilege" LOL.

Are you referring to this?

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs1-1257/1990rcs1-1257.html

I just searched for the word privilege and the only place it came up (in the context of right/privilege) is the following:



Proper laws and regulations are necessary to regulate the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares.

However, the case was based around whether road checks violate the charter of rights, and not examining/debating whether driving is a right or a privilege. I wonder if the judge would've thought twice had he wrote:



Proper laws and regulations are necessary to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle on public thoroughfares.

[VivienM]

Are you referring to this?

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1990/1990rcs1-1257/1990rcs1-1257.html


Read more carefully. I think it's THIS part that's relevant.

It is interesting to observe that McRuer C.J., in his capacity as chairman of the 1968 Royal Commission Inquiry into Civil Rights, came to the same conclusion 21 years ago. At pp. 730‑31 of Report No. 1, vol. 2, he wrote:



It might well be that the police should have greater powers to control and investigate the use of motor vehicles on the highway. A motor vehicle is a dangerous machine. If it is not carefully used, it is a lethal one. It is a convenient vehicle for the commission of crimes of all sorts. Those who take motor vehicles on the highway have no civil right to do so. They may do so only if they hold a licence for that purpose. That requirement is no invasion of civil rights. There is no reason why anyone driving a motor vehicle while on the highway should not be required to show an officer of the law enforcement agencies that he has a licence to do so. If the police have power to question the driver of a motor vehicle for the purpose of verifying his right to drive it, the ownership of the vehicle and the name and address of the owner and driver, there would appear to be little or no need for all the drastic powers of arrest that we have been discussing.

While the concept of what may constitute a violation of civil rights may today be somewhat different, the characterization by McRuer C.J. of the nature of driving and the need to control it are just as valid today as they were then. In order to provide the proper control, society must be able to require that random stops be made without articulable cause and outside of any formal programs.

[camber]

Well.... I know all this legal mumbo jumbo can be interesting but I found a nice editiorial on our current situation.

http://communities.canada.com/windsorstar/blogs/vanderblogger/archive/2007/07/04/street-racing-nonexistant-problem-stats-show.aspx


Street Racing Nonexistent Problem, Stats Show

I received the letter below recently from driving enthusiast Ron Durocher of Harrow. His comments and research are even more timely this morning, given what Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is proposing to do about speeding.


Last week, Ron was pretty annoyed by the political grandstanding of the provincial Liberal government over the alleged crisis in "street racing."


"It juist seems like our rights and freedoms as drivers are being whittled away because of political agendas and misinformation," Durocher wrote in an e-mail.


In response to a couple of deadly Toronto incidents that seemed more linked to that city's growing ethnic gang culture than to racing, the Liberals have been threatening to impose a Draconian crackdown on street racing across the province.


Durocher says the statistics don't back up the government's claim there is a "crisis" on our roads. According to his research, police chases actually cause more deaths in North America than outlaw racers do.


I'm sure Ron is even more disappointed today to learn that the provincial Conservatives have not only jumped on Premier McGuinty's streetracing "crisis" bandwagon but are advocating even more severe action.


Under the Conservatives' proposed law -- which you can be sure will part of their election campaign this fall -- any vehicle caught travelling more than 50 km over the speed limit would be confiscated on the spot for a week.


You have to wonder if that law would apply to certain well-known local speed demons in the legal profession, local industry, and some close family members of police officers who brag about their immunity from tickets. There certainly could be a lot of cars in our local impound lot. And that's not even counting the flood of American speeders on Highway 401 who know they are immune to our current laws . . .


Anyway, here's Ron's letter, which he titled The Myths About Street Racing:


"Recently, there has been much in print and much grandstanding by politicians, Attorney Generals and Police Commisioners about how street racing is an "epidemic."


"Sadly, Joe Public eats it all up since he/she really has no clue and no way or verifying if what the talking heads are saying is true. How do I know this? Well that's because Canada doesn't compile and keep statistics on the causes of accidents, which would include those by street racing.


"As an auto enthusiast and an engineer for an automotive manufacturing company, I take a keen interest in all things automotive. So I decided to do much research on the topic so that I could make my own decisions. With little info available here, I had to turn to the US. By all accounts, street racing is a much more serious problem in the US than it is here. Well after coming up emtpy for statistics from Transport Canada, I found a wealth of information from the National Highway Safety Administration FARS (Fatality Analysis Accident Reporting System) statistics. Street racing has been included in the FARS database since 1998.


"The statistics, to say the least, were eye opening. Far from being a scourge of the highways, street racing accounts for very few traffic deaths. From 1998-2005, there were 304,236 fatalities on U.S. roads. Of these, a mere 353 (0.12 per cent) were from street racing. For comparitive purposes, I also looked at other common causes. Talking on a cellphone, another dangerous driving habit much hyped by police and the media was only slightly less dangerous at 327 deaths (0.11 per cent).


"Bear in mind, millions of Canadians talk on cell phones daily; an act statistically as dangerous as street racing.


"Driving slower than the posted speed limit (429 deaths, 0.14 per cent) accounted for more deaths. Surprisingly, being distracted by something inside the vehicle, such as talking to a passenger, adjusting a mirror, fiddling with a radio or eating caused an eye-opening 38,914 deaths (12.79 per cent).


"Again, this is something plenty of people do every day while driving. Some of the highest trained street drivers in the world, police officers, caused nearly four times the fatalities (1,357, 0.44 per cent) of street racers!


"But these all pale in comparison to drunk driving. Nearly 144,000 people were killed by drunk drivers in the U.S., a staggering 44 per cent of all fatalities. Canada isn't much better. Drunk driving here is responsible for at least 30 per cent of all fatalities, claiming sometimes over 1,000 victims per year.


"By contrast I've been only able to find less than a dozen deaths caused by street racing in Canada for the last two years combined.


"And now there's been talk from the Attorney General about impounding and crushing cars of street racers. Why such a harsh punishment for something that is more or less insignificant statistically? Easy. These street racers are generally young people. And young people have no money to defend themselves in a court of law. So it's easy for the agenda-driven police and politicians to "show" that they are cracking down and being tough on this "epidemic" of street racing.


"Now, let's imagine for a second that the police and politicians changed the laws so that the cars of drunk drivers, the most dangerous group of killers on Canadian roads, were crushed. The outcry would be IMMENSE to say the least. Drunk drivers include people from every walk of life. Judges, teachers, politicians, police, journalists, engineers you name it. And more alarming, these people drive drunk multiple times! Even with suspended licenses.


"The fact is "street racers" are being centered out for political reasons but mainly because they are easy pickings. What a better group to target than a group of people perceived as dangerous drivers that can't defend themselves.


"Don't get me wrong here. Street racing is stupid, irresponsible and downright dangerous. But is it the threat to humanity we have been reading about? Certainly not.


"The average person doesn't know the facts and has no idea where to look for them. They are being lied to and are being fed a plate full of bull****. (Last month) the Commisioner of the OPP said that we need a fleet of airplanes to combat street racing! Are you kidding me? A fleet of airplanes? And he had the audacity to say that the cost would be "minimal" and that they would pay for themselves by saving tens of thousands of lives!!


"A fleet or airplanes that require engine overhauls every 1,500 hours at a cost of $15,000 each!! And we need these to get a very small number of nut jobs off the road?And guess who will buy into this and be the ones paying for this? Yes . . . the same poeple who have no idea that this isn't really a problem . . .


Ron Durocher
Harrow

This is going to be an interesting when the law gets tested. When DUI laws got challenged the MTO had clear statistics. The MTO or no other law enforcement agency in Ontario keeps accurate stats on most of the items that Bill 203 touches on.

[65505201]

That's not how it works.

They only have to demonstrate a limitation of rights is justified if somebody challenges it in court. That may... start happening soon, if some of these people hire lawyers and are prepared to spend the money on a losing constitutional/administrative challenge...

But as you say, the government doesn't keep track (or disclose) of the key data to support their law. I highly doubt they will keep something on file such as, "between the hours of 1am - 6am, 500 cars / 2000 cars traveled from X - Y at a rate of 140+ kph and yet the statistical risk of accidents was not higher."

Actually, if they pull up 407 transponder records, they will find that the stats are decidedly against their assumption that 120+ is a dangerous speed. I just hope that the 407 people delete my personal info. Otherwise, I'm looking at 2 years x 340 days / year x 2 trips / day x 140 kph ticket / trip x (3 pts. + $260) / ticket :| Good thing I'm not looking to renew my Ontario license any time soon :lol: 4080 points. I wonder how long it'll take for that to come off my record.

Actually.....:| not to give the government any ideas, but I'd bet they can make a case to crush cars based on transponder records. *crap* *crap* *crap*

[ES_Revenge]

However, the case was based around whether road checks violate the charter of rights, and not examining/debating whether driving is a right or a privilege. I wonder if the judge would've thought twice had he wrote:
You're correct but the whole attitude of the decision in the case I found to be quite inline with the whole "driving is a privilege" nonsense. I always remember this case because I thought it was a ******** decision. It's also interesting to see how you get into discussions about driving and police with people and you can tell them "an officer can pull you over just because you're driving" and have them tell you [quite adamantly] "no they can't they have to have a reason blah blah" and then I just say to them "R. v. Ladouceur" and give them a look like they are an idiot, LOL.

[Slippery_Pete]

[QUOTE=Slippery_Pete;5708905]

I knew this was going to get amusing and it's getting better:lol:

Please, stop before you get hurt.

BTW - Notice, how I said once it has been issued to the driver. This has nothing to do with issuing a license but once a driver has a license. A license for Intellectual material, copyrighted material or patent is not the same as a driver's license. However, you know everything about licenses right?:lol:

What the hell are you even talking about??? I may not know everything about licenses, but do you know anything about licenses? Who said that a drivers license becomes your property after its issued to you? You are talking out of your ass.

[Slippery_Pete]

So you're telling me I've spent $50K on law school tuition only to have them use the WRONG terminology every single day?

I guess so....

Anyhow....I don't want to argue what you learned in school or how much you paid, or what you are. The fact is that driving is not enshrined in the constitution or the flimsy Charter or Rights and Freedoms.

[65505201]

Read more carefully. I think it's THIS part that's relevant.

Ah, like I said, I really should be doing something else right now, but I blew right past that section just by searching for the word privilege.


Those who take motor vehicles on the highway have no civil right to do so.

Hm. I need to wrap some other work up right now, but other judges have explicitly said that even requiring citizens to get licenses violates their freedom of movement (could just be an American thing).

[65505201]

What the hell are you even talking about??? I may not know everything about licenses, but do you know anything about licenses? Who said that a drivers license becomes your property after its issued to you? You are talking out of your ass.

While we are arguing on the same side of the issue, even that is news to me. I always thought that the license remained the property of the MoT and can be rescinded.

[Slippery_Pete]

While we are arguing on the same side of the issue, even that is news to me. I always thought that the license remained the property of the MoT and can be rescinded.

Of course it can be....even the simpletons of our society know that.

[Polaren]

one of us is incredibly stupid for having this conversation. what good is detecting lidar when lidar is on/off. by the time it's detected, you've already been tagged by police...

That would mean they have to pick off you first. If they pick off anyone around you the detector picks it up, giving you time to slow down. On the new detectors they have quite a large range to detect this. I guess it would be you that is incredibly stupid? or just doesn't understand how the new detectors work.

[65505201]

I guess so....

Anyhow....I don't want to argue what you learned in school or how much you paid, or what you are. The fact is that driving is not enshrined in the constitution or the flimsy Charter or Rights and Freedoms.




Posted by Judge
At the outset I must express my shocked amazement at the contention of counsel for the Minister that the claim of a resident of Alberta to a driver's licence -- and consequently to drive upon the :highways of Alberta -- is a privilege and not a right. Since time Immemorial the Queen's subjects have been free to move along the Queen's highway provided only they kept the Queen's peace. While the requirement of technical competence in the operation of that modern mode of conveyance, the motor vehicle, may, for the public safety, require the subject to prove that competence, as a condition

to the issue of a licence to drive -- and the consequent right to drive -- that requirement does not reduce a "right" to a "privilege". Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty. The introduction of a dangerous mode of conveyance has not destroyed or impaired my right, but it has enlarged my duty. The keeping of the Queen's peace now embraces an obligation on me to be so technically and physically competent that I shall not drive to the danger of any other of Her Majesty's subjects. When I have fulfilled my obligation, when I have performed my duty, my right to move freely upon the Queen's Highway remains intact and unimpaired.

I know of no legislation which has reduced my inviolable right to drive into a privilege to be granted or refused at the uncontrolled whim of some petty bureaucrat.

REGINA ex rel. CHRISTOFFERSEN v. MINISTER OF HIGHWAYS (1959), 123 C.C.C. 275 (Alta. S.C.)


My guess is that they didn't have cars (driving) when the original constitution was written? Chances are that it was not brought up as an issue then the charter was written either.

I wonder how one would prove failure in the performance of duty in the context of Because it is my duty to be technically competent to drive, my right to drive is not destroyed, although it may be taken away from me or suspended if I fail in the performance of my duty.. If you have never been in an accident but drive 140 on the highways all the time, have you failed in the performance of your duty? If you drive the limit all the time but have been in, or caused, multiple accidents, have you still fulfilled your duty satisfactorily?

Just imagine - Class G+ lets you go up to 120. G++, 140. G+++, 160. Where conditions warrant of course.

[65505201]

That would mean they have to pick off you first. If they pick off anyone around you the detector picks it up, giving you time to slow down. On the new detectors they have quite a large range to detect this. I guess it would be you that is incredibly stupid? or just doesn't understand how the new detectors work.

Enlighten me. My understanding is the LIDAR is based on a laser beam pointed at a specific car. What is the detector picking up if the beam isn't pointed at your car? A partial reflection or some sort?

[camber]

[QUOTE=camber;5708916]

What the hell are you even talking about??? I may not know everything about licenses, but do you know anything about licenses? Who said that a drivers license becomes your property after its issued to you? You are talking out of your ass.

Wrong again....

Call up the MTO tomorrow and ask them if your license is property which they own. From, what you have been saying, I think you'll be suprised by their answer;).

[65505201]

Well.... I know all this legal mumbo jumbo can be interesting but I found a nice editiorial on our current situation.

http://communities.canada.com/windsorstar/blogs/vanderblogger/archive/2007/07/04/street-racing-nonexistant-problem-stats-show.aspx



This is going to be an interesting when the law gets tested. When DUI laws got challenged the MTO had clear statistics. The MTO or no other law enforcement agency in Ontario keeps accurate stats on most of the items that Bill 203 touches on.

Heh heh. I'd like to see the uproar after someone starts a "LET'S CRUSH ALL IMPAIRED DRIVERS" thread.

[ES_Revenge]

Enlighten me. My understanding is the LIDAR is based on a laser beam pointed at a specific car. What is the detector picking up if the beam isn't pointed at your car? A partial reflection or some sort?

Blah forget about detection, JAM! hahaha

[65505201]

Wrong again....

Call up the MTO tomorrow and ask them if your license is property which they own. From, what you have been saying, I think you'll be suprised by their answer;).

Even if that was the case, I'd imagine that they can refuse to renew your license.

[65505201]

Blah forget about detection, JAM! hahaha

Hah hah. EMP! EMP! You can't chase me if your cruiser won't start. Hey....why am I slowing down all of a sudden....

The Canadian equivalent of the FCC is sure to have fun with that.

[Polaren]

Enlighten me. My understanding is the LIDAR is based on a laser beam pointed at a specific car. What is the detector picking up if the beam isn't pointed at your car? A partial reflection or some sort?

Here ya go,
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/radar-detector2.htm

[ES_Revenge]

Hah hah. EMP! EMP! You can't chase me if your cruiser won't start. Hey....why am I slowing down all of a sudden....

The Canadian equivalent of the FCC is sure to have fun with that.
LOL now that would be hillarious. However I meant jam the LIDAR... There are laser jammers of various makes and models available. Plus the light spectrum isn't regulated like radio waves, so there's no regulation involved. The only thing that might get you is "interfering with a police officer" or some BS like that. Of course jammers (just like detectors) aren't 100%, so there's still a risk involved.

[camber]

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK56

Alright, you guys seem to want it the easy way and seem to be getting a bit grumpy.:lol:

Read "PART IV, LICENCES, Driver, Driving Instructor". It explicitly states what the MTO owns as far as it comes to licensing. The MTO does own your license plates on your car but not your driver's license. Your driver's license is your property.

The simpletons can confirm this in the morning by calling the MTO if they don't care to read or can't read(:lol: which would make this post useless).

[65505201]

Here ya go,
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/radar-detector2.htm

That still doesn't answer my question. The detectors, and subsequent jammers rely on you being hit to be activated, by which time it's already too late. Are you saying that if the car in front of me gets hit, there is enough reflection going my way to set my countermeasures off? This is, of course, assuming that you're not running your jammers to begin with but have it light up on demand.

Unlike radar, the initial LIDAR beam should be pretty tight.

[VivienM]

The fact is that driving is not enshrined in the constitution or the flimsy Charter or Rights and Freedoms.

And I've never argued otherwise...

*sigh*

We need to add some RFD Amendments.
1. Everyone has the right to price matching.

2. Price errors shall be honoured.

3. Everyone has the right to drive and the right to be kept free from public transit.

[Polaren]

That still doesn't answer my question. The detectors, and subsequent jammers rely on you being hit to be activated, by which time it's already too late. Are you saying that if the car in front of me gets hit, there is enough reflection going my way to set my countermeasures off? This is, of course, assuming that you're not running your jammers to begin with but have it light up on demand.

Unlike radar, the initial LIDAR beam should be pretty tight.

Yes but if they point it directly at you there is still a delay.
hopefully this will explain a little better how the detectors can help you.

http://www.laserveil.com/laser/detectors/performance/

[65505201]

Yes but if they point it directly at you there is still a delay.
hopefully this will explain a little better how the detectors can help you.

http://www.laserveil.com/laser/detectors/performance/

Hm, I'd imagine the officer will pull you over regardless, in which case (depending on the state/province), you'll get a ticket for using an illegal object or simply having an object attached to your windshield that obstructs your view. Granted, they may not count as moving violations, and hence not affect insurance.

[nickia]

OK... people this new law is an atrocity and gives police carte blanche powers to what they please to Ontario motorists. This new law spits in the face of all the citizens of Ontario and is turning the police into Gestapo. Police are here to protect and serve the people of this province, not to charge people for what they feel like on any given day. This new law actually has little to do with "street racing" or even "extreme" speeding.

Police now have the power under this new law to charge even if the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you have done something illegal on our roads in the past. That's right.... Police do not even have to catch you in the act anymore to charge you under this new law, they can now just act on basically suspicion.

The power given to police by bill 203 is mind boggling and undermines the basic rights which make Canada.... Canada....

We have to let our politcians now that we do not want police to become Gestapo. The police are her to "protect and serve" and not "punish and enslave."

The Ontario government(this includes all major political parties in our province) and OPP took us for a ride for their own gain. We have to hold them accountable and get Bill 203 repealed and start from scratch again. The negative aspects of this law far outweigh any postive safety gains for society.

If you do not understand why we have basic rights, why they never should be infringe, and the sacrifices people have made to uphold these principles maybe you don't deserve to be Canadian.

+1

[Slippery_Pete]

[QUOTE=Slippery_Pete;5709291]

Wrong again....

Call up the MTO tomorrow and ask them if your license is property which they own. From, what you have been saying, I think you'll be suprised by their answer;).

Feel free to prove me wrong, by showing me one shred of evidence....in writing (ie on the MTO website) that says the licence is your personal property. Well sure MAYBE the actual physical card is your property, and even that I say maybe....but what the card represents does not belong to you, and may be revoked for a number of reasons.

[Slippery_Pete]

And I've never argued otherwise...

*sigh*

We need to add some RFD Amendments.
1. Everyone has the right to price matching.

2. Price errors shall be honoured.

3. Everyone has the right to drive and the right to be kept free from public transit.

+1

[camber]

[QUOTE=camber;5709464]

Feel free to prove me wrong, by showing me one shred of evidence....in writing (ie on the MTO website) that says the licence is your personal property. Well sure MAYBE the actual physical card is your property, and even that I say maybe....but what the card represents does not belong to you, and may be revoked for a number of reasons.


Uhh.. did you actually read the link I posted directly from MTO website?

It explicity says what the MTO owns as far as licensing is concerned. Maybe if your took the time to do a bit of research you wouldn't be so confused.

Please, call them MTO and ask them who owns your license and the associated rights that license represents. Since you aren't taking the time to read or think about what your reading.

[Nikita]

Since, those tires show "racing" wear and your on public streets that is enough reasonable or probably grounds under this new law for police to charge you under this new law. Police actually don't have to observe your doing anything illegal under this new law. If the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you may have participated in something illegal on our roads they can suspend your license for a week, impound your car for a week and give you a $2k-10k ticket on just officer's suspicion. Therefore, legally participating on a race track then driving home(while breaking no laws) can get you in a lot of trouble and you have no legal recourse.

This is the second time in this thread I've seen the terms 'reasonable cause' and 'suspicion' used interchangeably. In fact there is a vast difference between the two, both terms have been litigated to death. Reasonable cause is an objective standard based on what the 'reasonable person on the street' would believe. Suspicion is a much lower threshold and is not sufficient, in this particular case, to enforce this law.



You right in a way but I don't think your understand why.

There is a "limitations clause" and "notwithstanding clause". Which can only be used in extrodinary cases(unless your Quebec:lol: ). Infringements of rights are upheld if the purpose for the government action is to achieve what would be recognized as an urgent or important objective in a free society, and if the infringement can be "demonstrably justified."

The Ontario provincial government has not demonstrated that Bill 203 is actually needed. Like, I mentioned before the MTO doesn't keep statistics on any of the key elements or behaviour that Bill 203 "intended"(the scope and power this law has is simply preposterous and goes much farther then simply street racing or extreme speeding) to curb. We have no actual real metrics to say that there is true "carnage" occuring on our roads here in Ontario for the specific that Bill 203 "intended" to curb.

:confused:

I wasn't talking about the nonwithstanding clause per se. I was talking about the two clauses or instances which can overide your basic rights.

BTW- in you example makes absolutely no sense in the context of this thread.

Having a license is a property right once it has been issued by the province to the driver. Only, piece in HTA(Up until bill 203) that did not reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was the DUI laws. Which the provinces had to demonstrate that it was worth the limitations of rights. The Province of Ontario has yet to demonstrate that anything like that for Bill 203.


Just to be clear, the government does not have to demonstrate compliance with section 1 of the Charter unless and until the law is challenged in court. This is no different than any other law in this regard. So the fact that they haven't justified the law in this way is kind of a red herring at this point.

The 'notwithstanding clause' is completely irrelevant to this topic, as it wasn't used to pass this law. When used, the government is acknowledging that a law does breach the Charter and is passing it notwithstanding (which is why the same law will lapse in 5 years unless passed again). The government here has not acknowledged that this law infringes the Charter.

With respect to the 'privilege' vs. 'right' question, section 31 of the Ontario HIghway Traffic Act deems driving to be a privilege.

http://www.canlii.com/on/laws/sta/h-8/20070813/whole.html#BK57

"Driving a privilege

31. The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions. 1993, c. 40, s. 1."

As for who 'owns' your driver's license, who cares?? If the government or a judge can make it invalid by the stroke of a pen or a key, does it really matter who 'owns' the piece of paper?

[camber]

This is the second time in this thread I've seen the terms 'reasonable cause' and 'suspicion' used interchangeably. In fact there is a vast difference between the two, both terms have been litigated to death. Reasonable cause is an objective standard based on what the 'reasonable person on the street' would believe. Suspicion is a much lower threshold and is not sufficient, in this particular case, to enforce this law.


From bill 203:


(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under
clause (7) (b).


Focus on the "or has driven" part. This piece will be prone to abuse by law enforcement.




With respect to the 'privilege' vs. 'right' question, section 31 of the Ontario HIghway Traffic Act deems driving to be a privilege.

http://www.canlii.com/on/laws/sta/h-8/20070813/whole.html#BK57

"Driving a privilege
As for who 'owns' your driver's license, who cares?? If the government or a judge can make it invalid by the stroke of a pen or a key, does it really matter who 'owns' the piece of paper?


Once you are issued a license you have the "right to drive"(Stated on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court of Canada). Although, your driver's license is regulated by the provincial traffic Acts and the Criminal Code and can limit your rights. However, the Charter still applies to licensed drivers, all your rights don't disappear because it is a license and regulated activity. When the province infringes on your Charter Rights they have to demonstrate that these limitations are valid when challenged in court. The problem with Bill 203 is that it is not based on any real statistics to prove that the power given to law enforcement is actually necessary. The MTO or any other ontario law enforcment agency does not keep or have accurate statistics.

When the province enacted the DUI laws they had sound statistics and facts to draw a bill that limits your rights. In this instance the province doesn't any hard evidence to support this bill from any serious legal challenges.


BTW- It does matter who own the rights to license when it comes to due process and taking away property.

[DJ_Peanuts22]

Re "Germany" - see your own post #112 you brought it up. This is typical of your entire response - circular reasoning.

How can it be considered circular reasoning when you were the first to bring it up here? (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5702209&postcount=110)




Please enlighten us on where you have seen a road car driven at 200 kph ( not in your dreams or on a race track) and what mdodels were these.

Again, your obsession of the magical 200km/h number.

I don't condone people driving at those kinds of speeds, but I have witnessed an account or two of reckless speeding late at night coming home from a few trips over the summer. But if you must know that much, there was an Integra Type-R, Volkswagen GTI, Honda Prelude and a Honda Civic involved.

[Nikita]

From bill 203:



Focus on the "or has driven" part. This piece will be prone to abuse by law enforcement.

Any legislation is prone to abuse by law enforcement. This has nothing to do with the fact that 'reasonable grounds' and 'suspicion' are two vastly different things, which is the point I made.



Once you are issued a license you have the "right to drive"(Stated on multiple occasions by the Supreme Court of Canada). Although, your driver's license is regulated by the provincial traffic Acts and the Criminal Code and can limit your rights. However, the Charter still applies to licensed drivers, all your rights don't disappear because it is a license and regulated activity. When the province infringes on your Charter Rights they have to demonstrate that these limitations are valid when challenged in court. The problem with Bill 203 is that it is not based on any real statistics to prove that the power given to law enforcement is actually necessary. The MTO or any other ontario law enforcment agency does not keep or have accurate statistics.

It does matter who own the rights to license when it comes to due process and taking away property.


And you're 'right to drive' is subject to suspension by the courts or the Ministry for any myriad of reasons. So you have a 'property' right to the piece of paper that is called a license....again I ask, so what if that license and your 'right to drive' have been suspended? And what good is that 'property' right to a piece of paper that the Act clearly says can be taken out of your hands by a cop or a judge or the Ministry?

[camber]

Any legislation is prone to abuse by law enforcement. This has nothing to do with the fact that 'reasonable grounds' and 'suspicion' are two vastly different things, which is the point I made.



ok.. It will lead to excessive abuse based on more or less police suspicion. Since the penalties are immediate and their is no legal recourse against those immediate penalties and intial decision of officer. Also, there are no real checks or balances to make sure that police are operating on "suspicion" or "reasonable grounds" when lawing charges. You can say that this can be said for other laws but the punishment is not immediate and power for punishment is not left in the hands of a front line police officer.




And you're 'right to drive' is subject to suspension by the courts or the Ministry for any myriad of reasons. So you have a 'property' right to the piece of paper that is called a license....again I ask, so what if that license and your 'right to drive' have been suspended? And what good is that 'property' right to a piece of paper that the Act clearly says can be taken out of your hands by a cop or a judge or the Ministry?

No, you have a property right to the paper and the rights the paper represents onced issued to you by the province. This means that the Charter and Due process still apply and if the province revokes or suspends you license they must follow due process(Province followed this in the past). If for some reason the province decides to limit your rights for a certain act(ie DUI) they will have to demonstrate it's justifable when challlenged .

The majority of bill 203 was not based on any hard evidence or facts.

[Nikita]

ok.. It will lead to excessive abuse based on more or less on police suspicion. Since the penalties are immediate and their is no legal resourse against those immediate penalties. Their are no real checks or balances to make sure that police are operating on "suspicion" or "reasonable grounds". You can say that this can be said for other laws but the punishment is not immediate and power for punishment is not left in the hands of a front line police officer.

I definitely agree with your last statement. However, I think you are fear-mongering when you state that this law, or any other law, is enforceable simply on an officer's suspicion. That is simply not the case. Yes this law punishes before there is a finding of guilt, I've already indicated early on in this thread how much I disagree with this concept. That said, there is still a hearing where the issue of whether the officer acted on 'reasonable grounds' can be challenged. The real problem here is that if an officer is found to not have had RG, part of your punishment has already been meted out and served and cannot be taken back. The problem of RG vs. suspicion is NOT the problem with this law, anymore than it is with any other law. The problem with this law is that cops are making determinations that are generally reserved for judges and before any finding of guilt. No need to make it any more difficult than it is.



No, you have a property right to the paper and the rights the paper represents onced issued to you by the province. This means that the Charter and Due process still apply and if the province revokes or suspends you license they must follow due process. If for some reason the province decides to limit your rights for a certain act(ie DUI) they will have to demonstrate it's justifable when challlenged .

The majority of bill 203 was not based on any hard evidence or facts.

I have no idea what you're getting at here. You still have only a piece of paper (I think we can agree that that is useless unless it confers on you some rights), if the rights associated with that pieced of paper have been suspended, you can hang on to that piece of paper all you want, but it won't be good for anything. Due process has nothing to do with this aspect of this argument.

If the province decides to limit your rights for a certain act such as DUI, they don't have to demonstrate anything beyond guilt, unless and until, as I said before, the DUI laws are challenged in court (which they have been over and over and have always been found to comply with section 1 of the Charter).

[camber]

I have no idea what you're getting at here. You still have only a piece of paper (I think we can agree that that is useless unless it confers on you some rights), if the rights associated with that pieced of paper have been suspended, you can hang on to that piece of paper all you want, but it won't be good for anything. Due process has nothing to do with this aspect of this argument.


Well, problem with this law is that they can suspend(license and rights given to you by that "piece of paper") and impound(car) which both are your property without proving that you shoud be penalized. All for a law that is based on nothing but fear mongering.

[Nikita]

Well, problem with this law is that they can suspend(license and rights given to you by that "piece of paper") and impound(car) which both are your property without proving that you shoud be penalized. All for a law that is based on nothing but fear mongering.

I completely agree! I think maybe we've been in agreement all along but you kinda muddied it all up bringing in 'property rights', "RG vs. suspicion" and the 'who owns my license' issue. Simply put, we both agree that this law is wrong for the very simple reason that it punishes before any finding of guilt. That issue is open to a Charter argument and I'm sure before long it will be litigated.

[VivienM]

Simply put, we both agree that this law is wrong for the very simple reason that it punishes before any finding of guilt. That issue is open to a Charter argument and I'm sure before long it will be litigated.

It's been Ontario law for a good decade now to suspend driver's licences of impaired driving suspects upon arrest. Surely SOMEBODY must have challenged that as a violation of the presumption of innocence by now... and presumably (as always :(), they must have lost. Do I have to go off and find the case now? :P

[camber]

Yes, but impaired drivng has been proved to be a danger to greater public safety and this was based off MTO statistics to demonstrate that limitation of rights in this instance was ok. Therefore, when this law gets challenged the province has to demonstrate their fear mongering with hard statistcs.

The province doesn't have hard statistics to prove this law is protecting the safety of the public. The US has kept really great stats since 1998 and found most of the activities that bill 203 intended to curb are statistically insignifcant.

[Nikita]

It's been Ontario law for a good decade now to suspend driver's licences of impaired driving suspects upon arrest. Surely SOMEBODY must have challenged that as a violation of the presumption of innocence by now... and presumably (as always :(), they must have lost. Do I have to go off and find the case now? :P

Rather than going off and finding the case (or rather CASES b/c there are numerous cases on point), you might have just read to the end of my post.




If the province decides to limit your rights for a certain act such as DUI, they don't have to demonstrate anything beyond guilt, unless and until, as I said before, the DUI laws are challenged in court (which they have been over and over and have always been found to comply with section 1 of the Charter).

[davecanada]

speed kills - http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/264421

[curtis]

Oh yea that's a great place to put your faith in... the media and the police.


speed kills - http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/264421

[masterhapposai]

The flow of traffic on the 407 pretty much 140-150ish on the left lane any time of the day, unless some douchbag wants to make a statement. Anywhere ~120km outside of the GTA area is pretty much deserted after midnight, so there are insufficient number of cars to really dictate a flow of traffic.

While driving from Toronto -> Minneapolis, I think I did the entire Waterloo -> Sarnia stretch doing 140+, passing maybe 10 cars at most. Hell, even the trucks were going 120ish. Now are you telling me that driving anything over 110 on a deserted, smooth stretch of highway is unsafe? Please. I'm in greater danger of falling asleep on the wheel than losing control of my car.

fact, I've done the 407 many times and "teh flow" was always roughly 140

[camber]

:lol:
speed kills - http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/264421

Informative comment:confused:

I bet(actually 100% gaurantee that more people that day died from DUI). Yet, I don't see the see stories about the dangers about DUI being spun in the media.

Do you now when they thestar.com original released that item it was being investigated as a DUI incident then street racing.

OPP:
DUI->Street Racing->Likely Street racing-> Extreme Speeding -> we're looking into it:lol:

I hope we don't have to wait 7 weeks like tha Manchester case to find out that any of the parties involved were DUI or have politicians and law enforcement to try to cover up that fact.

Poor Mr. Manchester driving with 0.143 milligrams of blood alcohol(almost twice the legal limit) on our streets makes an illegal left hand turn in front of two oncoming cars on his anniversary.

[actng]

speed kills - http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/264421

you're definitely not the smartest dave in canada to make that statement "speed kills". if speed kills - i can think of a lot of things that go faster than cars that don't kill.

a 5th grader could tell you it's relative speed that skills.

[Canuck_2005]

Saw this on VWVORTEX


http://www.policeabuse.org/lousiana.wmv


Watch the whole story...... This is what we can expect soon

[bobbings]

Saw this on VWVORTEX


http://www.policeabuse.org/lousiana.wmv


Watch the whole story...... This is what we can expect soon

That is MESSED! I've had the same bs excuse from the york regional police last year. He pulled me over late at night on my way home and his excuse was because I was SWERVING. I got off work and was going straight home. He thought that I had been drinking. It's because I have a sporty car. York Regional Police tends to target sports cars. This happened on McCowan by Highway 7

[Shaner]

Even better for you true speed junkies that do it the supposed safe and "legal"(The claim by law enforcement and your going to laugh as read read farther down) way by taking it to a track. Let say you drive home on the tires that you raced on. ....

Since, those tires show "racing" wear and your on public streets that is enough reasonable or probably grounds under this new law for police to charge you under this new law. Police actually don't have to observe your doing anything illegal under this new law. If the believe they have reasonable or probably grounds that you may have participated in something illegal on our roads they can suspend your license for a week, impound your car for a week and give you a $2k-10k ticket on just officer's suspicion. Therefore, legally participating on a race track then driving home(while breaking no laws) can get you in a lot of trouble and you have no legal recourse.

This is complete 100% fear mongering. You can NOT be charged or fined for having "wear" on your tires. Sorry, but that is absolutely not illegal. Having wear on your tires is NOT does not present as reasonable grounds that an offence has occurred. If you can find me a court case that proves what you said, I will apologize, until that time, I will continue to state that you are doing nothing but spreading fear about a law you obviously dislike.

Furthermore, I have raced many cars at numerous tracks using every day street tires, and after the rip down the track, there was absolutely no evidence (on my tires or otherwise) that I had just raced the car. Racing on a track a few times presents no obvious wear to your tires. If that was the case, drivers would be replacing tires every two weeks.

Whether you like this law or hate it, you can not be charged for something if you did not break the law. Racing on a track and then driving that car home is not illegal and you cannot be charged for it. Also, there is legal recourse under every single law in Canada. The police and the courts can be held legally responsible for negligent behaviour.

[bobbings]

This is complete 100% fear mongering. You can NOT be charged or fined for having "wear" on your tires. Sorry, but that is absolutely not illegal. Having wear on your tires is NOT does not present as reasonable grounds that an offence has occurred. If you can find me a court case that proves what you said, I will apologize, until that time, I will continue to state that you are doing nothing but spreading fear about a law you obviously dislike.

Furthermore, I have raced many cars at numerous tracks using every day street tires, and after the rip down the track, there was absolutely no evidence (on my tires or otherwise) that I had just raced the car. Racing on a track a few times presents no obvious wear to your tires. If that was the case, drivers would be replacing tires every two weeks.

Whether you like this law or hate it, you can not be charged for something if you did not break the law. Racing on a track and then driving that car home is not illegal and you cannot be charged for it. Also, there is legal recourse under every single law in Canada. The police and the courts can be held legally responsible for negligent behaviour.

I agree with you

[davecanada]

you're definitely not the smartest dave in canada to make that statement "speed kills". if speed kills - i can think of a lot of things that go faster than cars that don't kill.

a 5th grader could tell you it's relative speed that skills.

Nor the fastest Dave to reply!

Agree with you. "speed kills" is just a phrase...

[GunnerX]

This is a great article regarding this issue. http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/32975

[ar_ken]

After reading all these pages in this thread (yes, sometimes I have no life, I'll admit :D ) I've decided to chime in.

Now before I start on commenting, I'll begin by saying that I'm part of the "system". As for what part, I'll leave it up to you guys to guess. (hint: I prefer not to be called a certain type of animal). So I can provide SOME insight about this "new" law.

If there are any questions/comments/concern, feel free to post in this thread. Keep it civil please, although I know it's hard sometimes when emotions are running high :D

[kleptodathief]

arken: let me guess ur an OPP? lol hope i don't run into u on the roads ;)

[ar_ken]

Won't say much on what "exactly" I am, I'm just here to try and provide some answers to questions/confusion that people might have in regards to this law... ;) not trying to start a cyber-war here, just here to help :cheesygri

[davecanada]

After reading all these pages in this thread (yes, sometimes I have no life, I'll admit :D ) I've decided to chime in.

Now before I start on commenting, I'll begin by saying that I'm part of the "system". As for what part, I'll leave it up to you guys to guess. (hint: I prefer not to be called a certain type of animal). So I can provide SOME insight about this "new" law.

If there are any questions/comments/concern, feel free to post in this thread. Keep it civil please, although I know it's hard sometimes when emotions are running high :D


How much discretion are you allowed to use? My thought was coppers were always allowed to use their own discretion in regards to the HTA. Is that still the case with these new laws or is the mandate to enforce the maximum?

Also, thanks. No matter what a bad day at work looks like for me, it does not compare to a bad day for you.

[ar_ken]

davecanada: Coppers are allowed discretion to a certain extent, but in this new law, if I remember correctly, reads something like "shall impound the vehicle..." or something like that. Once the word "shall" comes into play, coppers have basically NO discretion. If you did 50km/h or over, you did. If you didn't, let's say you were going 45 over, no one can really "make up" the fact that you are doing 50 over and impound your car (for some reason, some RFD members seems to think that's the case).

I'll use a stop sign as an example. The HTA does say that vehicles are to come to a complete stop at stop signs. But honestly, not many people do it anymore. The "best" they'll do is slow down to around 5km/h, look, and keep going. For the most part, coppers are looking for the dumbasses that BLOWS BY stop signs without even looking. (Notice I didn't use any terms like "punk in a Civic" or "soccer mom too busy yapping on her phone" or "office lady putting make up on while driving", bad drivers comes in all race, colour, gender, shape and sizes.....)

[kleptodathief]

arken: wat did u do with his RD? :D

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517944