Street Racing and Stunt Driving

[HisSelf]

Anybody who lived in Toronto during the Fantino reign of error, will not be surprised at a story the CBC is developing concerning the enforcement of the McGuinty Liberal street racing laws, new on the books. The Minister has defended the law, and it is indeed a GOOD law. The problem is, as susual, with enforcement.

The CBC story shows that a full two thirds of those charged under the law end up pleading down to lesser charges. Well and good, but here are the consequences of being CHARGED under this law: you lose your license for a week; your vehicle is impounded (minimum $1000 towing and impoundment charge - even for motorocycles), and your insurance company is told you have been charged. This is BEFORE you are convicted.

The CBC have highlighted a few cases. One was a guy on a motorcycle who was stuck in a traffic jam on a 400 highway and tried to speed his progress by driving between the lanes of jammed up cars and was charged with "stunt driving". He pleaded down to "improper lane change", which is what he should have been charged with in the first place. He lost his license for a week, his impound fees were so high he had to sell the bike to pay them, and his insurance went through the roof.

All of this not because of the law, but because of JULIAN FANTINO'S directions to the OPP on enforcement of the law.

[madmax]

All of this not because of the law, but because of JULIAN FANTINO'S directions to the OPP on enforcement of the law.

I think this is going to build over time as people realize that the "spirit of the law" is not being followed.

I believe there were 300 convicted and 800 not convicted of the charge.

I can't imagine a situation when a judge would say.

"You have been found not guilty of stunting, your car will be impounded, your licence suspended and the information forwarded to your insurance company. You will pay dearly for the retrieval of your vehicle.

Which is exactly what is happening because you are penalized first.

There are speeding laws.

Careless Driving Laws.

Dangerous Driving Laws.

Racing Laws.

and now the stunting and street racing law.

I doubt that the previous four laws had the same rate of failure to successfully prosecute as the current law.

We know that this law was to combat the rise of street racing within the GTA.

The people being brought before the courts, the vast majority it would seem have been charged with the wrong offence.

How so?

I was very troubled by the law, but we know it was good PR and people wanted something done about the increase in street racing by urban youth.

There are problems that need to be addressed. But the jury is still out.

[guyser]

I think this is going to build over time as people realize that the "spirit of the law" is not being followed.

There are speeding laws.

Careless Driving Laws.

Dangerous Driving Laws.

Racing Laws.

and now the stunting and street racing law.

Oh and dont forget the new law that states if a police car is on the side of the road you as a motorist "must, if safe" move over one lane regardless of traffic.

So, you are pulled over, lots of room, and I fail to change lanes as I approach your cars, there may be two cop cars there. The second is to pull out and chase me down to ticket me. Talk about dumb, but, it is synonymous with Julian Fantino. What an asshat he is.

I doubt that the previous four laws had the same rate of failure to successfully prosecute as the current law.

We know that this law was to combat the rise of street racing within the GTA.

The people being brought before the courts, the vast majority it would seem have been charged with the wrong offence.

How so?

I was very troubled by the law, but we know it was good PR and people wanted something done about the increase in street racing by urban youth.

There are problems that need to be addressed. But the jury is still out.

Keep preaching it. The violations against the public keep mounting.

[madmax]

Oh and dont forget the new law that states if a police car is on the side of the road you as a motorist "must, if safe" move over one lane regardless of traffic.

So, you are pulled over, lots of room, and I fail to change lanes as I approach your cars, there may be two cop cars there. The second is to pull out and chase me down to ticket me. Talk about dumb, but, it is synonymous with Julian Fantino. What an asshat he is.

Keep preaching it. The violations against the public keep mounting.

1) I didn't know about those (BOLDED ABOVE) aspects of the law.

2) but...... You are an insurance guy, ser so I MUST HATE YOU!!!

3) I don't like Fantino :angry:

4) but you and I sharing common concerns about this law..... I cannot stomach....it

Ok, Guyser.

I am actually interested in these laws from a Insurance perspective. I thought the industry would welcome these "tough" laws. Any rumours on how the industry is handling these charges and what may be coming down the pipes.

[guyser]

I am actually interested in these laws from a Insurance perspective. I thought the industry would welcome these "tough" laws. Any rumours on how the industry is handling these charges and what may be coming down the pipes.

The insurance industry will use these new laws the same way as before. Count the lines on your MVR and (for the most part) any more than two tickets, regardless of infraction , and your rates will rise accordingly.

Example for Ontario , three tickets and you drop to a 5* + 25% increase. The actual increase from the previous year and you are looking at 40-50% increase.

One major ticket and you are at 50% surcharge.

The one new law that will be interesting in how it is used by the insurance industry is the 3 day suspension and impoundment of your car for blowing over .04 . The evidence is not kept by the police, thus inarguable in court, but will appear on your MVR as an ADLS 3 Day Suspension, and we will know you were drinking. (ADLS = Automatic driviner licence suspension) That one we can thank MADD for.

[Leafless]

The insurance industry will use these new laws the same way as before. Count the lines on your MVR and (for the most part) any more than two tickets, regardless of infraction , and your rates will rise accordingly.

Example for Ontario , three tickets and you drop to a 5* + 25% increase. The actual increase from the previous year and you are looking at 40-50% increase.

One major ticket and you are at 50% surcharge.

The one new law that will be interesting in how it is used by the insurance industry is the 3 day suspension and impoundment of your car for blowing over .04 . The evidence is not kept by the police, thus inarguable in court, but will appear on your MVR as an ADLS 3 Day Suspension, and we will know you were drinking. (ADLS = Automatic driviner licence suspension) That one we can thank MADD for.

The insurance industry is only displaying its incompetence by playing police, penalizing drivers who already already pay record high sums of money for insurance policies.

This encourages drivers to break the law.

Put a rat in a corner and its going to bite.

This means there will be more irresponsible drivers than ever, driving with no insurance period, with many who feel they have nothing to lose, since they cannot afford the higher priced policy and cannot live without their vehicle.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Leafless

[guyser]

The insurance industry is only displaying its incompetence by playing police, penalizing drivers who already already pay record high sums of money for insurance policies.

Um....what?

This encourages drivers to break the law.

No it doesnt as people who have high rates put themselves there. Should they wish to further that they can ( and will) drive without insurance, another $5000 fine.

Rates in this province are set using payouts from the past few years. It really is simple. The costs associated with accidents are not well known to insureds. (not to mitigate that there have been cash grabs as an unintended consequence)

This means there will be more irresponsible drivers than ever, driving with no insurance period, with many who feel they have nothing to lose, since they cannot afford the higher priced policy and cannot live without their vehicle.

Thats nice, blame everyone else instead of stepping up and admitting that they cannot afford, the car, the insurance nor the gas.

Driving is not a right. Pay or dont drive. Its easy.

[geoffrey]

I'm all in favour of be more heavy handed with those that get caught.

Take the burden off the ridiculous sexist policies of insurance today. I pay $3,500 a year, no convictions and driving for 7 years. University degree, homeowner. But I'm under 25 and male, so I need to pay twice as much as my 16 year old sister.

I have no problem with insurance companies going after real risk, instead of raking in cash just because they have been permitted to violate consumer rights legislation for years.

It's the only time a government will ever legislate that different genders and ages must pay different amounts to be allowed to conduct the same task.

[guyser]

I'm all in favour of be more heavy handed with those that get caught.

Take the burden off the ridiculous sexist policies of insurance today. I pay $3,500 a year, no convictions and driving for 7 years. University degree, homeowner. But I'm under 25 and male, so I need to pay twice as much as my 16 year old sister.

I have no problem with insurance companies going after real risk, instead of raking in cash just because they have been permitted to violate consumer rights legislation for years.

It's the only time a government will ever legislate that different genders and ages must pay different amounts to be allowed to conduct the same task.

Glad to see you back Geoffrey.

That said, if the industry were to do what you want, it would only be for a while until you are well over 30 and asking why you should pay the same as a 16 yr old girl/boy.

With the legislation that is imposed on ins co's , 16 yr olds will be paid for life. How can that be ignored?

Actuarial stats show that the higher risk drivers are paying the freight and that the older people are less prone and less likely to cost the ins company , thus less premium charged.

With all that said. a return of 10% is pretty good, and for years that was unattainable.

Be prepared, we are entering another hard market. Premiums will rise sharply the end of this year or early next.