|
|
|
|
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 7:10:11 PM |
Not if your a heavy vehicle and or have poor braking power and or are someone who does not react quickly and intelligently. You can have more space than me, but if my car stoppes better than yours does, you are more of a danger than me. Everything on the roads is fluid, much like a complete and seperate cosm, flow with it and you should be ok, resist, and you probably wont be. Like in nature, take the path of least resistance. Yes you can drive in the middle lanes at the posted top speed, but you may add to congestion and so forth.
You're blowing smoke out your ass. When you have to change a simple question into something complex by adding scenarios with "if"... well... I'll counter.
What "if" none of the factors you mention are variables and "if" we stick with the understanding that two vehicles are driving down the 401 and a sudden event ocurred in front of them... blocking the road, who would be able to stop quicker "if" all things are equal except for the difference in the rate of speed?
I would venture to guess the person travelling at a speed less than 150 km/h would stop quicker than the person speeding at 150 km/h. And, "if" they had to turn their steering wheel suddenly, who's car would have the biggest potential of roll over?
You can also be 8 feet tall and have the right to sit in any seat in the theatre, but it's polit to duck
What "if" a cop was sitting behind him? LOL
Again, you're blowing smoke. "If" the tall guy respected the others patrons he would choose to sit in the least conspicuious place.
Again... that's "if" he has any concern for the others.
I wont be comming back to this thread, the ppl who get it get it and the rest are fools.
Excuse me... you don't get it (more smoke)
When you break the law... you are susceptible to whatever treatment you brought upon yourself. If you have a problem with it... you have the right to contest your concern in court.
So I know what fly's and what doesnt.
The main problem I ever had with this law is that you are automatically GUILTY
(more smoke)
Just like a parking ticket/offence....You can be assessed a fine, your car is towed away and you must pay the fine and the towing prior to getting your vehicle out of the compound.
As I read the law... that fine is contestable to a certain point. However, speeding at such a high rate of speed is an "automatic" minimum fine and penalty (impound) at the time of arrest.
It's not rocket science...... don't drive at that speed and you will never have a problem. Speed then your ass is at the hand of the law...... just like any other crime.
If you cant look around your car and tell who will do what, then you probably should not be on the road.
What a dumb reasoning that is. According to you... nobody has an excuse for geting hit because they should have seen it coming...give me a break!
And "if" you saw something happen... when travelling at 150 km/h just what can you do about it? (anyone can avoid it.. right?)
This law is about reckless endangerment to others... it should in no way be the least bit sympathetic for some ***holes that want to drive that fast. Their ignorance towards the safety of others on the road is no different than a drunk driver. Throw the book at them. In fact, I would go further and take them to the precinct and make them find a way home. Give them time to think about.
If you are found INNOCENT in court, you have NO recourse against this law, so you do not get back the impound fee's, reinstatement fee's, towing fe's, or compensation for going without your vehicle for a week
If you broke the law driving at high speeds, you deserve nothing in return including compensation because, quite frankly, the fine was imposed by your own cognisant behaviour... get a grip and stop blowing smoke.
This means cops can do whatever they want under this law, and you need to prove yourself INNOCENT, instead of being innocent and proven guilty
Ummm... you need to prove innocence under many circumstances....WHEN YOU ACTUALLY COMMIT AN OFFENCE. Speeding is an offence... there is no such thing as being INNOCENT for going 150 km/h... you're guilty
Id like to add all sorts of bad driving to this law, drunk driving, tired drivers, stupid drivers, poorly maintained vehicles, and so on. I also think our laws regarding fines should be something like they have in parts of Europe, where your fine is a certain percentage of your earnings for that year. SO have it minimum $2,000 or say 2% of gross income, which ever is greater. So this balances things out for those with lots of money. You make $20grand, you pay min $2grand, you make a million a yr, you pay $20 grand minimum. I'd also like to see gas prices doubled
I bet you'll have more clients checking out the "extra charges" at your business if that's the way you reason.
Everyone is GUILTY till proven INNOCENT, Never piss off a cop
I can't ever recall getting a ticket for being "innocent"  | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 10:16:26 PM | As one of the worlds busiest highways, the 401 carries an average of 500,000 vehicles each day. Further, rightly or wrongly it is generally accepted that the average speed of cars on most 400 series highways in Ontario is around 120 km/h. If both statistics are true, and I believe they probably are, then we can conservatively say that more then 150,000 cars are traveling more than 20 km/h over the limit on the 401 each and every day. Identifying, stopping and fining all of those driver would be completely impossible, so we need to look at other methods.
I have two problems with the new law; first it violates the principle of innocence until guilt is proven. Even if a judge later decides that the speed measured was not accurate, the speeder still has a suspension recorded on their record, and still has to pay the towing fee's, impound fee's, and increased insurance cost. There are good reasons for having three independent groups to write, enforce, and judge the laws; these roles should never be shared.
Second, the shier fact that a law like this was written indicates that a large percentage of the population incorrectly believe that increasing the cost of violating the law will prevent people from doing so. Almost all studies have concluded that no matter what law is being broken, since the violator does not believe that they will be caught, as long as some penalty exists the severity of the penalty is not a factor in their decision. Recently Julian Fantino was quoted as saying he wished that he had "set" the threshold at 130 km/h not 150 km/h since he does not understand why people "just don't seem to get it". He further stated that he had expected the new law to have the affect of reducing the number of extreme speeders, but that such a reduction had not occurred.
So what can be done? Speeding has increase over the last 10 years because it has become socially acceptable, this has had the effect of moving extreme speeders from 130 km/h to 150 km/h. Drivers tend to travel at the speed that each one individually feels is safe; therefore step ONE needs to be review the speed limit and set a new limit at the maximum safe speed for each road. If the experience of most other jurisdictions carries over, then doing so will mean that most drivers will no longer be speeding. Step TWO is to educate the public, education is NOT the same as enforcement; this should be done through advertising, high school programs, driver education, and as many different ways as more creative minds than mine can think up. The FINAL step needs to be enforcement, police must stop enforcing a different speed than is posted. By enforcing a higher, "unofficial" speed limit the police have contributed to the social acceptance of speeding, and taken away any deterrent of a potential penalty from those doing, 10 km/h or 20 km/h over the limit. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/30/2007 1:55:40 PM |
Second, the shier fact that a law like this was written indicates that a large percentage of the population incorrectly believe that increasing the cost of violating the law will prevent people from doing so. Almost all studies have concluded that no matter what law is being broken, since the violator does not believe that they will be caught, as long as some penalty exists the severity of the penalty is not a factor in their decision
Maybe I am misunderstanding something. I don't think the law was incorporated to prevent people from speeding as much as it was invoked as a means to penalise the offender and, if he/she continues to violate this law, they are removed from the road.... they are a safety hazard and too immature to be on the road.
It's impossible to catch all speeders. However, I support the law in as much that it removes repeat offenders from the streets... just as you keep a repeat offender in jail for longer periods each time they break the law.
It's not a breech of a person's right to innocence, in my opinion, because you were caught speeding. It wasn't an alleged act... it was a brazen offense under the highway and traffic act.
As well, I doubt very much that an argument can be made that a person who travels at such a speed is a first time offender. Keep in mind... there seems to be a focus on 400 series highways. I would like to point out a case in windsor (past thursday). A 29 year old guy was flagged at 124km/h in a 60 km/h zone..... that's 64 km/h over the limit. That was in an area where elementary school kids, university kids and retirees walk every morning.
When the young guy was asked why he was driving so fast? His reply, "I was late for work." In my opinion, he deserves what he gets. Justify his behaviour and justify empethy for the guy while attending a pedestrians funeral.
There is no valid excuse for driving that fast..... there is no valid reason for driving that fast.... there is no valid reason other drivers/pedestrians should be on the look out for cars driving that fast. Hence the term "Safe driving."
The old addage gioes, "If you play... you pay" | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/30/2007 5:07:31 PM |
I don't think the law was incorporated to prevent people from speeding as much as it was invoked as a means to penalise the offender and, if he/she continues to violate this law, they are removed from the road
Is it not the first intent of any law and penalty to offer a disincentive to potential violators, and only if that fails to protect society from the violator?
there seems to be a focus on 400 series highways
Speed limits on all roads in Canada are far below most other jurisdictions. For example in Britain, any road (including those with houses on them) have a speed limit of 60 mp/h unless specifically signposted otherwise. In many cases in order to be realistic about the potential for danger and so to deal with it, speed limits can be changed using electronic signs. Speed limits are often reduced at certain times of day or during inclement weather, somewhat like school zone speed limits but on highways, and other main roads as well. Unless you are on a residential street, or within a few hundred meters of a school the limit is generally 60mp/h.
So my point is this, the problem with having low speed limits is that people feel safe exceeding them. As humans we tend to do what the group is doing so if one person is speeding so to does another, and another. Eventually we get into the current situation where almost everyone is speeding; so what is the point of the law if it is neither respected nor enforced?
there is no valid reason for driving that fast
You're absolutely right, traveling at an unsafe speed whether above the speed limit on a clear road or below the speed limit (but still too fast) on a snow covered road is inexcusable. The problem is the police are not always right, they need a second layer to validate their evidence.
I can only offer my own experience as evidence of this. A few years ago I was traveling on the 401 near Brockville, I was on cruise doing exactly 120km/h. I was pulled over and given a ticket for 139km/h. There were very few cars on the road, so I am unsure how the officer arrived at the charge. Since the law acknowledged my right to plead not guilty I did so, and after speaking to the officer in court I plead guilty to the 120km/h I was doing. Under the new law, there is no such thing as pleading not guilty since the most severe penalties can not be retracted afterwards. I consider that fact unacceptable.
For clarity my position has nothing to do with the harshness of the penalty, if the person is truly guilty then there needs to be a significant cost to such an offence. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/30/2007 5:20:49 PM |
Unless you are on a residential street, or within a few hundred meters of a school the limit is generally 60 mp/h.
I think I misspoke here and I can't figure out how to edit my post.
Roads inside large cities are not generally 60 mp/h; they would more than likely be between 40 mp/h and 50 mp/h. On the other hand almost every road outside of town is 60 mp/h. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/30/2007 5:46:17 PM | I agree with Have no Fear those who get it get and those who do not do not!!
I also will post here no more. well i will finish this thought...
The thread was supposed to be about the law, the setup, the enforcment, the ramifications, the clarity, the fairness, the effectivness, social ramifications, the contridiction to our right of trial, the overempowerment of the cops, the acceptance...etc etc etc.
But it keeps coming back to speed and how people are still speeding so I guess it is NOT effective. The example of the Dog lady show's it is not about speed she was only doing 10 over so not a huge threat!!
It seems that have not fear and smiles... get it but...
lookin4 u ...you do not.
I think that have no fear addressed the names the supposed victims very well. The married couple..the victim is the little girl (daughter)!!!! the gent(dad) was DRUNK and maybe just maybe he misjudged the drivers who were not with out fault but neither was he. Had he been sober his daughter might have mom and a dad. That is why the judge ruled the way he did!!!
The same goes for Dave V. whom I knew as a young adult many years ago. Dave was a guy who would help anyone...he tried to help by avoiding to hit someone who reportly was a factor in the events and it cost him his life. Maybe he would have been better to run the car over. That is a sad statement in some ways but is a life traded for a life fair? does he deserve to be dead when he was the innocent guy? NO! School bus drivers (I am told ) are trained to NOT swerve if the are to hit another vehicle.. why cause the loss of life would probably be a lot less . again a sad statement on the priority of life but
no one on the bus caused any issues why should they be injured or dead!!
This whole subject is complex and there is not easy answer. EDUCATION from an early age is the key. So much for the new methods of obtaining a drivers license. It is truly stupid that as a learner one can no longer drive on the highway with anyone other than a driving instructor. When I was young my dad took me MANY times on the highway (in only the right lane at first) to become familiar with it. Now a kid gets his license and goes on the highway with very little experience. My son and daughter who recently got licenses did not see the highway when driving by themselves until I was sure they would not be a nuisance either way(slow or fast) or lane changes or braking etc. If more parents would take the time to educate.......
My I
My grandmother once told me better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt. You may want to sit quietly and think about that!!!
AS for the LAW the intent is right but the way it is executed is entirely and fundamentaly WRONG!
As for this thread stay on the topic.. the law ..good points.. bad points.. effectivness...etc etc.
Enough rant I am done on this subject!!!! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/30/2007 8:59:12 PM |
My I
My grandmother once told me better to remain silent and thought a fool than to open mouth and remove all doubt. You may want to sit quietly and think about that!!
A little something this fool is going to teach you....einstein:
"Preponderance of the evidence" - The lowest standard of proof: the degree of persuasion necessary to find for the plaintiff (police officer/crown attorney) in most cases. It requires just enough evidence to persuade the judge/jury that a fact is more likely to be true than not true. If the evidence is equally balanced then the party with the burden of persuassion loses.
In other words... if you are clocked driving at a high rate of speed you are guilty based on the preponderance of the evidence. The law is not on your side.
It's amazing that you are fighting for the rights of lawbreakers..... fvckin' priceless!
Why not do what your grandmother would most likely do... fight for the right to have safer streets and remove the idiots? | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/31/2007 12:14:50 AM | Some of you keep focusing only on speeding. Couple posts above we saw a guy doing 120 and fined for doing 139, and that is not uncommon. A guy in my club was accused of doing 166 when he was tavelling at 130 which was a lil bit slower than some of the others on the road. The cop wouldnt show him the radar gun because he lied about it. This guy was pulled over because of what he was driving and not because of how he was driving. I think it was a company lunch deal and 5 cars were all going to the same place travelling at the same speed, there are at least 8 witnesses to this guys driving. I think he was charged with "stunt" or "contest" when he was originally stopped for 50 over speeding but when the cop saw he had a bunch of witnesses, he changed why hwe stopped him and his car towed. All his co workers couldnt believe it.
Another guy, 19 yrs old from another club I belong to was driving an exotic sports car. Like so many others, he has a video camera mounted in the cabin showing in one shot his driving, his RPM and his speed, among other things. A cop stopped him for speeding 50 over. He posted a 15 min vid. Heres what we saw. First 5 mins showed the last 5 mins of him driving, did nothing wrong, not even speeding. Next 10 mins you hear the cop telling this guy he's about to lose his car - call for a ride. Dude says he has a camera mounted in the car and it was on - screw off officer. Then dude calls his lawyer while in the car, dude wont get out. Lawyer said not to give up the camcorder or the laptop (simultaniously recorded to the laptop and the tape inside the vid cam) because the cop has no right to take it, not even as evidence. So dude eventually got out of the car and took the vid cam and filmed everything. You saw and heard the cop telling him to shut it off because he was interfeering with justice, dude kept filming, you saw his lawyer show up talking to the cop and saw the car get towed. Vid was taken down a couple days later. Dude said his lawyer recomended it come down for the time being. What can I tell you - dude is gonna win and sue the cop, his detachment, the city and who ever else he can. Dude is young but loaded rich.
I hear stories like that from some of my clubs weekly, loads of vids for proof to.
This law does not just revolve around going 50 over. Almost anything can fall under stunt/contest/racing.
Its not just about speeding - I have to keep repeating that cuz no one listens.
Example:-
1. at a light, light turns green but ppl leave late cuz they snooze (4 sec delay to move) at the lights, all but 2 ppl who pull away normally. From a cops perspective - it looks like these 2 drivers raced or contested each other. They both lose their cars.
2. yer on the highway and car behind you is tailgating you. bird flys low and you tap yer brakes so it doesnt hit yer windshild. A cop sees you light up yer tail lights but didnt see the bird deal. He seizes yer car under "stunt" because to him - it looked like you tried to freak out the tailgater and get them to back off. Tapping yer brakes/rapidly slowing down for no noticeable reason/and things like that are now considered aggresive/hazardous/dangerous stunts and contestments under the new law and you can loose yer car and you may even be charged criminally.
3. yer doing the speed limit, swerve on the road to avoid something that just fell of the truck infront of you (could be rocks, garbage, whatever) and to a cop who just happened to look over - lookes to him as tho you tried side swipping another car, or tried to cut someone off, etc... and have yer car seized.
4. possibilities are endless, esp if yer car looks modified.
You could be totally obeying all the laws and still get fukked under this new law. Go around a corner and yer back end slides out unintentionally - well now yer a "drifter" and car seized under "stunt". All sorts of things IF they, the cops want to take yer car.
My recomendations:-
1. give the accused their day in court, then if convicted, take their car
OR
2. take the car on the spot, BUT, if they are found not guilty, they are fully compensated for all towing/impoundment/license fees/loss of their car/document clearing their driving record/etc... I think its only fair if you are declared innocent. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/31/2007 6:01:37 AM |
I agree with Have no Fear those who get it get and those who do not do not!!
I also will post here no more. well i will finish this thought...Enough rant I am done on this subject!!!!
Know thy creatures of the Internet community forums
The Wolves
These are the smartest animals in the forums. They either have knowledge and experience in the general topic of debate, or they have the talents to make up for the lack of. They are very protective of their territory, and they always travel in packs. Wolves are carnivores, so they prey on clueless newbies. Occasionally, wolves would disagree with each other, and when that happens, there would be two possible outcomes. 1. They work out the differences and respect each other more. 2. An alpha male emerges after an intense debate filled with external references. The wolf that lost would go into hiding. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/1/2007 6:20:45 AM | It is a rediculous law, no more then a cash grab and will result in deaths. When ever a politician speaks..look for the money .. Global warning..no dont make stelco or ontario hydro put in scrubbers..add a green tax.
This law is so insane that if you squawk your tires,,they can take your car..Read the law, it is insane .
I would like actually like to see the stats for deaths based on per capita ratio. They have frenzied the press.. We all know that those two kids racing on Yonge killed that couple...What didnt come out until a few weeks ago is .the kids were speeding ( which is stupid in a built up area) but not racing , however the driver of the car that was hit....WAS DRUNK and he turned left right in front of the kids. Yes they were speeding but he was almost twice the limit and clearly caused the crash. Government and police hid that until the trial.
Firstly the main dangers on any of the roads in Ontario are morons with cell phones. If you talk on a cell phone ( not handsfree) you should lose your license for careless. Ifew days ago on 401 , Moron in middle lane doing 80 clicks...sending a text message.....Why does the government not ban their use unless hands free..Easy , everyone would obey that law and therefore..NO PROFIT
Next dangerous. Morons who dont understand..KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS or
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT.
The highways are loaded with dangerous morons who sit in the fast lane doing 100 kph or less or pacing the cars beside them. Cars are forced to switch lanes to get around a moron who should not be there. Any car in the fast lane that does not overtake a vehicle within 45 seconds, should be fined .If you have driven in Quebec,OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD you will understand what a disaster Toronto drivers are. Apparantly some drivers feel it is their right to be a traffic warden and therefore they can sit in this lane.
Almost all highway crashes involve a vehicle which was in the fast lane and a car having to make their way around them..We blame the speeder..Why not blame the person who shouldnt have been there in the first place.
Deaths..you want them..this law will give them to you
..Plain and simple, tell a 18 year kid that you are going to take his car he has spent years building and fine him more money then he has seen in his life..he will run the cops . Many of these kids cars may be faster then a cop car and the kids THINK they can outdrive a cop. Mr Fantino made it quite clear with his challenge to the kids..that moron , ( Which I would not have said when he was chief of Toronto) laid down a public invitation or "challenge" for the kids to run the cops.. The "crushing the cars" comment was my favorite. Its sad when the old lose the minds. He retired and should have stayed that way.
Inherently people like to drive at 78 miles per hour. When Montana was allowed to drop the 55 limit they found that the average speed of drivers on open rd only went up to 78 MPH. That is a comfortable speed which driver feel they are actually not trudging along.
Safety:If you compare a 1973 car (55 law) to a modern car for survivability , the speed limit should be 180 MPH hour . Cars are safer now and handle better. but we still crawl down our highways. 400 series highways should be 140 Kph at least with active enforcement of the fast lane and minimum speed limits.
The Ontario Government has decided the war of the day will be kids who build cars. No gang members with Guns, Not drug dealers, No we will chase kids who have taken up a hobby that teaches them real life skills, electrical, mechanical, physics, etc etc. I dont know about you but, Daddy can you help me get this turbo working properly..or daddy can you help me with my Meth lab...pick one. Behind my office is a shop that does custom cars, and the work these kids are doing with engines is amazing. The kids hang out there and work on cars...They are not hanging on Yonge selling crack, or Jane and Finch shooting each other.
Man has raced since we learned to walk. From Olympics to Chariots to the first two cars made to the space race..man races. A person needs to make a mark and earn respect , learn skills and responsibility. He can do it thru racing or from Gangs..let me know which you prefer. We worship Formula one, Indy, Nascar drivers as modern Gladiators but expect our kids not to speed...get a grip.
Smart Citys understand this and have actually designated areas where kids can race, Take industrial roads and organize proper events, Run safety lanes , Skid schools, etc Teach the kids how to drive and race safely . By doing so you are teaching the kids safety and responsibility while supporting a hobby that is good for them.. Or we can set up a needle exchange..pick where you want you kid to be on a Saturday night... How sweet would it be with 5 miles of closed 407 for a saturday night . ... Bugger the kids, My CTS-V is going. San Diego is a good example of a city that actually might have a clue.
In the 50's the YMCA and Jaycees of Oakville had a car club which , with the help of Ford build race cars then took them to a old air strip in Georgetown. Check the History of Mosport..First race..Oakville Trafalgar car club.
Racing is not dangerous..Racing in residential is dangerous. A smart law would be racing or speeding in a residential area results in severe fines. Not if you are on an Empty 401.
Do the math, nothing about saving lives, it is a simple multimillion dollar cash grab that will kill. | |
|
| |
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/1/2007 3:31:01 PM | 400 series highways should be 140 Kph at least with active enforcement of the fast lane and minimum speed limits.
Some of you guys should read what you post.
You are claimning the speeds should be set higher with active enforcement.
yet, in your post... you are biotching about current active enforcement. wtf?
If the speed limit were increased to 140 k's... most people can't drive safely nor can transport trucks react quick enough with cars buzzing at those speeds... that would be total mayhem on the roads.
As well, people would be driving 170 km/h (as per the 130km/h comparison in 100km/h zone)... speeders don't care about speed limits... they simply use the speed limit as a means to complain about everyone else driving so slow. Take your comment, for example:
The highways are loaded with dangerous morons who sit in the fast lane doing 100 kph
People are driving the speed limit and you are calling them morons.......priceless!
You should keep in mind that slow lanes were designated for trucks and vehicles with loads being towed. Slow lanes were not created in order to accomodate speeders.
Ya see... the world does not revolve around law breakers. In fact, the worls likes to make money off of lawbreakers (hence, fines and high insurance)... it's that simple. | |
|
| |
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/1/2007 4:17:56 PM | Ontario does have some of the worst drivers in north america.
I have been all over the usa and in alot of states the speed limit is 70 or 75 mph and people stick to it, they now they will be caught if they go more than 2 or 3 mph over the limit.
Americans also know the right lane is for driving ,the left lane is for passing, all the cops needs to do on the 401 is charge everyone in the left lane who isn't passing. If your are being passed on the right side, then you are going to slow,. so either speed up, or get into the right lane!
I think ontario should set all 400 series highways at 75 mph(120 km/h) and all other roads at 65 mph (105 kmh)
And enforce left lanes are for passing, right line is for driving.
And then enforce it, after you see cars constantly pulled over and charged, people will
get the message.
I drive transport trucks,and when i am in states with a speed of 70 or 75 mph, i feel the safest and most alert.
When i have to drive in michigan and ohio, the limit is so slow ( 55 and 60 mph) it makes me tired, cuz it feels i am moving so slow!
I always drive between 60 and 70 mph anywhere in ontario tho. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/1/2007 8:08:57 PM | You are claimning the speeds should be set higher with active enforcement.
yet, in your post... you are biotching about current active enforcement. wtf?
Enforcement of reasonable speed limits, not the crawl and mostly ..people who dont follow the keep right except to pass LAW..YES LAW, its not the Im doing 100 so I can sit in the fast lane screwing up traffic law.
And yes they are morons,
I suggest you go review the Drivers Hand Book...., Slower drivers keep right, Means that, not people doing speed limit keep left, Maybe look up at the signs above the highway..keep right except to pass,.... yes that means you too
If you want to trudge along at 100, try courtesy and get out of the way
140 would be mayhem...montreal thats the norm..and guess what ,I see less accident there then here..UK the roads averaged 90 MPH when I lived there..same deal ..way less accidents there..why is this..PEOPLE KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS..( well uk is opposite obviously)
KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS IS VERY CLEAR....WHAT PART DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ON THAT SIGN..
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT.. does not mean slower traffic keep right unless you are doing the posted speed limit , then you may sit in left lane and disregard these posted signs...
Ontario Highway traffic act:132. (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 132 (1).
Incase you are confused..IMPEDE OR BLOCK THE NORMAL AND REASONABLE MOVEMENT ..means get of the way, If traffic is doing 101 and you are doing 100..get out of the way..you are blocking the flow of traffic
As per truckers..read the post above...
.... | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:41:07 AM | Directed mainly at MY I, that is some of the most unintelligent crap I have ever heard spoken by another human being, totally idiotic and devoid of a single logical rational thought.
One i just wanted to say u had alot of good points in your post... but you started off with being rude towards another person...... everyone has their right to their own opinion (freedom of speech)
I dont post in these things much, mostly read and laugh, but I've seen enough and just had to say my peace
I think you should have kept to reading and laughing
I have been in this thread from the beginning and reading over it, i cant believe the name calling going on. Are we all not adults with our own opinions and the right to express it with out name calling. You may not agree with something someone says but does that give you the right to call them Names.
I think after reading this we should all go to the other forum... WHY DO ADULTS ACT LIKE CHILDREN and put some responses in there because you know what name calling and being rude.... in my eyes is Bullying and we should not have to put up with that crap from people.
So state your case but stop with the NAME calling and ignorance............. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:46:50 AM | Well hun
I hope all the woman see this post too...... cause its a real turn off.........
your ignorance...and rudeness................. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:54:08 AM | Oops....Aren't some of these forums just a gigantic ignorance and rudeness contest?? That's why I lurk here. Its a great spectator sport. It just confirms my lack of confidence in my fellow humans at times.  | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 2:42:51 PM | Directed mainly at MY I, that is some of the most unintelligent crap I have ever heard spoken by another human being, totally idiotic and devoid of a single logical rational thought
Sling all the mud you want... I can take it.
However, here is some unintelligent crap straight from the Attorney General's office. Get your intelligent son to help you read the following. Tell him to take note of the following key words:
Civil vs Criminal
Conviction vs probability.
For your reading pleasure:
Civil Forfeiture in Ontario
2007
An Update
On the
Civil Remedies Act, 2001
Ministry of the Attorney General
Civil Forfeiture: What Is It?
Civil forfeiture is the judicial transfer of title to proceeds and instruments of unlawful activity through civil proceedings.
In Ontario, civil forfeiture legislation focuses solely on the connection between property and unlawful activity and is not dependant on any criminal charges or convictions. The standard of proof required for civil forfeiture is the same as in ALL civil suits — a balance of probabilities.
"Criminal" asset forfeiture is primarily conviction-based, meaning the Crown usually must first obtain a criminal conviction against an offender in order to seek a forfeiture order. The Crown must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the target asset arose from or was used in the commission of an offence.
In plain english... it is safe and legal to assume a suped up car is not built for the purposes of driving the speed limit.
And... about your son(s). Chances are they get pulled over because they have a "known reputation" with the local police.... that is usually the case.
My I.... aka Darwin.
Edit:
To those who keep posting long comments in support of the law breakers... shorten your bullshit.... my eyes are getting tired - lol!!!! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 3:22:12 PM | As a means to support your intention of exposing those who are morons within this thread... I would like to continue to highlight many exerpts from the article you referred to> In your post, you focussed on one point and one point only. It was comment s made by Attorney General Michael Bryant. he stated (as per the article and your reference):
we will crush your car before it even hits the streets, we will crush your parts
Knowing you are an astute person with level minded thinking and have passed on the intelligent gene to your sons, I'm sure you will feel much better knowing that readers of this thread can get the full story..... here is a lot of it:
The family of a truck driver killed in a crash on Highway 400 is calling for a crackdown on speeding and aggressive driving.
David Virgoe, 48, was killed Monday after the tractor-trailer he was driving was allegedly cut off by speeding cars on the major highway..........
Virgoe, of Stroud, Ont., was a veteran behind the wheel of his tractor-trailer. He boasted a perfect safety record after 26 years of driving and won numerous awards for his safety awareness......
Three men face 11 charges relating to the crash that shut down the major north-south highway for more than 12 hours on Monday.......
The provincial government says new anti-racing laws will be used against anyone threatening safety on the province's highways and police will seize and destroy any vehicles being modified for street racing.
"We'll seize them, we'll crush them, we'll get rid of them and we'll stop them from ever hitting the streets," Attorney General Michael Bryant said on Wednesday.
"We don't need to wait until that car hits the road fully loaded. We can seize that car if we have information from police and just on the balance of probabilities, if we can establish that the car is being used for the unlawful proposes of street racing, we will seize it and you will never see it again......
Two of the men charged in connection with Virgoe's death face street-racing charges.......
Witnesses said two or three cars were speeding and weaving in an out of traffic when one allegedly cut off the tractor-trailer....
Virgoe lost control of the truck and managed to swerve out of the way of a packed minivan .......
Drivers on Highway 400 and investigators said the big-rig driver was a hero for managing to avoid other vehicles on the road.
Prabhjit Multani, 20, and Nauman Nusrat, 19, appeared in a Barrie courthouse Tuesday to face charges including dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving while racing.
They were remanded in custody pending a bail hearing set for Friday.
The third suspect, Ravi Badhwar, 20, was released under the condition he returns to court at a later date
Nowhere... nowhere... is there mention of slow drivers. But, you posters in this thread keep focussing on the slow drivers as a means to justify endangering lives.
As I stated in this thread already... you who think the rule is dumb and moronic? Go to the funeral of David Firgoe and plead your case with those in mourning.
Some of you need to grow up and stop causing senseless arguments just because you have "authority issues"
Darwin, my ass!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:14:28 PM | No where is there mention of drifting, squeeling, sliding, wheel pops (even on a bicycle because your license is also applied to bicycles you ride and yes someone was charged and lost points for popping a wheelie on their mountain bike), driving in reverse and thousands of other things that are vaugly covered under this law
When is the last time you ever heard of a bicycle travelling at 150+km/h?
The new law is about speeders... you are crossing topics to camouflage your ignorance as to the laws intentions.
Maybe you should go and plead your case with those wrongfully accused, the abused, the victoms of corrupt cops, and any responsible special interest vehicle owner, shop, race track, show producer, ect...
For the record, I grew up with stock drivers as my neighbours. I also had a motorcycle shop across the street. Speaking from evidence and fact... these people you are defending ALL are known to rip down the roads - making test runs. They break the law many times over, several times a day...... I know that.... I grew up in that environment and saw it first hand for many years.
You're pathetic for trivialising the death of an innocent man... show the family a bit more respect than you do for those who race on the roads........... I'm done with you. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:46:10 PM | I have to be honest, I'm kind of sorry that I posted to this thread. So I'm going to respond to 2 points which I feel fairly strongly about and then drop out.
I can be rude if I want, its still a free country
The freedom we have is also a responsibility; freedom of expression only works when we are tolerant and polite. Society can tolerate some of our group acting in manner which we do not appreciate but after a certain point we will begin to enact laws which restrict those freedoms which we see being abused.
That's really what is happening here with these new laws. As representatives of our society our government elected to restrict our freedoms in order to protect us from a minority who were abusing them. I believe that our government over reacted largely because of effective marketing on the part of another small but well organised group. As it goes we will in the end find a happy medium balancing freedoms against safety.
"Criminal" asset forfeiture is primarily conviction-based, meaning the Crown usually must first obtain a criminal conviction against an offender in order to seek a forfeiture order. The Crown must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the target asset arose from or was used in the commission of an offence.
While it is true that seizure bears a lower burden of proof; only requiring that be more likely that the asset should be seized than that it should not, as your quote above states this should normally but used only after a criminal conviction, which is subject to a significantly greater burden of proof. The seizure can only be weighed by the courts and not by the police. Police officers have a wide latitude to determine a charge, but no power to decide the punishment. Virtually without fail the courts will require a significantly greater burden of proof if no criminal conviction exists, since if they do not the seizure will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 6:50:58 PM | Seizing a car because "it may" someday race is the same as seizing a photocopier as it "may be used to counterfeit" someday.
Seizing your computer because "you may someday download kiddy porn" or violate the copyright by downloading software.
Or seizing your house as it has a garden and therefore you "may someday grow pot in the garden"
Or locking you up in jail as you have a mouth and therefore..may someday make a statement qualified as a hatecrime.
Or since you have a picture of you playing pool...arresting you for gambling and assault as you may bet on the game and when you loose hit someone with a pool cue. But wait you are in a bar..and you have a car outside, althought you are drinking coke....., we better seize the car as you may have actually switch to beer and then drive home.,,, Oh your car isnt at the bar but you have had a beer ..but it is at home isnt it you scofflaw, and you are taking a taxi home..and therefore you and the car will be in the same place, you could therefore , in theory ,drink and drive ..seize the car and lock him up...
Money in the bank..he may buy drugs or hire a hooker..seize the money
Hope you dont have an axe in the garage....Well look boys, we have a potential axe murderer here...death to him
Oh oh ...he has a penis.....and lives within 1000 miles of a woman ..Rapist..cut it off
Its all the exact same principal.. Absolutely no evidence of a crime, yet seizures ..
The term NEO NAZI's comes to mind,
..The seizing of assets as 2001 is about a car or house purchased with drug money .. So it is a asset gained thru criminal act, Not about seizing a completely legal item that may possibly be used for a criminal act in the future
There is absolutely nothing on this planet that cannot be used for crime...
By the way, all these road deaths, how many are actually race cars..the yonge st boys were in daddys....STOCK cars... | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:21:48 PM | | I think the new law it great. I've lost alot of friends to those stupid little punks racing or just speeding down the road and loose control. I was involved in one of those two and if I wasn't driving my truck I would have been killed instead of them, But the law is great. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:23:37 PM | Seizing a car because "it may" someday race is the same as seizing a photocopier as it "may be used to counterfeit" someday.
I posted the "criminal" seizure as a comparison to "civil" seizure. Civil seizure gives police the right to impound a car. "The standard of proof required for civil forfeiture is the same as in ALL civil suits — a balance of probabilities"
Hence, it can be assumed that the race catr will "probably" take part in racing.
"Criminal" seizure is primarily conviction-based. The Crown must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the target asset arose from or was used in the commission of an offence.
Maybe I shouldn't have posted "Criminal" forfieture... it seems to have confused the issue.
So, is it "probable" a street driven race car will be used to race on the streets?
Answer: Yes. Very probable due to the nature and purpose of the modifications on the vehicle.
And please try to have the slightist idea about law..The seizing of assets as 2001 is about a car or house purchased with drug money .. So it is a asset gained thru criminal act, Not about seizing something that may possibly be used for a criminal act in the future
You are referring to "criminal" seizure.
Once again... refer to "Civil" seizure.
Oh... by the way....
check out the laws regarding possession of child porn. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
