Jump to content

Ontario's street racing legislation is illegal


gullyfourmyle

Recommended Posts

The aim of Ontario's street racing legislation was to stop street racing on public road ways.

The method was initially to use the Federal Civil Remedies Act to seize cars on the spot and extort money in the form of towing, impound and its associated admin fees as well as license suspension and renewal.

Since the Civil Remedies Act is a federal act, the province could not change the wording of the act before using it. The wording of the act does not lend itself to the seizing of cars and extorting of money. In fact, since the Civil Remedies Act is based on the probability or likelihood of bodily harm caused by the offending vehicle and driver, the Act did not cover this eventuality. Essentially, this put the province of Ontario in the position of having stolen cars and extorting money since there was no way any of the cars were likely to cause bodily harm to anyone.

Since the province broke a federal law each time they used the Civil Remedies Act, this put the province in a precarious position. Two wrongs don't make a right. As such, the province is liable for any damages caused to the individuals apprehended for street racing offences under this act.

The province obviously realized that it was skating on thin ice and that sooner or later, someone was going to call its bluff. So it created its own legislation. It was introduced as a bill penned by Frank Klees, MPP for Newmarket, Ontario. When he wrote it he probably was not intending to deny guaranteed civil rights and freedoms. He probably didn't intend to destabilize all of Ontario's other legislation at the same time. But that is precisely what happened.

On September 30th, 2007, Ontario's new street racing legislation came into effect.

However, in order to bring it into being, the government changed the legal definition of the word racing as understood in the Canadian Legal Dictionary. However they did so before it could be published as such in the dictionary.

The new definition of racing according to the Ontario Government has nothing to do with actual racing as a form of competition as the concept has been understood since pre-biblical times. Now, according to the Province of Ontario, the word racing also means going fast - to wit, 50 kilometers faster than the posted speed limit in Ontario. This is such a departure of meaning and use that the average driver fails to appreciate or distinguish what has happened to his or her rights in the process.

When a person is stopped for travelling 50 kph over the posted speed limit there is automatic loss of vehicle, license and a substantial amount of non-recoverable money. This is a substantial penalty whose significance is that the driver is guilty on the spot without access to a fair trial. All that can happen in a trial from this point is ensure the penalties don't get unbearably worse. However the legal fees for most people almost guarantee that the financial hardship will escalate regardless of the verdict. The police regard it as a 100% conviction rate.

Stunt driving caries the same penalties but the definition of the word stunt is so vague that nearly any action behind the wheel of a motor vehicle could be construed as a stunt - including doing nothing.

The law gives the police the power of cop, judge, jury and financial executioner all at the roadside, all unsupervised by anyone. The potential for abuse is huge and is already a factor. However there is virtually no process by which a victimized and innocent member of the public can defend against such a malicious act. In fact a member of the public can be repeatedly victimized without recourse of any sort. I personally know of two such cases as of today's date.

But what makes the law itself illegal is the fact that the Province failed to abide by the notwithstanding clause, Section 33.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Apparently they failed to understand the fine print and failed to create the required Act by which they could explain why there was no alternative (in the face of a number of untried alternatives) to denying the rights and freedoms of 100% of the drivers of Ontario over a problem that works out to be three tenths of one percent of the total accident problem in Ontario.

In doing so, the Province of Ontario presented its case to the people of Ontario via the media using misleading numbers and various other exaggerations. Essentially their case was fraudulent.

According to the Ontario Provincial Police, speed is the dominant factor in fatal traffic accidents.

According to the Ministry of Transportation, speed is only involved in seven percent at most of fatal traffic accidents and even then, not generally the cause of the accidents.

According to the Canadian Insurance Bureau of Canada, the most significant cause of motor vehicle accidents is driver distraction of one sort or another. According to their numbers, 80% of accidents, including fatal accidents are a result of driver distraction from a variety of causes.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has a huge financial stake in their being right. The Ontario Provincial Police also has a huge financial stake in the police position being right as does the province.

The Insurance interest is due to the huge financial payouts each and every accidents costs insurers. They are extremely motivated to lower the accident rate.

The police interest is due to a number of conflicting interests:

The police personnel on the scene who have to deal with the carnage are traumatized over and over again. They want the carnage to end. They perceive the evidence on site and that is often highly circumstantial.

Speeding convictions and other traffic violations are an easy way of tracking officer performance and ensuring cash flow. They justify policing levels.

The province makes enormous amounts of money derived from moving violations - particularly speeding. If everyone stopped speeding, this would cause a budget deficit. There is no real incentive to curb speeding. Fishing holes are not placed to prevent accidents of any sort, they are strictly a cash grab.

In car distractions are very difficult to prove. Cell phones are a major cause of vehicular accidents yet the government has yet to limit or end in vehicle use of cellphones and other communication devices.

The police themselves are involved in a high number of single vehicle accidents. The public is never informed of how many. But police deaths from single vehicle accidents cost huge sums of public money including loss of caseloads. Quite a number of those deaths are likely needless and possibly due to diet. By diet, I mean the sugar spikes and depressions associated with coffee and doughnut consumption. The police are vehemently opposed to any public discussion along those lines.

At the moment, the public in general thinks that street racers are the ones being apprehended. A very few are. But for the most part, the people who are being apprehended are the average citizens. They are people who have no clue that the street racing law was set up to nail them.

The stunt driving aspect is even worse since absolutely no one understands that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well said.

Care to do a follow up on the current legislation to come into effect on the MADD impaired driving .05 BAC rule and confiscation of licences for three days, all reportable on your MVR , unlike the current 12 hour rule that is not reportable, all without due process?

The aim of Ontario's street racing legislation was to stop street racing on public road ways.

I would say it was another "feel good " law that will do nothing, especially when it has been repealed.

This particularly galls me.

When a person is stopped for travelling 50 kph over the posted speed limit there is automatic loss of vehicle, license and a substantial amount of non-recoverable money. This is a substantial penalty whose significance is that the driver is guilty on the spot without access to a fair trial. All that can happen in a trial from this point is ensure the penalties don't get unbearably worse. However the legal fees for most people almost guarantee that the financial hardship will escalate regardless of the verdict. The police regard it as a 100% conviction rate.
In doing so, the Province of Ontario presented its case to the people of Ontario via the media using misleading numbers and various other exaggerations. Essentially their case was fraudulent.

As is the person running the OPP. The biggest dummy around.

According to the Ontario Provincial Police, speed is the dominant factor in fatal traffic accidents.

Fantino never lets the truth stand in the way of a good media quote.

According to the Ministry of Transportation, speed is only involved in seven percent at most of fatal traffic accidents and even then, not generally the cause of the accidents.

Quite true. But then again, if the police admitted this then the whole charade of revenue generation could not be achieved.

According to the Canadian Insurance Bureau of Canada, the most significant cause of motor vehicle accidents is driver distraction of one sort or another. According to their numbers, 80% of accidents, including fatal accidents are a result of driver distraction from a variety of causes.

Judging from what I see, and read, on a daily basis this is quite true.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada has a huge financial stake in their being right.

Quibble time.....IBC has no financial stake since they are a trade rep group.

The Insurance interest is due to the huge financial payouts each and every accidents costs insurers. They are extremely motivated to lower the accident rate.

But not that motivated to lower the premiums. Trust me, this one is iron clad.

The police interest is due to a number of conflicting interests:

The police personnel on the scene who have to deal with the carnage are traumatized over and over again. They want the carnage to end. They perceive the evidence on site and that is often highly circumstantial.

Dont buy that for a second. Boo hoo for them. Get another job then.

Speeding convictions and other traffic violations are an easy way of tracking officer performance and ensuring cash flow. They justify policing levels.

The province makes enormous amounts of money derived from moving violations - particularly speeding. If everyone stopped speeding, this would cause a budget deficit. There is no real incentive to curb speeding. Fishing holes are not placed to prevent accidents of any sort, they are strictly a cash grab.

Ever met an Officer with a ticket on his MVR ? Nope, me neither, and virtually 99% of all cops dont show any on their abstracts. This , by the way, comes from the insurer of the TPS members via the union.

So while they may "seem" to want to stop the carnage, they sure dont want "their" boys caught up in that dragnet.

The police themselves are involved in a high number of single vehicle accidents. The public is never informed of how many. But police deaths from single vehicle accidents cost huge sums of public money including loss of caseloads. Quite a number of those deaths are likely needless and possibly due to diet. By diet, I mean the sugar spikes and depressions associated with coffee and doughnut consumption. The police are vehemently opposed to any public discussion along those lines.

Quibble #2...you could have left out the doughnuts/cop bit and been just as effective, but anyway....

Since Police cars, and policeman are self insured, there is no reporting duty. Word to the wise, dont ever get hit by a police car. If you want to see slow justice -get hit by cop car. Chances are the green light you and the 10 other cars proceeded on will have magically changed to red by the time of the trial. And then at trial.....there is you....and there is a cop. Balance and fairness will take a walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why anyone would defend people who drive 50k over the limit?

Off the road, denied the right to drive makes sense to me!

Why does anyone have a problem with this?

Street Racing death - Trial

The victim, Matthew Power, 21, was torn in half by a speeding vehicle in November 2006 as he crossed a Hamilton street at an intersection after watching a hockey game with friends.

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why anyone would defend people who drive 50k over the limit?

Off the road, denied the right to drive makes sense to me!

Why does anyone have a problem with this?

Street Racing death - Trial

The victim, Matthew Power, 21, was torn in half by a speeding vehicle in November 2006 as he crossed a Hamilton street at an intersection after watching a hockey game with friends.

Not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of the law itself being illegal are you people not getting?

This is not about whether or not you should get this fine or that fine or be executed for doing a certain speed.

This is about the government having used an illegal process to deny a civil right.

It's about the process whereby the very fabric of Canadian society is threatened.

It's what this forum is all about.

As for the speed itself, in this context, the speed factor is totally irrelevant except in terms of the word racing being applied to the act of travelling at or above a certain speed. That certain speed could be any speed. OPP Commissioner Fantino is on record as having said he wishes now the law was set at 30 kph above the limit. In miles per hour, that translates to 18 miles per hour. Do you still want to see someone executed for doing that? How many drivers on Canadian highways can honestly say they've never driven 30 kph over the limit. No one I know could say that. In fact there are many places in Canada where, if you didn't keep your foot on the brake, you'd be 30 kph over after traveling down a steep hill. You don't need to be in the Rockies for that to happen. Who is going to execute someone for that? If that were to happen, virtually every driver in Ontario would have been executed.

Then you have to consider the numbers that were used to convince the Ontario Legislature they should endorse Bill 203, the street racing bill. The numbers used were intentionally taken out of context and embedded in new contexts. There was no lie involved but what was done was deceptive and misleading. If the Ontario Legislature had understood the enormity of the deception, the bill could never have passed.

Essentially the government was tricked into breaking a law to enact a law that does not meet the standard criteria that would have legally enabled them to deny a right.

Having passed the law based on a number of false pretexts, the government set about the process of ensuring that the illegal law was complied with. Part of what has been done is the steering of the prosecutors who by law are not supposed to be tampered with. But I have evidence and names that suggests the opposite.

The other aspect of the law that people need to comprehend is the latitude for police abuse this law presents. The abuse is already happening and it's serious stuff. The very people who are victims are those who think people who are travelling too fast should be executed. They are stunned when they are caught speeding or something called stunt driving. They are visiting lawyers and paralegals in droves. The street racers are not the drivers being caught doing over the 50 kph limit.

The street racers are being unjustly targeted and discriminated against. I witnessed an example of it last weekend on the 401 where of a line of four cars going to Mosport, all travelling the same speed, the two cars that were cars dealer prepped for that day's racing at Mosport were pulled over and the cars towed. The two normal rice racers were not dealt with at all. I stopped and gave a copy of my book 'ABUSE OF POWER - seizure and extortion by an organized gang the Ontario Government?' to help their friends defend themselves in court where the possibility of a fair trial can be fairly remote due to police 'testilying'.

As I mentioned in the last post, stunt driving can be anything including changing lanes while forgetting to signal. There are plenty of people who don't signal lane changes. The Ontario Traffic Act does not require anyone to signal a lane change. You have to signal a turn but not a lane change. There is no language for it in Ontario law. But now, if a cop sees you doing it, you lose your car, your license and thousands of dollars. This is not described in the the new legislation either. If you are a low income earner, losing your car for a week could spell the loss of your job. That as well as the new financial burden could cost you your living accommodation at some point. Not being able to get to school for an entire week could cost a school year if this happened at a critical point in the school year. Any university student who commutes knows how that is. So for not signalling your lane changes, and despite the fact you are not breaking any law, you could suffer a life altering introduction to an unfriendly cop who needs to meet a quota. Now imagine yourself as a single low income mother or father with a number of children to feed and cloth (by law) and this happens. What do you do? You can't afford a lawyer and you can't afford not to have a lawyer. You may be found innocent, but that does not get your job back or the thousands of dollars spent defending yourself that you now owe.

To make matters worse, since the police continually harp on speed which at best is no more than 7% of the problem on Ontario roads, they are not focusing on what the public and the Insurance Bureau of Canada sees as a bigger issue - that of in vehicle distractions. In vehicle distractions are likely the real cause of accidents. By ignoring this aspect of accidents and diverting attention to speed, the police are ensuring that accident numbers don't fall. In short they are guaranteeing their own futures as traffic cops.

The speed aspect is important in one sense. The faster you're going when you hit something or something hits you, the more likely there is to be loss of life. The police aren't trying to prevent collisions. They are trying to prevent fatalities without disturbing the accident rate. There is at least as much if not more work involved in a non-fatal as a fatal accident but there is less on site blood and guts.

If the actual accident rate plummeted due to people not being distracted in their cars, there would be much, much less police work to do assuming that speed was then declared irrelevant.

Speed by itself does not kill anyone.

Dangerous driving at high speed, weaving in and out of traffic while street racing, that does kill people. In terms of fatalities, it amounts to three tenths of one percent of the total accident problem. It accounts for four fatalities on average annually. Empty cars - that is cars with no people in them kill twice as many people annually than this form of driving does. Debris and wild animals each kill more people a year on Ontario roads than street racing does. The number of non-fatal accidents in each case far exceeds that of accidents caused by street racing.

The point is this. Millions of people fought and died for our right to remain innocent until proven guilty. It is a concept that is a cornerstone of democracy. You don't throw an important right like that out the window based on false pretenses. And you don't allow all of your current legislation and your future legislation be laid open to the kind of abuse just visited on the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

These are very simple concepts. I hope the issues are now clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me why anyone would defend people who drive 50k over the limit?

Sure, the moment you show us anyone is defending someone who goes 5o+ over the limit.

It is an abuse of rights.

Off the road, denied the right to drive makes sense to me!

Why does anyone have a problem with this?

No one does. But that penalty applied by a judge after a trial is all anyone wants.

As it stands, a cop having a bad day and does not like you could ramp up your ticket and ruin your next few weeks.Car impounded , hefty ticket and so on.

The victim, Matthew Power, 21, was torn in half by a speeding vehicle in November 2006 as he crossed a Hamilton street at an intersection after watching a hockey game with friends.

And the person charged will in all likelihood, recieve a jail sentence, via trial....thats all we want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.

Care to do a follow up on the current legislation to come into effect on the MADD impaired driving .05 BAC rule and confiscation of licences for three days, all reportable on your MVR , unlike the current 12 hour rule that is not reportable, all without due process?

I would say it was another "feel good " law that will do nothing, especially when it has been repealed.

This particularly galls me.

As is the person running the OPP. The biggest dummy around.

Fantino never lets the truth stand in the way of a good media quote.

Quite true. But then again, if the police admitted this then the whole charade of revenue generation could not be achieved.

Judging from what I see, and read, on a daily basis this is quite true.

Quibble time.....IBC has no financial stake since they are a trade rep group.

But not that motivated to lower the premiums. Trust me, this one is iron clad.

Dont buy that for a second. Boo hoo for them. Get another job then.

Ever met an Officer with a ticket on his MVR ? Nope, me neither, and virtually 99% of all cops dont show any on their abstracts. This , by the way, comes from the insurer of the TPS members via the union.

So while they may "seem" to want to stop the carnage, they sure dont want "their" boys caught up in that dragnet.

Quibble #2...you could have left out the doughnuts/cop bit and been just as effective, but anyway....

Since Police cars, and policeman are self insured, there is no reporting duty. Word to the wise, dont ever get hit by a police car. If you want to see slow justice -get hit by cop car. Chances are the green light you and the 10 other cars proceeded on will have magically changed to red by the time of the trial. And then at trial.....there is you....and there is a cop. Balance and fairness will take a walk.

The street racing law is good but its not strict enough for my liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree this is a good law, but the problem comes with enforcement, particularly when enforcement is controlled by Julian Fantino, Ontario Provincial Police top dawg.

The CBC did a piece describing how a motorocyclist who grew impatient with the humungous GTA traffic jams tried driving between lanes of traffic.

The OPP charged him with stunt driving (same as street racing), impounded his motorocycle, and gave him a big fat ticket. He had to hire a lawyer, pay over a thousand to get his bike back, and then had to sell the bike to pay the fines and lawyer fees.

This is an abuse of power. If you think that what this guy did is wrong, what is the scale of wrong? Is it chased by a flock of patrol cars wrong? Is it illegal right turn wrong?

I'm all for stopping street racing, but I think that the legislation and Fantino need a little fine-tuning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said.

Care to do a follow up on the current legislation to come into effect on the MADD impaired driving .05 BAC rule and confiscation of licences for three days, all reportable on your MVR , unlike the current 12 hour rule that is not reportable, all without due process?

I haven't had time to go through that one with a fine tooth comb. But my feeling is that for a start, all drunk driving charges should be dealt with under completely a completely separate Section of the Highway Traffic Act. It's issues have certain similarities but there are too many aspects of drunk driving that are unique to drunk driving and without dealing with drunk driving with tailored legislation it will remain a problem. Alcoholism is a disease that is medically identifiable. As such it it a condition that can be medically monitored in a number of different ways. But Our system of government does not have the infrastructure to deal properly with any sort of medical issue. There is a lot of information that needs to flow back and forth between medical authorities and the police that doesn't flow now. Until the issue is dealt with professionally from both directions, impaired driving will always be an issue. Alcohol is not the only problem. There are various drugs and medications that would have to be considered as well as dietary issues such as sugar and caffeine abuse. That's why I mentioned the sugar and caffeine points in the first post. They are significant causes of accidents and the police are major contributors to the statistics.

So while they may "seem" to want to stop the carnage, they sure dont want "their" boys caught up in that dragnet.

Quibble #2...you could have left out the doughnuts/cop bit and been just as effective, but anyway....

Since Police cars, and policeman are self insured, there is no reporting duty. Word to the wise, dont ever get hit by a police car. If you want to see slow justice -get hit by cop car. Chances are the green light you and the 10 other cars proceeded on will have magically changed to red by the time of the trial. And then at trial.....there is you....and there is a cop. Balance and fairness will take a walk.

Not only is there no reporting duty, they don't show up on the DOT statistics. Where they do show up is in the wrecking yards - it's an excellent way to get a good lightly used drive train for a custom hotrod with modern emissions controls for peanuts. In terms of getting hit by a cop car, I had a narrow escape a few years ago. I avoided the accident that if it happened would have killed the officer. Then he tried to charge me with a whole slew of infractions after I saved his life. Luckily, there were other officers present that he couldn't bring onside since the street racing legislation didn't exist yet, nor the on site training. If it had, I'd have lost my car for saving the twit's life.

Matthew Power's death as a result of a street racing incident takes this entire class of accident to the federal level where it is dealt with as a Criminal Code offence. That is as it should be in terms of dealing with the offender. The province has no say in the matter. Bear in mind also that despite the hype about the speed, the accident could have still happened at a much lower speed. There were all sorts of aspects of this case that made it a criminal offence. Ontario's street racing law was no deterrent to the offenders and in that respect has essentially failed. You don't stop a social problem with a traffic law anymore than you treat a broken left leg by putting a cast on the right arm. There are lots of reasons why street races occur but so far I haven't seen a single action taken by the Ontario government to use anything like a constructive win/win solution to solve the problem.

The bottom line remains - the government wants the money.

How do you suppose the OPP aircraft was paid for? In one weekend? Can you see the government walking away from a cash cow like that?

Certainly no one in the government is using that language but when you read between the lines, that's part of what is driving the excessive and illegal legislation.

Strict legislation that delivers a harsh sentence without solving the problem is junk legislation. The street racing legislation was a knee jerk reaction to public opinion and understandably so. However, knee jerk reactions are always vulnerable to being as bad or worse than the offence they were meant to stop.

The street racing legislation is so full of mistakes it's unbelievable. That's why so many people are being pled down or being found innocent. Judges are charged with upholding the law. But if the law is flawed, they have no choice but to find the person guilty of a lesser more applicable charge or being tossed altogether.

Judges are people too. They don't want to set abusers of any sort free. But if you want convictions, you have to write the laws in such a way that the convictions are inevitable within the framework of Canadian Law. The street racing law is so poorly written it's a wonder anyone is convicted. It's so bad it looks like it was written by a first year law student without a driver's license. How tight can you imagine a law like that could be?

So before anyone starts asking for stiffer sentences, you might take a look at the legislation yourself and be prepared to be disgusted at the lousy effort your tax dollars funded.

Then you need to look at the Ministry of Transport's charts for accident statistics. When you're done, your head will be spinning. That's because so much of it exists in a confusing format with a lot of the information being totally irrelevant to the legal system that is trying to make sense out of it. A big part of the problem is that the people who are assembling the statistics have no idea what the people who need the information want. That apparently is because no one has ever told them exactly what information is valuable and what isn't.

There are no historic numbers specifically for street racing of any sort in any of the charts. The OPP must have researched their files for the numbers they gave the public. However, what they gave the public says that over the last eight years varies from 34 deaths to 39 deaths and everything in between. But just a few weeks ago, Fantino said that 82 lives had been saved as a result of the street racing legislation. Huh? Up until 2006, only approximately four death a year could be attributed to street racing. What happened?

Our rights were denied on the strength of those charts that tell you that empty cars are responsible for twice as much carnage on our roads as street racing. Anyone want to write up a law harsh enough to stop all those evil empty cars from killing people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is there no reporting duty, they don't show up on the DOT statistics. Where they do show up is in the wrecking yards - it's an excellent way to get a good lightly used drive train for a custom hotrod with modern emissions controls for peanuts. In terms of getting hit by a cop car, I had a narrow escape a few years ago. I avoided the accident that if it happened would have killed the officer. Then he tried to charge me with a whole slew of infractions after I saved his life. Luckily, there were other officers present that he couldn't bring onside since the street racing legislation didn't exist yet, nor the on site training. If it had, I'd have lost my car for saving the twit's life.

Matthew Power's death as a result of a street racing incident takes this entire class of accident to the federal level where it is dealt with as a Criminal Code offence. That is as it should be in terms of dealing with the offender. The province has no say in the matter. Bear in mind also that despite the hype about the speed, the accident could have still happened at a much lower speed. There were all sorts of aspects of this case that made it a criminal offence. Ontario's street racing law was no deterrent to the offenders and in that respect has essentially failed. You don't stop a social problem with a traffic law anymore than you treat a broken left leg by putting a cast on the right arm. There are lots of reasons why street races occur but so far I haven't seen a single action taken by the Ontario government to use anything like a constructive win/win solution to solve the problem.

The bottom line remains - the government wants the money.

How do you suppose the OPP aircraft was paid for? In one weekend? Can you see the government walking away from a cash cow like that?

Certainly no one in the government is using that language but when you read between the lines, that's part of what is driving the excessive and illegal legislation.

Strict legislation that delivers a harsh sentence without solving the problem is junk legislation. The street racing legislation was a knee jerk reaction to public opinion and understandably so. However, knee jerk reactions are always vulnerable to being as bad or worse than the offence they were meant to stop.

The street racing legislation is so full of mistakes it's unbelievable. That's why so many people are being pled down or being found innocent. Judges are charged with upholding the law. But if the law is flawed, they have no choice but to find the person guilty of a lesser more applicable charge or being tossed altogether.

Judges are people too. They don't want to set abusers of any sort free. But if you want convictions, you have to write the laws in such a way that the convictions are inevitable within the framework of Canadian Law. The street racing law is so poorly written it's a wonder anyone is convicted. It's so bad it looks like it was written by a first year law student without a driver's license. How tight can you imagine a law like that could be?

So before anyone starts asking for stiffer sentences, you might take a look at the legislation yourself and be prepared to be disgusted at the lousy effort your tax dollars funded.

Then you need to look at the Ministry of Transport's charts for accident statistics. When you're done, your head will be spinning. That's because so much of it exists in a confusing format with a lot of the information being totally irrelevant to the legal system that is trying to make sense out of it. A big part of the problem is that the people who are assembling the statistics have no idea what the people who need the information want. That apparently is because no one has ever told them exactly what information is valuable and what isn't.

There are no historic numbers specifically for street racing of any sort in any of the charts. The OPP must have researched their files for the numbers they gave the public. However, what they gave the public says that over the last eight years varies from 34 deaths to 39 deaths and everything in between. But just a few weeks ago, Fantino said that 82 lives had been saved as a result of the street racing legislation. Huh? Up until 2006, only approximately four death a year could be attributed to street racing. What happened?

Our rights were denied on the strength of those charts that tell you that empty cars are responsible for twice as much carnage on our roads as street racing. Anyone want to write up a law harsh enough to stop all those evil empty cars from killing people?

Great post! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
However, in order to bring it into being, the government changed the legal definition of the word racing as understood in the Canadian Legal Dictionary. However they did so before it could be published as such in the dictionary.

Like it or not, the government has the right to define words in legislation. There is no legal requirement that the definition be updated in the Canadian Legal Dictionary first. In fact, it is the Canadian Legal Dictionary that is updated to reflect changes in legislation.

When a person is stopped for travelling 50 kph over the posted speed limit there is automatic loss of vehicle, license and a substantial amount of non-recoverable money. This is a substantial penalty whose significance is that the driver is guilty on the spot without access to a fair trial. All that can happen in a trial from this point is ensure the penalties don't get unbearably worse. However the legal fees for most people almost guarantee that the financial hardship will escalate regardless of the verdict. The police regard it as a 100% conviction rate.

That is not entirely true. Everyone still has the chance for a fair trial. Legislation has existed for some time that includes the concept of strict liability. This means that if you are caught doing the prohibited act, then you are liable. It is up to you at a trial to explain that you did everything you could to avoid the prohibited act. Or, in this case, explain why it was that you needed to go more than 50km/h over the speed limit.

The law gives the police the power of cop, judge, jury and financial executioner all at the roadside, all unsupervised by anyone. The potential for abuse is huge and is already a factor. However there is virtually no process by which a victimized and innocent member of the public can defend against such a malicious act. In fact a member of the public can be repeatedly victimized without recourse of any sort. I personally know of two such cases as of today's date.

The process is called a trial, which means that the police are not the judge, jury and financial executioner. The police are not unsupervised. If you have any statistics showing that this power is being abused please post them, but, in the absence of actual evidence that police power is being abused, this argument is so far personal opinion.

These two cases that you know of, were the people driving more than 50km/h over the speed limit?

But what makes the law itself illegal is the fact that the Province failed to abide by the notwithstanding clause, Section 33.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Apparently they failed to understand the fine print and failed to create the required Act by which they could explain why there was no alternative (in the face of a number of untried alternatives) to denying the rights and freedoms of 100% of the drivers of Ontario over a problem that works out to be three tenths of one percent of the total accident problem in Ontario.

That is not how Section 33.1 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, works. The notwithstanding clause does not make a law illegal. In fact, the notwithstanding clause can only take a law that would be illegal according to certain sections of the Charter and make it legal.

Section 1 of the Charter requires that a government justify any law that infringes on the rights and freedoms in the Charter. That justification does not have to be included in the law itself. This type of explanation is required in a court when the law is challenged, but I am not aware that this legislation has been challenged.

To challenge this law you have to show that a right or freedom is being infringed. Which right or freedom is being denied to drivers in Ontario? There is no right to drive more than 50km/h over the speed limit. If you can't show that a right has been infringed then you can't say that the law has violated the Charter.

According to the Ontario Provincial Police, speed is the dominant factor in fatal traffic accidents.

According to the Ministry of Transportation, speed is only involved in seven percent at most of fatal traffic accidents and even then, not generally the cause of the accidents.

According to the Canadian Insurance Bureau of Canada, the most significant cause of motor vehicle accidents is driver distraction of one sort or another. According to their numbers, 80% of accidents, including fatal accidents are a result of driver distraction from a variety of causes.

Look at what you just wrote. One statistic is for fatal traffic accidents, the other is for accidents in general. If you have the Ministry of Transportation statistics please link them. The data I have seen indicates that when looking at fatal traffic accidents speed is the dominant factor.

Of course this is different than saying that it is the cause of the accident. Without excessive speed any accident will likely only cause minor injuries. However, if you add excessive speed to the mix, the accident is much more likely to cause death or severe injuries. It does not matter what the original cause of the accident was, if excessive speed is involved then the chance of death is higher. Reducing excessive speed is a valid objective for the government to pursue in light of these facts.

The province makes enormous amounts of money derived from moving violations - particularly speeding. If everyone stopped speeding, this would cause a budget deficit. There is no real incentive to curb speeding. Fishing holes are not placed to prevent accidents of any sort, they are strictly a cash grab.

Reduced speed means a reduced likelihood of fatal accidents. I think saving lives is a real incentive.

Are speeding tickets in general cash grabs? A little bit. Would I like to go as fast as I want when driving? Sure. However, that does not eliminate the fact that there is a real concern with speeding and reducing excessive speeds on roadways is a good idea.

What part of the law itself being illegal are you people not getting?

This is not about whether or not you should get this fine or that fine or be executed for doing a certain speed.

This is about the government having used an illegal process to deny a civil right.

It's about the process whereby the very fabric of Canadian society is threatened.

You have not demonstrated in any way that the law is illegal.

How was the process of passing this law illegal? How is any process associated with this law illegal?

And finally, what civil right has been denied to you?

Stopping people from driving at more than 50km/h over the speed limit in no way threatens the fabric of Canadian society.

Who is going to execute someone for that? If that were to happen, virtually every driver in Ontario would have been executed.

No one is being executed.

Having passed the law based on a number of false pretexts, the government set about the process of ensuring that the illegal law was complied with. Part of what has been done is the steering of the prosecutors who by law are not supposed to be tampered with. But I have evidence and names that suggests the opposite.

What do you mean by the steering of prosecutors?

The speed aspect is important in one sense. The faster you're going when you hit something or something hits you, the more likely there is to be loss of life. The police aren't trying to prevent collisions. They are trying to prevent fatalities without disturbing the accident rate. There is at least as much if not more work involved in a non-fatal as a fatal accident but there is less on site blood and guts.

Exactly. The faster you hit someone the more likely there will be death. This is a good reason to put penalties in place so that people do not speed excessively.

There is nothing wrong with the police trying to prevent fatalities. Most people would consider this a good thing.

The point is this. Millions of people fought and died for our right to remain innocent until proven guilty. It is a concept that is a cornerstone of democracy. You don't throw an important right like that out the window based on false pretenses. And you don't allow all of your current legislation and your future legislation be laid open to the kind of abuse just visited on the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

These are very simple concepts. I hope the issues are now clear.

Nothing about this law has changed the fact that people are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about this law indicates that current and future legislation is about to be abused.

When someone is found to be driving while drunk we impound their car. This is the same thing. Do you think we should be letting the drunk drive home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? Or do you think the police should prevent the drunk from driving home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? People who park illegally sometimes get their cars towed. Has this destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty?

You may have a problem with the penalty imposed for driving 50km/h over the speed limit, but that does not mean that it violates the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not entirely true. Everyone still has the chance for a fair trial.

Well....sort of and sort of not.

The penalty has already been imposed when the impoundment occurs. The trial determines more penalties if convicted , which no one has a problem with. It is the first penalty that should be declared illegal.

The process is called a trial, which means that the police are not the judge, jury and financial executioner.

But in fact they are . See above.

There is no right to drive...

You could stop there.

You have not demonstrated in any way that the law is illegal.

But judges have thrown some cases out since the crown and police could not say he was "racing anyone".

When someone is found to be driving while drunk we impound their car. This is the same thing. Do you think we should be letting the drunk drive home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? Or do you think the police should prevent the drunk from driving home while we set a trial date to determine innocence or guilt? People who park illegally sometimes get their cars towed. Has this destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty?

Drunk driving is a CCC, criminal code infraction.

Speeding is an HTA infraction.

Parking is a local by law ordinance.

Apples to bike seats to oilfilters.

You may have a problem with the penalty imposed for driving 50km/h over the speed limit, but that does not mean that it violates the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

It doesnt?

Thats exactly what it does. Speed 50+, get stopped, lose car.

Excessive speed does kill. But there are many many other reasons for deaths on our highways. The one reason police key in on speeders is for revenue generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well....sort of and sort of not.

The penalty has already been imposed when the impoundment occurs. The trial determines more penalties if convicted , which no one has a problem with. It is the first penalty that should be declared illegal.

Why? What makes this penalty illegal? When the police arrest someone on a charge they are taken to jail, fingerprinted, etc. They still have a fair trial. Detaining someone who is charged is not considered illegal even if they are later found innocent. Physically detaining a person is worse than detaining only their car. There are also other situations where cars get impounded and those are not considered illegal. More on that below.

You could stop there.

You are correct, I could stop there. There is no right to drive. So the Charter is not violated by this penalty.

But judges have thrown some cases out since the crown and police could not say he was "racing anyone".

Do you have any case names or links? The reasons in those cases might be informative.

It should also be pointed out that just because a judge dismisses a case that does not mean the law is illegal. A case can be dismissed for numerous reasons. If a judge had found the law illegal then it would cease to be in effect. So my original point stands; no one has demonstrated that the law is illegal.

Drunk driving is a CCC, criminal code infraction.

Speeding is an HTA infraction.

Parking is a local by law ordinance.

Apples to bike seats to oilfilters.

Nice try. Cars can be impounded under drunk driving offences in the Criminal Code. Cars can be impounded under parking bylaws at the municipal level. So what makes provincial legislation different? What makes the provincial legislation illegal, but the other legislation legal? Simply saying "apples and oranges" does not show that a comparison is invalid, especially in this situation where both federal and municipal laws agree and you are trying to argue against a provincial law.

This also does not change the fact that cars can also be impounded under provincial safety legislation. Is that penalty illegal? A police officer can pull you over and declare your car unfit to drive.

So someone still must answer the question about whether or not all of those laws have somehow destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. You will have to convince people that those penalties are somehow illegal.

It doesnt?

Thats exactly what it does. Speed 50+, get stopped, lose car.

No, it does not. Every time a police car pulls you over you are being detained. Does that mean you are considered guilty? (The answer is no.)

Even if you were able to come up with a good argument why people are considered guilty when their car is impounded, that still does not make the law illegal. Since the Charter was brought up we can see that Section 1 of the Charter allows a government to justify some infringement of rights depending on the legislation. You would have to show that simply impounding a car goes too far in trying to accomplish the objective of reducing the number of people who drive at excessive speeds. I am doubtful that your argument would succeed at that.

Excessive speed does kill. But there are many many other reasons for deaths on our highways. The one reason police key in on speeders is for revenue generation.

That is not the only reason. Excessive speed is also very easy to target. Sure, there are many other reasons for deaths on the highways. Like weather. Should police be investing their resources in weather control devices? Excessive speed is easy to detect and easy to stop. It does generate revenue, there is no question about that, but stopping excessive speeding is also one of the simplest ways to reduce the chance of fatal accidents.

Edited by bk59
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The aim of Ontario's street racing legislation was to stop street racing on public road ways.

I agree with the scope and with the method.

I disagree with the name and with the speed limit.

Most people doing 50+ over the limit are NOT racing.

50+ over the limit on a series 400 highway is 50% over the limit.

50+ in a school zone is more than 100% over the speed limit.

The law should use proportion and not a set number of Km/Hour.

Oh, and on the 407 it should be at least 170, as 140 is an accepted speed :D

Edited by PoliticalCitizen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The street racing law is good but its not strict enough for my liking.

You don't seem to get it. I suspect you also think more gun laws make a difference.

To put it simply, this street racing law is nabbing one or two tragedies like what happened to that poor boy in Hamilton and thousands of others who may have been speeding but were not racing or reckless at all.

It's easy to give a cop a radar gun and call all the folks caught at higher rates of speed "racers". It costs MONEY to hire some more police and have them patrol the roads looking for REAL dangerous drivers!

Can't you see that this law is a cheap cop-out, if you'll pardon the pun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't seem to get it. I suspect you also think more gun laws make a difference.

To put it simply, this street racing law is nabbing one or two tragedies like what happened to that poor boy in Hamilton and thousands of others who may have been speeding but were not racing or reckless at all.

It's easy to give a cop a radar gun and call all the folks caught at higher rates of speed "racers". It costs MONEY to hire some more police and have them patrol the roads looking for REAL dangerous drivers!

Can't you see that this law is a cheap cop-out, if you'll pardon the pun?

So if someone in your family was killed today by a person going 50Ks over the speed limit you would still want the law repealed or changed. Sounds like you just like to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone in your family was killed today by a person going 50Ks over the speed limit you would still want the law repealed or changed. Sounds like you just like to argue.

The "street racing" law is unconstitutional. It deprives the right of the defendant to cross-examine the police that laid the charges and imposes a penalty before the officer's opinion can be challenged. A provincial law cannot over-ride the accused right to be tried before a court.

Charter Legal Rights:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Giving a police officer the authority to determine that the law has been broken, even in an emergency situation is beyond their legal capabilities. Their only determination can be that of a "reasonable belief" that the law has been broken and it does not give the authority to assert the accused guilt. The ONLY way that the car could be impounded and the person detained under speeding conditions, would be if they obtained confirmation by a Judge that the seizure was immediately warranted (that there was potential for the accused to repeat the offense if the vehicle was not seized). On the other hand stranding someone the middle of the 401 (or dropping them off at a highway exit) could be construed as unreasonable detainment.

Edited by charter.rights
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone in your family was killed today by a person going 50Ks over the speed limit you would still want the law repealed or changed. Sounds like you just like to argue.

Of course I would! I don't want yet another useless law! I want a law that specifically targets real problems and is effectively enforced!

Enforce laws against speeding. Enforce laws against racing. Just don't use a law about racing as a convenience to put some of the speeders you catch into a more lurid category, just so it can APPEAR that you're making our families safer!

How many people charged under this new street racing law were actually street racing? From what I've heard, once again the true figure is "mice nuts".

Yet we do indeed still have a problem with street racing, at least in some areas of the province.

So why don't we see more police catching more of THEM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "street racing" law is unconstitutional. It deprives the right of the defendant to cross-examine the police that laid the charges and imposes a penalty before the officer's opinion can be challenged. A provincial law cannot over-ride the accused right to be tried before a court.

This law does not deprive anyone of the right to be tried before a court and it does not deprive anyone of the right to cross-examine the police. It does impose a penalty before a trial. Then again, arresting someone is imposing a penalty before a trial, but that is not unconstitutional. Different laws allow the police to impound cars before a trial, and these laws are constitutional. Courts have found them constitutional. So simply saying that the law is unconstitutional because your car can be impounded before you get a trial is mistaken.

Charter Legal Rights:

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Giving a police officer the authority to determine that the law has been broken, even in an emergency situation is beyond their legal capabilities. Their only determination can be that of a "reasonable belief" that the law has been broken and it does not give the authority to assert the accused guilt. The ONLY way that the car could be impounded and the person detained under speeding conditions, would be if they obtained confirmation by a Judge that the seizure was immediately warranted (that there was potential for the accused to repeat the offense if the vehicle was not seized). On the other hand stranding someone the middle of the 401 (or dropping them off at a highway exit) could be construed as unreasonable detainment.

You are confusing the power of the police to act within their authority when they believe a law has been broken with the power of the court to find someone guilty. When the police impound a car they do not "assert" the guilt of the accused any more than when they arrest someone. When someone is arrested they are detained, and this does not mean that they have been found guilty. Impounding your car does not mean that you have been found guilty by our justice system.

The arbitrary detention argument is weak, mostly because it is not exactly arbitrary.

The only way I see that this law could be unconstitutional if it was challenged on the grounds that it is mandatory for the police to seize the car. Courts have held that a law can constitutionally give the police the power to impound a car. The law must be reasonable and I think the case can be made that since excessive speed increases the chance of a fatal accident seizing a car to discourage excessive speeding is reasonable. The only part of the above argument that might carry weight is that courts have also said the seizure must be reasonable in the circumstances. But even then, it is not necessary to get a judge's approval before seizing the car, so that part of the argument is not correct. If police have no choice but to seize the car then it can be argued that the specific circumstances were never taken into account.

But you have to understand what you are arguing. The law does not violate the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. The law does not deprive anyone of their day in court. At best, it might go slightly too far by making the seizure mandatory. A minimal change to make the seizure discretionary and the law probably becomes airtight. If it isn't already constitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the law is illegal. Section 172 says you are guilty until proven guilty. A clearly unnecessary denial of a guaranteed right.

That's because you are heavily penalized without recourse whether you are proven innocent in court or not and your property and potentially your ability to earn a living can be destroyed. Destroying innocent people's ability to feed their children does not meet the criteria for denying a right.

If your car is crushed and you are later found innocent, you just lost your car for no apparent reason as well as a huge financial penalty that could ruin innocent lives.

If you lose your license and your car at the side of the road you are not necessarily charged. Or the charges might be withdrawn. In the meantime, you may have no way to get to work. That could lead to loss of job, which could lead to loss of home, which could lead to marital breakdown and loss of family. Being found innocent after that is kind of like being shot and permanently wounded and not even receiving an apology.

In cases heard by Justices of the Peace, the constitutional challenges are being refused.

What that means is that when a case is brought before a JP on constitutional grounds, the JPs are simply treating the cases as traffic offences and not allowing the cases to proceed to a constitutional challenge. It happened to a good friend of mine. He was found subsequently found innocent. As a single parent he narrowly escaped losing his house because he almost lost his job. In his industry it can take years to land another job. He is now heavily in debt due to two police tag teaming him. It also turned out that the judge figured out the police officer was lying. Yet there was no perjury charge.

Certainly the government can introduce new meanings for words to more accurately describe a thing or action. But they cannot change the meaning of a word to intentionally entrap people which is when one or more existing words already in the language will serve exactly the purpose required. They could have used the words aggressive or belligerent to describe the actions of the people they were trying to target.

When new meanings are introduced that have the potential and a likelihood for the government to commit a crime against the general public that's when you have a problem and that is one of the places the government crossed the line. The government is committing crimes against the public because those who are innocent are not receiving any sort of compensation for having been wrongfully targeted and suffered theft and abuse at the hands of the police. To enact a law that carries such a high rate of collateral damage is not a democracy that any sane individual should want any part of.

The 50 over penalties could simply have been applied to the existing penalties. There is no need to impound a car doing 50 over. For the last forty years people have been doing 50 over on the 400 series highways without losing their cars and the accidents involving that type of speed were less than 7% of the total accident picture. In addition, the number of speeding accidents related to the number of offences committed don't make even one millionth of one percent. Certainly accidents involving speed happen, but not with the frequency the OPP make out and speed is only rarely the action that caused the accident. This is not rocket science, it is a numbers game and I just spent some time looking at how the numbers work. They don't work the way the OPP say they work. In my view, the police are misleading the public and contributing to accidents themselves by not telling the truth.

The spirit of the entrapment legislation is met with the way the legislature and the police have acted so far with street racing cases.

Our laws are based on probabilities. Probabilities rely on the numbers. For something to be probable or likely, there has to be a better than 50% chance of bodily harm or death. In no instance where cars were seized at roadside could those probabilities have been satisfied legally.

Entrapment is a crime that is usually levelled against the police when they try to bust drug dealers and those involved in prostitution. The law wasn't written with the expectation that the government would intentionally attempt to fool the entire public and turn the process into a profit centre.

Bear in mind that only about a third of people charged with street racing are actually convicted of the actual offence but even then, the offence is not real street racing in nearly all cases. That means two thirds of the people were convicted of offences covered by previously existing moving violation legislation. That means that in at least two thirds of cases, the street racing law was applied incorrectly and a harsher penalty was added to an existing penalty. What that tells you is that the street racing legislation is not doing what it is purported to do.

The other thing that people forget is that the numbers used were pulled out of context. I'm working with MTO to get the numbers. When I do, they will be published in my book. At that point, my book will be the only source those numbers can be accessed in a format where they actually make sense. The numbers as published on the MTO website are in a format that is so misleading they had to write me a two page letter to explain what they meant. Those garbled numbers that make almost no sense are what was used to convince the legislature to pass the street racing legislation.

The numbers actually used were out of context and I'm fairly certain virtually none of the MPPs who voted for the street racing legislation actually understood that the numbers had been presented in a misleading and deceptive manner. Street racing fatalities are photogenic and always attract media attention. But the fact remains, the police have far more at fault deadly accidents than street racers do.

You don't hear about them because the police are self insured. When you are hit by a police cruiser, in most cases your ass is grass. Those cases don't make the news. Despite public opinion, police officers are not particularly good drivers and on or off duty don't pay much attention to the law. The cop who killed the two horses and the other one who was caught "street racing" (driving like cops normally do) would never have made the media radar but for the fact that a court reporter was present and heard the case. It otherwise would have received no publicity and the cop might have gotten away with the offence scot-free.

Section 33.1 is where a provincial government justifies their desire to deny a guaranteed right; in this case the right to innocence until proven guilty by a tribunal. No if, buts or maybes. The language seems a little fuzzy but you have to read it in terms of how the language was used at the time it was written and the intent of the legislation. It holds a province to account. That's why Section 33.1 has only been used twice so far. Denying a guaranteed right is a serious thing that millions of people have fought and died for over thousands of years. You don't legally deny a guaranteed right without making a very solid case and the Province of Ontario had only a weak case based on fictional numbers.

In addition, the Drunk Driving aspect of the legislation should have been addressed under a completely separate section. There is a vast difference between impaired driving and street racing. Impairment is an induced state that affects judgment. It is well documented and the proper treatment of this offence can't be dealt with in a catch all half-assed poorly conceived section that purports to deal mainly with something completely different.

Street racing and impaired driving are social issues that require social solutions. Those solutions will be found to be worlds apart. No one needs to go to Alcoholics Anonymous to get street racing out of their system. But they might easily get it out of their system if sanctioned tracks were provided within the GTA.

The police are taking advantage of the fact that they can do to the public what they want and get away with it. How constitutional is that?

How would you like your neighbour who has a friend who happens to be a cop suggest your noisy car be impounded? It can be done. Easily. No charges laid. It can happen to anyone, any time. It is happening now.

Is this democracy to you? Does this strike you as a good law?

IS THIS THE KIND OF LEGAL THAT MAKES YOU A HAPPY CAMPER?

If you want references, you can PM me and buy my book on the subject: ABUSE OF POWER.

More later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? What makes this penalty illegal? When the police arrest someone on a charge they are taken to jail, fingerprinted, etc.

Please stop comparing HTA with CC charges.

Also, I didnt say it was illegal, I said it should be. As I understand it there is no right of appeal for the impoundment nor the suspension.

If one is found not guilty can they get the fees back? No.

They still have a fair trial. Detaining someone who is charged is not considered illegal even if they are later found innocent. Physically detaining a person is worse than detaining only their car. There are also other situations where cars get impounded and those are not considered illegal. More on that below.

Acknowledge the simple fact the a fair trial is an impossibility since a penalty has already been imposed. And please dont come back w some CCC comparison.

It should also be pointed out that just because a judge dismisses a case that does not mean the law is illegal. A case can be dismissed for numerous reasons. If a judge had found the law illegal then it would cease to be in effect. So my original point stands; no one has demonstrated that the law is illegal.

I have said it should be, not that it is.

Nice try. Cars can be impounded under drunk driving offences in the Criminal Code. Cars can be impounded under parking bylaws at the municipal level. So what makes provincial legislation different? What makes the provincial legislation illegal, but the other legislation legal? Simply saying "apples and oranges" does not show that a comparison is invalid, especially in this situation where both federal and municipal laws agree and you are trying to argue against a provincial law.

Please, the application of the CCC vs a municpal by law vs a HTA offence is not a fair comparison. I will spell it out...and HTA offence does NOT mean a criminal conviction and neither does a municipal by law infraction. Now a CCC conviction means you are a criminal.

This also does not change the fact that cars can also be impounded under provincial safety legislation. Is that penalty illegal? A police officer can pull you over and declare your car unfit to drive.

Wonderful, but irrelevant.

So someone still must answer the question about whether or not all of those laws have somehow destroyed the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.

A penalty has been imposed without due process.

No, it does not. Every time a police car pulls you over you are being detained. Does that mean you are considered guilty? (The answer is no.)

If I am not guilty why is my car being impounded? Why is my licence being suspended? If you are pulled over for minor speeding you are given a ticket and sent on your way. Nothing more nothing less

You would have to show that simply impounding a car goes too far in trying to accomplish the objective of reducing the number of people who drive at excessive speeds. I am doubtful that your argument would succeed at that.

The fact that one is denied property for a non criminal offence is one.

The fact that "speeding" can be done at +1 over the limit is another nor the fact that raciong can be done at 20KMH over is lost on you.

The fact that there are offences on the books that can be properly applied instead of some dumbass Feelgood Fantino Fantasy is lost on you.

How about this? Lets see.....Police remove your plates. Nah....not enough revenue generation.

That is not the only reason. Excessive speed is also very easy to target. Sure, there are many other reasons for deaths on the highways. Like weather. Should police be investing their resources in weather control devices? Excessive speed is easy to detect and easy to stop. It does generate revenue, there is no question about that, but stopping excessive speeding is also one of the simplest ways to reduce the chance of fatal accidents.

I stand to correct my assertion there are other reasons.

There are virtually no accidents. Only negligence. The weather does not cause accidents. The roads dont cause accidents.Cell phones dont cause accidents.

I am sorry but the reason police set up most speed traps is for revenue generation. Nothing more nothing less.

Lets not forget, the law will not be applied equally.

"A City of Kawartha Lakes OPP officer who was involved in a collision with two horses in Emily Township in December is facing several charges.

OPP Central Region headquarters officials say Constable Michael Deyell was travelling west on Highway 7 west of Fowlers Corners about 2:30 a.m. on Dec. 9 when he crashed into two horses that were on the road.

Both horses were killed in the crash and the officer sustained serious but non life-threatening injuries.

Constable Pam Higham, media officer at Central Region OPP, said the cruiser was "destroyed" in the collision, which closed the highway for several hours while the Technical Traffic Collision officers investigated.

On Thursday, police said Const. Deyell has been charged with: drive a motor vehicle without due care and attention, or, without reasonable consideration for others or in any manner that endangers anyone by: driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure above the posted maximum speed limit; drive a motor vehicle while performing a stunt, namely: driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 km/h or more above the posted maximum speed limit, and careless driving.

Const. Higham said the officer's licence was not suspended because under the legislation, the seven-day suspension for stunt driving or racing applies when there is an immediate threat to public safety.

"In this case, this happened about two months ago."

She added that the OPP is held to a high standard of transparency, and is "holding its members to the same standards as the motoring public."

The officer could face disciplinary action under the Police Services Act, she added, noting that investigation is conducted by a different branch of the OPP.

Const. Deyell is scheduled to appear in court in Lindsay on March 11. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if someone in your family was killed today by a person going 50Ks over the speed limit you would still want the law repealed or changed. Sounds like you just like to argue.

Ahh the emotional angle.

Not buying it but I will answer your question.

Yes. And you too would want it repealed. You just havent thought it through long enough.

But I would want if warranted, the person who killed my family member be charged with.....

1) Vehicular manslaughter

2) Vehicular homicide

3) Dangerous driving causing death

Get it? CCC conviction means jail in most cases. The racing law means his car is gone for a week along with his licence.

Which would you rather have the guilty serve? Time in jail, or the car impounded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,223
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Sohaey
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...