Jump to content

Ontario's street racing legislation is illegal


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One week isnt nearly long enough........ 6 months or even a year might do the trick for most of the idiots out there.

You are okay with a drunk driver keeping his car, but a racer (even when he isnt nor ever did) loses it for 6 mths or a year?

How 'bout we just give them a trial. Novel , but I think it would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are okay with a drunk driver keeping his car, but a racer (even when he isnt nor ever did) loses it for 6 mths or a year?

How 'bout we just give them a trial. Novel , but I think it would work.

I was kinda focused on the topic of street racers. I would agree with a drunk driver losing his car for 6 months or a year on top of losing his license. Both idiot types should do jail time if they are caught driving during the period their license is revoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was kinda focused on the topic of street racers. I would agree with a drunk driver losing his car for 6 months or a year on top of losing his license. Both idiot types should do jail time if they are caught driving during the period their license is revoked.

Alcoholism is a disease. The worst offenders are repeat offenders. They can be tracked fairly easily medically. In my view, an alcoholic should lose his or her license until they've been clean for at least two years. They don't have to be apprehended at roadside, they can be apprehended by their own doctors before committing an offence. There are other ways of nailing drunks. Doctors can be avoided. But compulsory testing could identify them at license renewal time.

Keeping a drunk off the road is a hard thing to do though if the drunk is without any sort of morals.

The bottom line is that drunk driving is a social problem long before it's a traffic problem and we aren't dealing with the social problem in a way that stops drunks cold. Having the police deal with an illness makes no sense whatsoever to me. They aren't trained to deal with it. At present, drunk driving is still looked at like the drunk can make a lucid choice. When was the last time you saw a lucid drunk? On the one hand our public information is telling drunks to hand over their keys and act responsibly. On the other hand, the very act of drinking reduces the notion of responsibility to near or sub-zero levels. The concept is oxymoronism in action. And the morons are those administering the legislation covering it. The entire way we deal with drunk driving is just stupid and the death toll is the measurement of just how stupid it really is. The legislators are even dumber than the drunks.

In some countries, drunk drivers are executed. I believe a public flogging would be a deterrent. It's cheap, it hurts, it's embarrassing, it's unforgettable and no one wants it twice. If that fails, a tattoo on the forehead would ensure a drunk is never rented or lent a car or truck.

Then there is education in schools. The mindset of young people needs a serious readjustment.

Young people think getting wasted is a condition to be celebrated and striven for. Plenty of older people do too. It's a mindset that's a holdover from the early Middle Ages when alcohol was the only safe beverage to drink in urban centres. Even infants were fed wine and gin. Most people were drunk or hung over most of the time. That's why the Middle Ages were also known as the Dark Ages. A huge percentage of the population was pie-eyed all the time. It's also why we, the descendants of the survivors of career alcoholics, can tolerate alcohol and most Aboriginal people can't. We have centuries of abuse and genetic adaptation they can't begin to match. Selling booze to an Aboriginal ought to carry a flogging as well. Of course they can make it themselves now so they'd have to flog each other.

Anyway, education is the best answer and so far the education that's out there isn't enough.

Psychological profiling is another way to catch potential drunks before they get a license even. Those that think getting wasted is a great idea should accept the fact that until they can lose the notion they aren't a candidate for a driver's license. Preventing them from even learning to drive is a great way to reduce drunk driving.

They ways I've mentioned are denying a privilege to drive not a right to innocence. Our rights are sacred. Never agree to give up a right to anything when there is a viable alternative. Our laws require diligence when examining alternatives and that diligence was nowhere in sight when the knee-jerkers were finger painting the street racing legislation.

Our gullible legislators have not done their jobs. They've taken the lazy way out and the legislation is a sloppy job. That's not what we pay them for.

Edited by gullyfourmyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our gullible legislators have not done their jobs. They've taken the lazy way out and the legislation is a sloppy job. That's not what we pay them for.

And for the same reasons judges are reluctant to throw the book at drunk drivers on their first or second offence - they too have found themselves driving while intoxicated at some time or another.

The current laws don't work. I know a guy who lost his license for life but still drives (and many times while drunk). There is no follow-up and if there was they would be able to get the drunk off the road. He owns his own vehicle. Can't get insurance so he drives without.

The problem with the law is that it assumes that the offender will comply with the penalty of his own volition. It assumes that society will enforce the ban for the courts by refusing insurance or refusing the sale of vehicles without a license. They miss the point that alcoholics are not rational thinkers or law-abiding citizens. It never crosses their minds. Instead they just do what they want and if they get caught, or something happens it just supports their crazy reasons for drinking in the first place.

Jail doesn't work. Forced treatment doesn't work.

Street racers are not racing because they fear being caught. They get their rush from the speed and the performance of their vehicles. A law that targets ordinary people making simple mistakes in their everyday life just diverts from the real problem. The goverment wants us to believe that they are doing something about it. The reality is that street racing has not even slowed down since the law was enacted.

Edited by charter.rights
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.

Guilt is determined by a court of law. This law in no way prevents someone from going to court, therefore it does not violate the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Your issue is with the penalty. Which means you are really talking about an allegedly illegal seizure of property.

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.

Or having your car impounded could lead to you walking into a local convenience store, which could lead to you buying a lottery ticket, which could lead to you winning millions of dollars.

Listing a bunch of things that might happen does not make any law or penalty illegal.

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.

Once again, excessive speeding greatly increases the likelihood that an accident will be fatal. It does not have to be the sole or even the primary cause of the accident to increase the chance of death. So if people have been driving at these speeds for over forty years and are still not slowing down isn't that a sign that the government should do something more to discourage this behaviour?

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.

You are working to get the numbers, but you say you've already seen them and they make no sense. So the question is, have you actually seen those numbers, and if so, where? Do you have any links to this MTO website?

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.

The language is not fuzzy. The section does not hold provinces to account, and in fact lets them off the hook when they wish to pass a law that infringes unjustifiably on a right or freedom. And, one more time, the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty has not been violated by this law.

Street racing and impaired driving are social issues that require social solutions.

Most problems facing society are complex. A multi-pronged approach is preferable to any single attempt to solve the problem. So things like impaired driving require social solutions and legal sanctions. Not just one or the other. Either one on its own will not work.

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

No thanks. If you want to sell your book you could try a bookstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please stop comparing HTA with CC charges.

I'm comparing penalties within those two pieces of legislation. Perhaps you would like to explain why it is that a penalty found in federal legislation is acceptable, and the same penalty found in municipal by-laws is acceptable, but when found in provincial legislation it all of a sudden becomes unacceptable? Why would I stop pointing out a flaw in your argument when you still have yet to address it?

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.

The same principle regarding punishment applies to the Criminal Code as well as to provincial legislation. In fact, if anything, penalties under the Criminal Code would be monitored much more closely for illegality because of the higher profile nature of crimes and the fact that the Criminal Code is federal legislation. And yet, similar penalties have not been found illegal in the Criminal Code.

The fact that a penalty has been imposed in no way affects the fairness of your trial. Does the fact that your car was impounded mean that the judge no longer looks at evidence? Does it mean that you aren't allowed to face the police officer in court? Absolutely not. What makes the trial unfair?

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.

How is it not fair? The same penalty (having your car impounded before a hearing) exists in all three types of legislation. If both the HTA and municipal by-laws result in no criminal conviction then why is it that the same penalty is unacceptable in one, but not the other?

Wonderful, but irrelevant.

That's an interesting response. There are multiple provisions in the HTA that allow police to impound your car. You have chosen only one to complain about. And yet you find the fact that there are other identical penalties in the same piece of legislation irrelevant. You might need to rethink that one if you want your argument to even begin to make sense.

If you are pulled over for minor speeding you are given a ticket and sent on your way. Nothing more nothing less

Minor speeding. 50km/h over the limit is arguably not minor. We have different levels of punishment for different levels and types of infractions.

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

This has been done for other infractions and these are legal. Those municipal parking by-laws come to mind.

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.

This law does not penalize speeding at "+1 over the limit". And this law also captures people who are racing at 20km/h over the speed limit. Those facts are not lost on me, they just are not proving anything.

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.

You mean like giving the person a ticket? That's not lost on me at all. What's lost on you is that the government can enact new measures if it feels the old ones are not working.

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

That would still be enforcing a penalty before a hearing. I thought you were against such things.

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

None of which changes the fact that in a traffic accident, or a traffic act of negligence if you prefer, excessive speed increases the chance that someone dies. And trying to avoid this is not a bad thing.

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

...

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.

So you want to impound a car that was destroyed? I was not aware that the police were impounding civilian cars after they were destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that at least 20% of the people charged under this law have been found _innocent_ - but they still have to deal with the financial and insurance repercussions. And those figures are from a while ago...

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id...83-e1109a950a70

"A spokesman for the attorney general yesterday said of the 1,500 cases that had been processed, about 500 resulted in convictions. Brendan Crawley said 314 cases were either stayed, dismissed or there was an acquittal."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with these words Law is Illegal this is every body knows. In this site most valuable information is availbale here lot of Government information is here. I want know more about this.

===================================

Jobs.steve

California DUI

If you want to know more and stay up to date on developments you can buy my book: ABUSE OF POWER.

To order you can PM me and I'll give you the ordering information. I don't want to be found guilty of turning this into a commercial site, or be a troll.

Word about the book is spreading fast.

If something isn't done about this legislation it's going to spread all over the continent. Here in Ontario where the law was broken, is the best place to deal with it before things get worse - and they are planned to get worse.

Those that order the book via e-mail will get developing news via e-mail as it happens on this subject as I poke it along with a sharp stick.

This topic is going to get hotter as Global is doing a show on it and a couple of us key players are featured.

Global appears to be on our side in this.

Mind you, the editor is the key guy in terms of how this issue pans out on TV so we'll have to wait and see. The reporter promised to let me see a preview of the show before it airs.

What I'm telling people is they need to put pressure on their MPPs. But of course they can't speak to the issues properly without my book. Either that or do the months of research themselves first. Getting the book is faster, cheaper and it's a very interesting book to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes they do have to pay for the impound fees, but as of yet I have seen no premium increases for the acquittal of the charge.

I haven't seen or heard of any rate increases either on acquittal. There probably won't be any until there's another round of hikes and Spanish Inquisition-like tactics by the insurance people. An acquittal does not remove the one week loss of license notation against your driver's license. When you are looking for insurance something like that is probably going to affect your rate. It might not at that point be technically a premium hike, just a new customer rate but the bottom line is that your bottom line could take a hit somewhere along the line and it'll be when you're most vulnerable.

Another rarer situation could be that you were being dropped by your insurance company for missing a payment so you are looking for a new insurer. But since you just lost your license you just got kicked in the teeth - especially if the charges are dropped or withdrawn before the court date. But guess what? You may now be uninsurable...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen or heard of any rate increases either on acquittal. There probably won't be any until there's another round of hikes and Spanish Inquisition-like tactics by the insurance people.

Premium increases already approved....tune in for your hike (in Ont) of about 9%...or more depending on where you live.

When you are looking for insurance something like that is probably going to affect your rate. It might not at that point be technically a premium hike, just a new customer rate but the bottom line is that your bottom line could take a hit somewhere along the line and it'll be when you're most vulnerable.

The only way I can see is the rare policyholder who has the 10star rating , meaning ten continuous years without a ticket nor suspension.

But guess what? You may now be uninsurable...

No such thing. Everyone is insurable. The Prov mandates it (as do all other prov's) so there is always someone who will take on the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premium increases already approved....tune in for your hike (in Ont) of about 9%...or more depending on where you live.

The only way I can see is the rare policyholder who has the 10star rating , meaning ten continuous years without a ticket nor suspension.

No such thing. Everyone is insurable. The Prov mandates it (as do all other prov's) so there is always someone who will take on the risk.

Uninsurable is when you can no longer afford to pay the fee demanded and still eat and house yourself. If you can afford $1500.00 per year and it jumps across the board to $3000.00 year and you can't pay it you are uninsurable to all intents and purposes. If you have deep enough pockets certainly you can insure anything. But I'm talking about normal people.

When you start missing payments, you're ability to remain insured is severely impaired.

That's why people without cars still pay their automobile insurance premiums. The increase in rates if they don't could mean the difference in driving in the future and hitchhiking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave it to our law givers and makers to make something illegal - as one lawyer said "it may be immoral but it is legal" - You would assume if it is bad it should be and must be illegal - legalism is moraly neutral and should be replaced will rule of law - street racing kills..that is bad hence should be illegal. Unless you are a jerk and murder and mayhem amuze your bored rich and overly privledged ass. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uninsurable is when you can no longer afford to pay the fee demanded and still eat and house yourself.

No, uninsurable means no lic'd company can write you.

The fact is 99.9999% of the time one has put themselves in the position for a whopping premium increase.

If it is too much to pay then it is no ones fault but their own. Only lousy drivers get that treatment and get no sympathy from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, uninsurable means no lic'd company can write you.

The fact is 99.9999% of the time one has put themselves in the position for a whopping premium increase.

If it is too much to pay then it is no ones fault but their own. Only lousy drivers get that treatment and get no sympathy from anyone.

Not so. Back in 1971, we went through the first major insurance hiccup. Rates were hiked so high, the muscle car era effectively ended in the same calender year.

Lousy drivers were not the target. The target was horsepower. Driver competence was not part of the equation though driver intent was. The idea was to reduce horsepower to a level where the horsepower and the mechanical capabilities of the car were in sync. That was done. Street racing continued using older cars and there were very few complaints.

Of course accident rates were the driving factor. But it was the cars themselves that received the blame. Certain models and horsepower ratings were used as the criteria for setting insurance rates. That's why big block high horsepower engines disappeared from manufacturers's option columns, not because of driver competence. The car/engine combos were unaffordable and that translated to uninsurable.

Today is a different story. Handling and horsepower have reached a high degree of sophistication but the mental ammunition of the drivers has been left behind. That's an educational issue that's never been addressed properly. Being a street racer does not make anyone a lousy driver. In fact it generally makes a person a much better, more adept driver. It takes a high degree of skill to street race that the average driver doesn't possess. The trouble arises when the learners practice on the streets and have terrible accidents.

It may interest you to know that quite a high proportion of today's drivers are former street racers. They are as a group, the best drivers out there.

However, driving on streets in the muscle car era was a totally different thing. By today's standards, the roads were the same size but virtually deserted. Street racing now is more of an obstacle course than anything else.

Rush hour was an hour long. That's why it's called rush hour. Rush hour today is nearly four hours in the morning and four hours in the evening on a normal day - the equivalent of a full day. The average commute is a little under an hour but in a few years commute times will triple. That means rush hour will be all day and into the night and very early morning.

The psychology of drivers then was no different than now. The accidents were just as spectacular when they occurred. They were rare events then and they are rare events now.

Street racing does not depend on speed to be a race. A street race can happen at less than 50 kph and be exciting. It depends what you are driving. You can be just as insane at low speeds as at high speeds and just as dead when you hit something.

The stupidity of street racing today does not come from the ability or inability to handle a car. It comes from a lack of judgment that allows one to make the decision to race in the first place in a location where the potential for an accident is high - a city street or on a highway. It's the faulty judgment that's at issue and that faulty judgment is something that can be identified through profiling before the person is even granted a license.

If driving a car is a privilege, then the act of getting a license should be treated as a privilege rather than the bubble gum machine scenario we've all complained about. Drivers should be trained to handle cars under extreme conditions and they should be taught to race on a track. If the can't handle a car on an empty track, they can't handle a car on a crowded street or highway well enough to understand how their vehicle will react under abnormal circumstances. The rest of us gamble our lives on the inexperience of those beginners and incompetents. Far more people are killed by incompetent drivers than are killed by street racing.

None of this need happen if there were just somewhere for young drivers to get the racing bug out of their systems in a sanctioned format. Like maybe a multipurpose track at Downsview Airforce Base. That would and most of the problems in the GTA and the problem itself is a GTA problem and the lack of facilities is a contributing factor and has been a contributing factor since the late sixties.

Edited by gullyfourmyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. Back in 1971, we went through the first major insurance hiccup. Rates were hiked so high, the muscle car era effectively ended in the same calender year.

Well I certainly didnt want to get into a historical review of insurance. I meant in the now.

Of course accident rates were the driving factor. But it was the cars themselves that received the blame. Certain models and horsepower ratings were used as the criteria for setting insurance rates. That's why big block high horsepower engines disappeared from manufacturers's option columns, not because of driver competence. The car/engine combos were unaffordable and that translated to uninsurable.

Accident rates of high powered vehicles was part of the cause. If you had one of those, you were more likely to crash it. Ergo, you pay more.

Not to mention the fact that the gas shortage played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Well I certainly didnt want to get into a historical review of insurance. I meant in the now.

Accident rates of high powered vehicles was part of the cause. If you had one of those, you were more likely to crash it. Ergo, you pay more.

Not to mention the fact that the gas shortage played.

Most of the accidents that involved muscle cars were from tailgating while girl watching. Girl watching was as much a sport in those days as street racing. It has fallen out of favour now due to public awareness of all the perverts there are lurking among us.

Another significant cause of muscle car accidents was due to most of them being equipped with drum brakes. Those of you who are too young to know what driving a car with drum brakes is like cannot begin to comprehend what it was like to be behind the wheel of a car with a large heavy engine at the front of the car, no equalizing weight at the back, no sway bars for stability and drum brakes.

The interior architecture built into the doors didn't happen until 1971 and air bags didn't happen until the late eighties. So driving those cars at any speed was and still is a risky business. Accidents happened frequently at speeds of less that 50 kph. Especially in rush hour. The actual power of the cars was not the problem. The problem was how poorly equipped and designed the cars were at any speed.

The cars excelled at accelerating fast from a stop until the speedometer was buried as long as the road was straight and free of traffic. If there was a curve, most of them still went straight - into whatever immovable object was in their path.

The other thing was the tires. Tires today are so much better than they used to be that it's impossible to understand how unsafe our tires were then without driving two cars exactly the same - one with modern tires, the other with the old bias ply belted tires.

One of my vintage cars has those old tires on it and I don't drive it at all. It's too dangerous to go around the block in. It's still fine in a straight line but no way for corners thank you.

That's why you don't see muscle cars involved in the new and far more dangerous form of street racing so popular today. And that's why it didn't matter whether it was a muscle car or a normal every day car.

In fact if you look around at car shows, you'll find that the survivors are about 95% or better muscle cars and 5% regular cars. The attrition rate even before the race to restore muscle cars was much higher among normal cars than among performance cars. A good part of that was that the general public had accidents, including fatal accidents with far more frequency than street racers and still do.

Street racers of the day for the most part looked after their cars. That's why they survived.

Joe blow average doesn't maintain his vehicle with anything like the level of interest a racer of any stripe takes in his wheels. The graphic difference is in the accident statistics and they are not in favour of the unimpaired, normal driver then or now.

The gas shortage at the end of the muscle car era had statistically nothing to do with actual street racing. It had to do with that fact that cars used for street racing were also the very same cars used for commuting back and forth to work. Most people couldn't afford or didn't have room for their muscle cars and a commuter car as well as the insurance for both. At that point, most were getting married and starting a family. That's part of the reason I got my first muscle car and the reason I parked it in 1975 and got something newer and easier on gas.

For most it came down to which did you feed? A thirsty muscle car or a hungry baby? Those babies are represented by the middle agers right now.

Edited by gullyfourmyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the accidents that involved muscle cars were from tailgating while girl watching. Girl watching was as much a sport in those days as street racing. It has fallen out of favour now due to public awareness of all the perverts there are lurking among us.

Too funny! My brother and his best bud rebuilt a Pontiac Sun Bird (early 80's late 70's, can't remember exactly) anyway -- they put in a 350 small block into this little light car (orignially had a 4 banger) and had just gotten it on the road... were staring at this girl's butt and BAM! hit a pole and wiped out all their hard work!

:lol:

Bro still talks about it 30 years later. He loved that car.

Edited by Drea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the accidents that involved muscle cars were from tailgating while girl watching.

Another significant cause of muscle car accidents was due to most of them being equipped with drum brakes.

The interior architecture built into the doors didn't happen until 1971 and air bags didn't happen until the late eighties. So driving those cars at any speed was and still is a risky business.

If there was a curve, most of them still went straight - into whatever immovable object was in their path.

The other thing was the tires.

In other words....accident rates for high powered vehicles were justified. Same then as now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

My responses to bk59 in bold: This is such a lame argument and wrong bk59. Too bad the post is so long I haven't had time to answer it. What is illegal is the manner in which the law was passed in the first place. It was done by fraud. I recently met with my MPP to make sure a copy of my book ABUSE OF POWER was handed in person to the Attorney General. I also sent an e-mail to the Attorney General's office to his attention. This was to make sure that the illegal aspect of this law is known to the government and to give them a chance to respond intelligently to valid counterpoints.

During the conversation with my MPP I asked him specifically what factual criteria was used to deny the guaranteed rights enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He couldn't answer. I asked him what the facts were that caused him to support his yes vote. No answer.

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.

The people I've talked to so far, including paralegals have all indicated that the Justices of the Peace who are hearing these cases are refusing to hear them on constitutional grounds. They are all being heard as traffic offences and no constitutional challenges are being accepted. One of those people was on TV recently but the Global TV producer/editor cut that part out along with the other four hours or so of insightful information that could have made ONE YEAR LATER a block buster of a show. So you point does not stand since every attempt to challenge the law in every available legal format has been denied.

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.

The answer to this question is in my book. You can buy a copy for yourself and read it if you like. I'm not going to republish it here. Your assumption appears to make sense and that's the real tragedy of this whole issue. People like you have been hoodwinked by the legislation and can't come to grips with the concept that there is a lot more wrong with the Highway Traffic Act than Section 172.

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.

That is an entirely different set of circumstances where a mechanical defect meets the laws of probability upon which all Canadian Law is based. Your argument is self serving and does not deal with the subject in a helpful manner. You are either just trying to confuse the issue or too lazy to try and understand how the legislation works.

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.

Covered earlier in this post.

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.)

The answer is a qualified yes or you wouldn't have been pulled over. The police have to have a valid reason to pull anyone over. The fact that they may be the only ones who know what that reason is at the time can be sufficient. No cop pulls someone over because he thinks the person is innocent and just wants to pass the time of day. So in the cop's mind there is a conception of guilt that may have to be legally justified one way or the other even if no charges are laid because the person stopped may press charges of police harassment. Since the passage of the amendment to Section 172, the guilty concept has considerably more weight and the implications are profound since even a withdrawal of charges can be enough to destroy a lower income person financially and socially in a complete absence of court established legal guilt.

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.

Yes a government can deny a right but there are severe standards that have to be met. In this case the standards were not met or even attempted to be met. As well for a denial of a right to be enacted as law there are certain steps that must be taken and those steps were not taken. It's all in my book.

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.

This point is easily proven when you look at the ORSAR numbers. The argument fails in a heartbeat. That's one of the reasons why the government doesn't want to deal with it. It will reveal a need for a paradigm shift in the way our traffic laws are applied. In effect, the police and the government have been lying through their teeth on this subject for years and actually making the situation worse. They are part of the problem and they are nurturing it while harvesting huge fines to generate tax revenue.

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.

The simplest way to reduce fatal accidents is to ban cell phone use, CD players, eating and drinking in moving vehicles.

Since 80% of fatal accidents are caused by driver distraction and no more than 7% of fatal accidents involve speed to the point where speed is a major contributing factor but not normally the sole cause, there are plenty of ways to reduce the number of fatal accidents without resorting to unreasonable and illegal legislation.

When I sent the information to the Attorney General, this is the response I received:

Dear Mr. Newell:

On behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of August 13, 2008, concerning the exercise of authority by provincial justices of the peace.

As you are aware, while the Parliament of Canada is responsible for enacting criminal law, the administration of justice in a province is the responsibility of the provincial governments. Therefore, if you have not already done so, you may wish to raise your concerns with the Honourable Chris Bentley, Attorney General of Ontario, at www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca.

Thank you for writing.

Yours sincerely,

L. Bisson

Manager, Ministerial Correspondence Unit

The contact info L. Bisson gives is where I sent the information... That's your tax dollar in action. :lol:

Edited by gullyfourmyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more that this law violates the Charter and should be stricken down. Does anyone have a link to the actual wording of the law or know of any Charter Challenges to this law yet? I'm considering preparing one myself.

http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isys...es&context=

Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver's licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or

(b} on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Determining subsequent conviction

(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

10-year limitation

(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle

(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

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

(b detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b . 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day licence suspension

(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver's licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b , the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Release of vehicle

(8 Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Early release of vehicle

(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re licence suspension

(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person's driver's licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Duty of officer re impoundment

(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Same

(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

No appeal or hearing

(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver's licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Lien for storage costs

(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Costs to be paid before release of vehicle

(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Owner may recover losses from driver

(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Intent of suspension and impoundment

(18) The suspension of a driver's licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Forms

(19) The Minister may require that forms approved by the Minister be used for any purpose of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Regulations

(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;

(b exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;

© defining the terms "race", "contest" and "stunt" for the purposes of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Definition

(21) In this section,

"driver's licence" includes a driver's licence issued by another jurisdiction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited

172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,

(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle;

(b there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and

© if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Same

(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,

(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;

(b} the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and

(c the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Offence

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.

Edited by SmellyBoxers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No sympathy for people who like to drive cars at speeds of 50kmph ABOVE the posted speed limit. I don't care if they are average citizens and not engaged in actual 'street racing'. Driving above 90kmph through a school zone (40kmph limit) does seem to be worthy of horrendeous fines and/or vehicle impoundment.

I don't care about one's "intention" or "motive" for speeding (racing or not racing). All that matters is the result. Driving 50kmph above the posted speed limit poses a massive and significant danger to the public and thus the government is entirely justified in applying this policy.

If you drive your car 50kmph above the posted speed limit, you deserve to loose your driving license and/or your car. Driving a car in public is a privilege, not a right.

Edited by Mad_Michael
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.


  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...