Street Racing Laws

[kp186]

So the police finally get some teeth in the speeding laws. Personally I don't think it goes far enough. Our roads are crowded and it's only going to get worse. I have a few things I'd like to see happen.

1. Ban the V8 engine in private vehicles. No exceptions save for REGISTERED antiques.

2. Make cars limited to 120 kmh. Impose severe penalties for tampering.

3. First offense? You lose the car permanently and your license for one year.

4. Second offense, you lose the car and your license permanently.

5. Speeding and no license? You do a two-year stretch in the Gray Bar Hotel. Double it for every subsequent offense.

6. Educate. Go into the high schools and show them pictures of accident scenes before the ambulance gets there. Traumatic, yes, but they'll remember it. Hell, put these pictures on billboards on the 400 highways.

7. Do away with driving... causing death laws. It's second-degree murder and treat it as such.

And please don't start whining about hardships caused by loss of driving privileges. If you live way out in the country and work in the city the answer is simple... DON"T SPEED!

Okay, I know there are bugs in this. Like pulling trailers. With some of these behemoths a wimpy little six-banger ain't gonna do it but the way oil is being used up maybe it's time we started changing the way we live and realize we're eventually going to have to start doing with less. Besides, there's a business opportunity for someone with a commercial truck.

What do you think?

[guyser]

So the police finally get some teeth in the speeding laws. Personally I don't think it goes far enough. Our roads are crowded and it's only going to get worse. I have a few things I'd like to see happen.

It goes too far. The laws already on the books suffice. Enforcement and conviction is the issue.

1. Ban the V8 engine in private vehicles. No exceptions save for REGISTERED antiques.

2. Make cars limited to 120 kmh. Impose severe penalties for tampering.

3. First offense? You lose the car permanently and your license for one year.

4. Second offense, you lose the car and your license permanently.

5. Speeding and no license? You do a two-year stretch in the Gray Bar Hotel. Double it for every subsequent offense.

6. Educate. Go into the high schools and show them pictures of accident scenes before the ambulance gets there. Traumatic, yes, but they'll remember it. Hell, put these pictures on billboards on the 400 highways.

7. Do away with driving... causing death laws. It's second-degree murder and treat it as such.

#'s 1 2 & 3 are nanny positions and not feasible. I would advocate the highway speeds be increased since our roads are built for the higher speeds, but sadly the drivers would need training. Stealing a car for a first offence is way over the top.

As for # 4 two tickets and you dont get to drive again? Say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of people in this country. #5 hammer them with monetary fine and maybe some time upon subsequents.

#6 , I could agree to that. As for 7 I dont agree, as they have the laws that ensure some punishment, but it is the courts that have to hand it down , and they need to hand it down hard.

And please don't start whining about hardships caused by loss of driving privileges. If you live way out in the country and work in the city the answer is simple... DON"T SPEED!

Sadly since our cops are more and more employed as revenue generators I cannot agree. Fantino being the worst of the worst (OPP head) makes me cringe that this idea has legs. Pretty hard for some in this city to egt tickets seeing the way tons of cops drive in this city.

[Chuck U. Farlie]

Although speed might play a factor in some of the accidents that occur, it is not the biggest problem.

Limit the engine sizes and top speed all you want, and you will still have accidents everyday simply because a lot of people simply cannot drive or will not drive in a safe manner, and police are not arresting people for their bad habits - basically because it is a lot harder to convict someone for an improper lane change or tailgating than it is for speeding...

With speeders cops merely have to wait at the side of the road and point their radar... easy...

This summer in Toronto has been horrible for the number of truck accidents, but limiting the truck's speed won't solve this problem because the majority of these accidents that were the truck driver's fault were rollovers due to too high of speed entering curves... You would have to limit the truck's speed to 50km/h to avoid these accidents... the better solution is to enforce proper training and testing for a person to get a license... and maybe people should be retested on the road every 5 years as well...

[Wilber]

Ban V8's? The number of cylinders is not an indicator of performance. There are a lot of 6's and not a few 4's that outperform many 8 cyl cars. More performance is actually a safety feature for a sensible driver.

120 km limit? Many US interstates have 75 MPH limits. That's about 125 KPH. You couldn't even do the speed limit on these roads. Hardly makes you safer if you can't travel the same speed as the rest of the traffic. What about passing. Leaving yourself exposed on the wrong side of the road for a longer period of time hardly makes things safer, for you or the poor sod coming the other way.

Last February I got my first speeding ticket since 1980. You are telling me I should lose my car permanently and my license for a year? Get serious.

Education, improved training, stiffer penalties for chronic offenders, I agree

[M.Dancer]

I agree that the police should not have the right to confiscate cars in situ. That is for the court to determine, but elevating extreme speeding to beyond a trafic violation would give them the power to arrest drivers and impound cars ....then let a judge sieze the vehicle.

[Wilber]

I agree that the police should not have the right to confiscate cars in situ. That is for the court to determine, but elevating extreme speeding to beyond a trafic violation would give them the power to arrest drivers and impound cars ....then let a judge sieze the vehicle.

Yup, the police need the ability to get someone who is driving dangerously off the road, regardless of the reason. If that means impounding their car for 24 hrs, so be it but anything beyond that should be determined by a judge.

[guyser]

I agree that the police should not have the right to confiscate cars in situ. That is for the court to determine, but elevating extreme speeding to beyond a trafic violation would give them the power to arrest drivers and impound cars ....then let a judge sieze the vehicle.

Dangerous driving , careless driving , both infractions that can result in arrest, ergo impoundment until bail is posted.

[Wilber]

Who needs a V8?

[M.Dancer]

Dangerous driving , careless driving , both infractions that can result in arrest, ergo impoundment until bail is posted.

I think the weapons should be impounded until a trial determiones the vehicles can be sold.

Reasonably, someone going 120 in a 50 k zone should not be allowed to drive and reasonably, a cop on the scene can easily determine how fast someone was going.

[kp186]

This is a clarification and a partial response to what I've read here so far. I'm not talking about the guy caught doing 60 in a 50 zone. That isn't covered under the street racing laws. I'm talking about these morons caught doing 170 and 180 kmh on the 401. Okay so speed isn't a factor in all accidents but think about it... do we need these people on our roads? Do you want your spouse and/or children tooling down the 402 with one of these idiots coming up behind them at 180 kmh? I say we get these people off our roads permanently. Just so you know, I thought I was being rather lenient. If you wanna know, I think anyone who causes another person's death by excessive speed and/or drinking while driving should be put up against a wall and shot. We've got to get away from this myth that human life is precious. Human life is the cheapest, most easily-replaced commodity on this planet and we can well do without criminals in our society. It's not like we're going to put a serious dent in the gene pool.

[jennie]

This is a clarification and a partial response to what I've read here so far. I'm not talking about the guy caught doing 60 in a 50 zone. That isn't covered under the street racing laws. I'm talking about these morons caught doing 170 and 180 kmh on the 401. Okay so speed isn't a factor in all accidents but think about it... do we need these people on our roads? Do you want your spouse and/or children tooling down the 402 with one of these idiots coming up behind them at 180 kmh? I say we get these people off our roads permanently. Just so you know, I thought I was being rather lenient. If you wanna know, I think anyone who causes another person's death by excessive speed and/or drinking while driving should be put up against a wall and shot. We've got to get away from this myth that human life is precious. Human life is the cheapest, most easily-replaced commodity on this planet and we can well do without criminals in our society. It's not like we're going to put a serious dent in the gene pool.

Hmm ... other than the firing squad, I find I cannot disagree. I believe we have to get us bums ... oops ... those bums ... (jk) .... off the road. I think it is an aspect of the gene pool that is oblivious to income, social status, etc., and I agree with aggressive tactics to protect the public from them. I joke about "us" because it is so goddam common and we all know who the offenders are in our circle of acquaintances, right? The ones who habitually get blasted and then drive.

But you shoot them by yourself, eh, and take the consequences if you choose that route.

Personally I think there should be a snitch line, especially when you are the host, and you offer accommodation or transportation: Your guests may need to know that you will not tolerate drinking and driving as you may be legally liable.

It might be a safer way to deal with Grandpa, ya know?

[guyser]

Any thoughts on the conviction, and subsequent 2 yr house arrest for the two guys who killed the two coming home from their wedding anniversary?

At first I was P O'd. Not now though.

[Fortunata]

4. Second offense, you lose the car and your license permanently.

That's too harsh. Second offense, on the condition you didn't injure or kill someone on the first offense, should be confiscation of the car and license for an extended period of time. When you are eligible to get car and license back there needs to be installed in your vehicle (at your expense) a governor (tamper proof) of some kind that won't let you go over the speed limit; if you try to it shuts your car down. What's worse to a speed demon than not being able to speed? And what's better for us than a speed demon not being able to speed.

[guyser]

(at your expense) a governor (tamper proof) of some kind that won't let you go over the speed limit; if you try to it shuts your car down.

And somewhere a lawyer is reading that and seeing big dollar signs.

The idea puts too much liability on the Crown and as such wont be implemented.

Edited October 4, 2007 by guyser

[geoffrey]

Reasonably, someone going 120 in a 50 k zone should not be allowed to drive and reasonably, a cop on the scene can easily determine how fast someone was going.

Bullshit. 150 in a 100 or 160 in a 110 on an empty highway is much less dangerous than 90 in a 50 or how about 70 in a school zone (30km/h), yet will cost you your car on the spot, without judical oversight.

This is a major flaw in speed enforce already. It doesn't recognize the difference in 70 in a 50 and 130 in a 110. Two completely different risks.

And you want to step it up so the cop can take your car regardless, without appeal for months?

Nah. Putting unchecked power into the hands of police isn't a good idea. If the person is guilty of being so dangerous, then have the balls to charge them with criminal negligence in a courtroom, not on the side of the highway.

Backalley justice coming to a Canadian city near you. Why even have the courts when the police can just do it all, right?

--

I'll throw this caveat in after. How about if we make the police civily liable for your financial hardship if the case doesn't provide a 50+km/h over conviction. The officer has to pay, out of his pocket, for all your losses and expenses during the time you've got your car locked up?

The SCC said cops are liable for flawed investigations today in a landmark ruling. I think we need to take it further to have them civily liable for punishment if we are going to put that in their hands.

--

Bottom line. The police should not be able to enforce punishment.

[Wilber]

I'll throw this caveat in after. How about if we make the police civily liable for your financial hardship if the case doesn't provide a 50+km/h over conviction. The officer has to pay, out of his pocket, for all your losses and expenses during the time you've got your car locked up?

The SCC said cops are liable for flawed investigations today in a landmark ruling. I think we need to take it further to have them civily liable for punishment if we are going to put that in their hands.

Well Geoffrey the last time I was in Calgary the police had "we're hiring" bumper stickers on their cars. How many applications do you think they would get under those conditions? You wouldn't want anyone that stupid to be a police officer.

The majority of speed traps in our town are set up because of a location's history when it comes to collisions or complaints from local residents, not at the whim of police.

[guyser]

The majority of speed traps in our town are set up because of a location's history when it comes to collisions or complaints from local residents, not at the whim of police.

I respectfully disagree . I know many spots that are not collision areas and the cops set up there. Revenue baby revenue.

Thats all they want.

[Wilber]

I respectfully disagree . I know many spots that are not collision areas and the cops set up there. Revenue baby revenue.

Thats all they want.

I'm talking about my community, don't know about yours. They may not be high collision areas, it could just be that the locals are pissed off with people going past their houses at 30K over the limit. They complain to city hall and you know the rest. After all, what makes you or what you are doing so important that you have the right to put someone else's life at risk?

I do agree with Geoffrey that 30K over the limit in one area can be more dangerous than 50K over somewhere else and a one size fits all approach is not the way to go. I do think anyone doing 50K over the limit is endangering others and if you know you are going to lose your car for being 50K over, then don't do it, because there is no valid reason for doing so and plenty of reason not to. In this country people are not used to judging closing speeds that high and eventually someone is sure to misjudge it and pull out in front of you when they shouldn't. Most roads in this country are not suitable for true high speed driving because they were never designed to be. Even if they were, the country's drivers just don't have the training to do it. If you want to drive like you are on the Autobahn you should have to pass a German driving test. Most people in this country don't even know how to properly adjust their seat and mirrors.

[guyser]

I'm talking about my community, don't know about yours. They may not be high collision areas, it could just be that the locals are pissed off with people going past their houses at 30K over the limit. They complain to city hall and you know the rest. After all, what makes you or what you are doing so important that you have the right to put someone else's life at risk?

What makes me so important? Nothing. Never said I was. If someone is posting 30k over, then they should get a ticket.

But the problem with speed traps is they serve very little notice to those who are dangerous drivers.

What they are good for is revenue generation.

What good does a radar trap, set up in an industrial area with low speed limits serve? No one is walking, all property is well set back, but plenty of money to be made there.

What good is a trap on the highway at night, clear roads, good visibility , you know other than revenue?

Most roads in this country are not suitable for true high speed driving because they were never designed to be.

Roads ? No. But most highways are designed for much higher speeds.

And I will agree with you re the drivers.

[Wilber]

Roads ? No. But most highways are designed for much higher speeds.

I disagree, we just drove the Trans Canada all the way from Abbotsford to St. John's then returned through the US on the Interstates. No comparison, not even close to being in the same league.

[guyser]

I disagree, we just drove the Trans Canada all the way from Abbotsford to St. John's then returned through the US on the Interstates. No comparison, not even close to being in the same league.

The highway limits used to be 70 and up (IIRC max 75)

Todays limit is 100 , and I believe somwhere limts are 110K , so in fact they were designed not only for higher speeds, they were designed with the auotmobile of the day in mind. In other words , the highway was built knowing that bias ply tires were de riguer , no power steering on avg, and a whole lot less safe than todays cars.

The hwys were designed for higher speeds , ask any civil engineer.

[Wilber]

The highway limits used to be 70 and up (IIRC max 75)

Todays limit is 100 , and I believe somwhere limts are 110K , so in fact they were designed not only for higher speeds, they were designed with the auotmobile of the day in mind. In other words , the highway was built knowing that bias ply tires were de riguer , no power steering on avg, and a whole lot less safe than todays cars.

The hwys were designed for higher speeds , ask any civil engineer.

I don't know where you live but in BC one will not get ticketed if they are no more than 10K over the limit so in reality speed limits are higher than posted, Also we did away with photo radar and radar detectors are legal. Pretty fair if you ask me. I don't dispute that some roads could have higher posted limits but in fact the real limit is higher than the one posted.

Most of these highways were also designed for half the traffic they are now handling and while cars are better, drivers aren't. Most are far less civil than in the past. The term "road rage" wasn't even thought of when a lot of these roads were built. People want to drive faster but how many of those have taken any kind of formal advanced training or collision avoidance courses? Many of them think they are much better drivers than they really are because they don't know any better.

[geoffrey]

Well Geoffrey the last time I was in Calgary the police had "we're hiring" bumper stickers on their cars. How many applications do you think they would get under those conditions? You wouldn't want anyone that stupid to be a police officer.

I agree. But if the police aren't willing to shoulder the responsiblity that comes with outrageous power, then they shouldn't have it. I don't believe in zero responsibility upon those with enourmous power to destroy your life and limit your freedom without immediate judical oversight.

If the case is that slam dunk, bring it before a judge and have the judge take the car. No police officer should ever be enforcing or determining punishment for something no court has found a suspect guilty of. It is beyond anything that could be accepted in a free and democratic society.

Your essientially asking for powers of seziure without any possible consequence for abusing that. Absurd.

The majority of speed traps in our town are set up because of a location's history when it comes to collisions or complaints from local residents, not at the whim of police.

The police could always park out in the middle of the road, lights on, if they wanted people to slow down. Speed enforcement does nothing to reduce accidents, since the Sheriffs started patrolling Alberta highways (we're talking 3 or 4 times the usual amount of highway patrol) collisions are up and fatalities are level.

There is zero deterent in increased enforcement. If you can't see the cop, you will not slow down.

There is no correlation from any study I've read that says speed enforcement saves lives. It doesn't. It makes money.

Even most of the police don't take it seriously. I've been stopped a few times by RCMP officers on rural highways and given a 'hey kid, smarten up, if you got someone else, you might get a ticket." Not to mention you regularly see RCMP cars and trucks flying along well over the speed limit in the opposite direction, no lights. They obviously don't believe it's that dangerous to speed.

[Wilber]

I agree. But if the police aren't willing to shoulder the responsiblity that comes with outrageous power, then they shouldn't have it. I don't believe in zero responsibility upon those with enourmous power to destroy your life and limit your freedom without immediate judical oversight.

I'm not advocating that the police should be able to seize anyones car indefinitely, that was kp's idea but they do need to be able to get some people off the road until the courts can deal with them. Should prosecutors have civil liability in every case they take to court and lose? Seems to me that a person who is driving after a few drinks and gets a 24 hr roadside suspension should be damn grateful there was another avenue than being charged with impaired.

The police could always park out in the middle of the road, lights on, if they wanted people to slow down. Speed enforcement does nothing to reduce accidents, since the Sheriffs started patrolling Alberta highways (we're talking 3 or 4 times the usual amount of highway patrol) collisions are up and fatalities are level.

There is zero deterent in increased enforcement. If you can't see the cop, you will not slow down.

There is no correlation from any study I've read that says speed enforcement saves lives. It doesn't. It makes money.

Even most of the police don't take it seriously. I've been stopped a few times by RCMP officers on rural highways and given a 'hey kid, smarten up, if you got someone else, you might get a ticket." Not to mention you regularly see RCMP cars and trucks flying along well over the speed limit in the opposite direction, no lights. They obviously don't believe it's that dangerous to speed.

They do that all the time. When people see a police cruiser driving down the highway they slow down, as much as anything, is why they are there. Those RCMP officers were doing exactly that. They didn't want to give you a ticket, they just wanted you to slow down.

As far as those police officers flying along goes, you don't know where they are going or why. There are strict protocols as to when they are to use lights and sirens. No doubt it does get abused occasionally