Jump to content

dont speed in canada


barncobob

Recommended Posts

The change in definition also means that the word of a police officer is all that it takes to confiscate a car and driver's license for at least seven days.

 

[rant]

I hate $h1t like this. I don't mind speeding fines that high but if we are going to levy fines of that nature then we should adjust it to the offenders ability to pay. I live in VA and think the recent crap our state legistator pulled to avoid raising taxes is wrong too. Just raise the damn tax to fix the roads. We are already paing $3/gal for gas whats another $.05? Don't pull this BS(where is the Graemlin shoveling it?)Also, and this really tweaks me, I don't want some LEO confiscating my ride and license without a oppertunity to defend myself. This is punishment without due process. Yes I know it is Canada but we have laws in the US that allow LEOs to confiscate personal property for good.Orginized crime or not Its WRONG I SAY.[/rant]

Link to comment
[rant]I hate $h1t like this... [/rant]

Sorry but I don't understand the excitement over high penalties for driving 30+ mph over the speed limit. In case you haven't done the math that happens to be 51+ mph in a school zone, 66 mph thru my neighborhood, or 106+ mph on the "fast" sections of interstate in Colorado. If ya wanna drive that fast take your bike to the track where it'll be safer for yourself and others. I think more states should enact similar penalties. thumbsup.gif IMO people who intentionally and grossly endanger the lives of others should lose their driving privilege.

Link to comment

McGuinty also announced a proposal to hire 55 new traffic police officers and purchase a high-tech surveillance airplane in an attempt to rack up several of the expensive new fines.

 

 

I guess Canada is in the Red like us.

 

RPG

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

"There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver's license suspension or vehicle impoundment under [the street racing] subsection," the Safer Roads Act states

 

That seems a bit draconian. It just doesn't make sense to me that a violation with as serious consequences as this would be considered proven based solely on charges made by a traffic officer, considering the number of criminal and traffic cases that are overturned by courts and judges every day. Where do we generally see such things? Third world countries and maybe China? What happened to justice in Canada?

Link to comment

Sorry but I don't understand the excitement over high penalties for driving 30+ mph over the speed limit.

 

Don't ignore the due process issue - a cop w/ a malfunctioning radar gun can take your property before you have a chance to defend yourself from the charges.

 

IMO people who intentionally and grossly endanger the lives of others should lose their driving privilege.

 

I have been in many places where 120 mph on a bike is not endangering anybody but myself and possibly a hare or a couple hundred bugs. I should lose my bike because I enjoy going fast in the middle of nowhere sometimes? If there's a cop in an airplane and he / she catches me going really fast on a deserted stretch of road I do not agree that forfeiting my property is a reasonable penalty.

 

I don't need government to protect me from me.

 

 

If this law was predicated on ACTUAL street racing, which is dangerous to others typically, it would be different, but it would also beg the question as to why they don't simply define reckless driving so as to include street racing (if it isn't already so defined) and stiffen the penalty for that.

 

Oh, that's right - too much work to prove.

 

Easier to just slap an arbitrary MPH figure on things and let a radar gun do the work, and generate those revenues and press clippings.

Link to comment
[ In case you haven't done the math that happens to be 51+ mph in a school zone, 66 mph thru my neighborhood, or 106+ mph on the "fast" sections of interstate in Colorado. If ya wanna drive that fast take your bike to the track where it'll be safer for yourself and others. I think more states should enact similar penalties. thumbsup.gif IMO people who intentionally and grossly endanger the lives of others should lose their driving privilege.
OK, 51+ in a school/residential zone I'll stipulate. That's flat out wrong. However, 106+ on a freeway is not that fast (if it's designed for it, which again, many interstates in the US aren't). Things tend to get interesting around 150 or so.

 

This is obviously a revenue generating ploy... if you're hiring new traffic cops to "rack up several of the expensive new fines", that's not for safety's sake.

 

Good luck Canadians. I actually hope that some lawmakers try to implement something similar here. Maybe then it will allow us to reevaluate our own archaic highway speed limits.

Link to comment

I can't honestly see the guy getting convicted. He dumped the bike and riding gear ran home and reported the bike stolen and then they arrested and charged him.

 

Did anyone actually ID him as the rider? NO

 

So unless they do some DNA testing on the gear found near the bike and prove it was his I can't see how he will be convicted.

 

 

 

The other thing that burns me is he only had a M1 licence.

Which is the first step to a full M (motorcycle) licence.

That means he shouldn't have even been on the bike after dark let alone on the 407 Hwy. (M1 = no 400 series Hwys.) Let alone going 250 Kph.

 

I don't condone this type of behavior and I hope they throw the book at him. But don't make me and every other motorcyclist in Ontario pay for this kids stupidity.

 

From what I understand if your convicted of street racing your car will be crushed. Now at 50 Kph. over they can do the same thing!

 

The speed limit on most major Hwys. 100 Kph, and a few at 110. Most people will do 120 to 130 average.

50 over in a school zone rated at 40 is way too fast but 50 over in a 100 isn't quite the same thing.

150 Kph = 93.2 Mph how many of you have gone that fast on your RT? Is it fair to crush your bike for a little excess speed?

 

It's all about the upcoming election!

 

 

What's wrong with a hefty?

 

I guess my insurance will be going up again! eek.gif

Link to comment
Sorry but I don't understand the excitement over high penalties for driving 30+ mph over the speed limit. In case you haven't done the math that happens to be 51+ mph in a school zone, 66 mph thru my neighborhood, or 106+ mph on the "fast" sections of interstate in Colorado.
It's just not that simple, even for some of us who can do the math. 51 mph in a school zone and 106 mph on an open deserted highway are not at all the same thing in terms of risk. And around here there are 'school zones' that often don't have any children present and are so far from a school that it's easy to not even be aware that you're in a school zone if you don't happen to see the sign. Yes, you should be attentive to signs and subject to a citation if you are not, but $10k fine and impoundment of the vehicle? It's not difficult to see how that could be absurdly excessive in many cases. That's why there's due process required even for traffic violations... Well, there used to be anyway...

 

And that's not even including the fact that in this case a penalty is being applied where no violation of the original law (against street racing) has even occurred. A classic example of how over-the-top this mania has become.

Link to comment

I don't want some LEO confiscating my ride and license without a opportunity to defend myself. This is punishment without due process.
OK, before we get our _____s in a wad too much, let's fully understand the act...

 

It allows the confiscation and impoundment of the vehicle for up to seven days, not permanently without due process. Everyone still gets their day in court, right to a defense, has to be convicted, etc. The same situation exist under certain circumstances in the USA. The sensationalist headline linked to above is conveniently cherry-picking only part of the whole story... Ontario didn't suddenly turn into a police-state last night while we were sleeping.

Link to comment
then we should adjust it to the offenders ability to pay.
Huh? So poor people would have a less incentive to obey the laws richer ones because it cost them less? Sorry you lost me.
Link to comment
then we should adjust it to the offenders ability to pay.
Huh? So poor people would have a less incentive to obey the laws richer ones because it cost them less? Sorry you lost me.

 

At the moment the rich have less incentive to obey the law than the poor. $1000 is a tip to Bill Gates whereas $100 is a fortune to a bum.

 

One of the Scandinavian countries has a fine system based on ability to pay. The fine levied is not a fixed sum but a percentage of income, that way it is thought, the fine is equally painful no matter what the defendants circumstances.

 

Andy

Link to comment
Ontario didn't suddenly turn into a police-state last night while we were sleeping.
No, it took a little longer than that... grin.gif

 

Yes, I'm sure it's a great relief for a citizen of Ontario to know that they may get their confiscated car back after a period of time and the expenditure of sufficient legal fees. And yes, the story did kind of cherry-pick the bad news... perhaps you could highlight some of the positive aspects of a $10k fine and vehicle forfeiture for a speeding violation.

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

At the moment the rich have less incentive to obey the law than the poor. $1000 is a tip to Bill Gates whereas $100 is a fortune to a bum.

 

One of the Scandinavian countries has a fine system based on ability to pay. The fine levied is not a fixed sum but a percentage of income, that way it is thought, the fine is equally painful no matter what the defendants circumstances.

 

If you really want to adjust it to ability to pay, you should probably eliminate the money part entirely. There are some very wealthy people who have small annual incomes, and also some people with fairly large annual incomes who for various reasons, sometimes frivilous, sometimes serious like family medical problems, have little wealth left over at the end of the year. So without doing an extensive financial analysis, it would be difficult to tell what the impact of a particular fine would be on someone.

 

What we all have an equal amount of is time. So what would be a truly equal punishment would be for Britney Spears and Joe Dumpster-Diver to both have to spend equal amounts of time picking up trash alongside the road.

Link to comment

On a somewhat related note, on my recent trip I observed that the RCMP in BC is using unmarked Dodge minivans for speed enforcement. The emergency lights are even hidden behind dark tinted windows. All the ones I saw were light green, however I don't know if all of them are.

 

On our journey south from Dawson Creek, Tom and rode from Whistler to Vancouver on the Sea-to-Sky Highway. This is under heavy construction in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics, and there were numerous areas where we had to wait for a flagman. Most of the road was under a 50 km/hr construction speed limit. But we got to one stretch of otherwise unencumbered 4-lane, still covered by the 50 limit, and we all decided it was time to pass some cars and trucks, probably out of frustration. We hit a rolling roadblock at one point, and a woman in an SUV who'd been tailgating us on and off passed us and the heretofore anonymous minivan ahead of us on the right, then pulled in front of the minivan. Red and blue lights suddenly erupted in the minivan's rear window, leaving Tom and I quite surprised, and grateful it had been ahead of us.

Link to comment
On a somewhat related note, on my recent trip I observed that the RCMP in BC is using unmarked Dodge minivans for speed enforcement. The emergency lights are even hidden behind dark tinted windows. All the ones I saw were light green, however I don't know if all of them are.

 

On our journey south from Dawson Creek, Tom and rode from Whistler to Vancouver on the Sea-to-Sky Highway. This is under heavy construction in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics, and there were numerous areas where we had to wait for a flagman. Most of the road was under a 50 km/hr construction speed limit. But we got to one stretch of otherwise unencumbered 4-lane, still covered by the 50 limit, and we all decided it was time to pass some cars and trucks, probably out of frustration. We hit a rolling roadblock at one point, and a woman in an SUV who'd been tailgating us on and off passed us and the heretofore anonymous minivan ahead of us on the right, then pulled in front of the minivan. Red and blue lights suddenly erupted in the minivan's rear window, leaving Tom and I quite surprised, and grateful it had been ahead of us.

Well I hope she didn't hit the obscene, breakneck speed of 100 kph (62 mph) or her SUV might have soon been painted green...

Link to comment

I have been in many places where 120 mph on a bike is not endangering anybody but myself and possibly a hare or a couple hundred bugs. I should lose my bike because I enjoy going fast in the middle of nowhere sometimes? If there's a cop in an airplane and he / she catches me going really fast on a deserted stretch of road I do not agree that forfeiting my property is a reasonable penalty.

Well if you get your jollies going 100++ mph and don't want to be subject to the penalties, then find a nice track...

 

Your response, and that of others is probably along the same mind set of the people who make illegal u-turns across interstate medians. We've had several fatalities in CO which were caused by this - but the people who made the u-turn never seem to be the ones involved in the accident. These people may never know they caused the death of others.

 

Back to the Ontario laws, I was wondering how long it would be before the "it's all about the revenue" folks would chime in. I have yet to see anyone present any "real" facts, but this seems to be a religion so I suppose one should not expect this to be based on fact or reason.

 

Arbitrary speed limits? Perhaps they would seem to be from someone with no experience and who is an "outsider", but for traffic to be safe for the masses there must be some form of order which implies there must be rules. While one could argue tractor trailers, passenger cars, and motorcycles are sufficiently different they should have separate speed limits, however where do you draw the line? For example are high performance sports cars grouped with MC's, and where does an SUV towing a boat fit? Which laws apply to my 80+ year old relatives who drive really nice cars but who IMO really shouldn't even be on the road because they are confused so easily. My point? Someone needs to define the rules of the road and they need to be simple. Sure, the speed limits aren't perfect but who ever said they would be? Not sure about your area, but speed limits change out here as people complain to the appropriate state/county/city departments.

Link to comment

Okay, I could still go 160 kph on the Edmonton-Jasper highway, and 150 on most other highways. The RT loves to go 140-160, and I do too!

Link to comment
It allows the confiscation and impoundment of the vehicle for up to seven days,...

Uhhh, no.

 

The exact quote is, "The change in definition also means that the word of a police officer is all that it takes to confiscate a car and driver's license for at least seven days."

Link to comment
russell_bynum
[ In case you haven't done the math that happens to be 51+ mph in a school zone, 66 mph thru my neighborhood, or 106+ mph on the "fast" sections of interstate in Colorado. If ya wanna drive that fast take your bike to the track where it'll be safer for yourself and others. I think more states should enact similar penalties. thumbsup.gif IMO people who intentionally and grossly endanger the lives of others should lose their driving privilege.
OK, 51+ in a school/residential zone I'll stipulate. That's flat out wrong. However, 106+ on a freeway is not that fast (if it's designed for it, which again, many interstates in the US aren't). Things tend to get interesting around 150 or so.

 

This is obviously a revenue generating ploy... if you're hiring new traffic cops to "rack up several of the expensive new fines", that's not for safety's sake.

 

Yep.

 

From a reaction time perspective, it's probably more dangerous to go 20mph (the speed limit) in my neighborhood, than it is to go 120mph out on a deserted stretch of I-8 in the desert.

 

But let's not confuse the situation with logic and facts.

Link to comment
Back to the Ontario laws, I was wondering how long it would be before the "it's all about the revenue" folks would chime in. I have yet to see anyone present any "real" facts, but this seems to be a religion so I suppose one should not expect this to be based on fact or reason.

 

So I assume you can provide facts linking traffic laws and higher fines to increased traffic safety then? Or is that your religion?

 

 

 

I'm not sure how you are linking me having a little fun when nobody's around to me making an illegal turn in front of other motorists causing their deaths. I have never killed or injured another person while driving a vehicle. Do you think me speeding through a deserted area devoid of houses somehow puts others at risk? Please explain how.

 

 

 

For those pointing out that there are situations in the US where your vehicle is impounded, I assume you refer to DUI. The subtle difference is that DUI is undoubtedly dangerous to others for starters and there is a standard for being arrested for DUI that combines the officers' judgement and a mechanical check. All that said, disagreeing with this law in Canada doesn't mean I agree with the immediate impounding of vehicles for DUI in the US.

Link to comment

Arbitrary speed limits? Perhaps they would seem to be from someone with no experience and who is an "outsider", but for traffic to be safe for the masses there must be some form of order which implies there must be rules. While one could argue tractor trailers, passenger cars, and motorcycles are sufficiently different they should have separate speed limits, however where do you draw the line? For example are high performance sports cars grouped with MC's, and where does an SUV towing a boat fit? Which laws apply to my 80+ year old relatives who drive really nice cars but who IMO really shouldn't even be on the road because they are confused so easily. My point? Someone needs to define the rules of the road and they need to be simple. Sure, the speed limits aren't perfect but who ever said they would be? Not sure about your area, but speed limits change out here as people complain to the appropriate state/county/city departments.

 

I got the impression you were going to refute the arbitrariness when you started that paragraph. Imagine my surprise when you effectively supported the argument that speed limits are arbitrarily set.

Link to comment
perhaps you could highlight some of the positive aspects of a $10k fine and vehicle forfeiture for a speeding violation.
Well they probably won't do it twice! And it will be a deterrent to some people anyway from doing it even once. Which after all is the whole point of punishments, in just about anything.
Link to comment
Well I hope she didn't hit the obscene, breakneck speed of 100 kph
Seth, the new fines are for 150 kph on most major highways, not 100 kpm. Let's at least keep our facts honest OK?
Link to comment
Well they probably won't do it twice! And it will be a deterrent to some people anyway from doing it even once. Which after all is the whole point of punishments, in just about anything.
Well uh, yeah... so would a bullet to the head... but there's that niggling little issue of the punishment fitting the crime.
Link to comment
Well uh, yeah... so would a bullet to the head... but there's that niggling little issue of the punishment fitting the crime.

 

Tsk, tsk, Seth. Speed kills. Therefore, those who speed kill.

 

Violators are lucky they're not being charged with murder.

Link to comment
Violators are lucky they're not being charged with murder.
Hey, great idea. In the spirit of this law, let's charge them with murder. Of course no matter that a murder didn't actually occur...
Link to comment
It allows the confiscation and impoundment of the vehicle for up to seven days,...

Uhhh, no.

 

 

The exact quote is, "The change in definition also means that the word of a police officer is all that it takes to confiscate a car and driver's license for at least seven days."

Uhhh, no to your no.

 

The article's quote aside,

 

The actual statue is:

 

Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, 2007, 2007, c. 13, ss. 1-24

 

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).

 

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Well uh, yeah... so would a bullet to the head... but there's that niggling little issue of the punishment fitting the crime.

 

Tsk, tsk, Seth. Speed kills. Therefore, those who speed kill.

 

Violators are lucky they're not being charged with murder.

 

 

Just to clarify, speed doesn't kill. Sudden deceleration is the culprit.

 

 

SHIMHEAD

06 R12RT

Link to comment
So I assume you can provide facts linking traffic laws and higher fines to increased traffic safety then? Or is that your religion?
Dude, you ought to lay off the ad hominem attacks.
Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

(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).

 

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.

 

Costs to be paid before release of vehicle

 

The problem with this is that by the time you add up the storage costs and the costs of being without a vehicle for seven days, you've probably got the equivalent of a $1,000 fine, for which there is no possibility of a hearing or an appeal. I very much doubt that Canadian law provides that if a person is found innocent, the government will refund his storage costs, his transportation costs, or the costs of missing work to defend himself and get his motorcycle from wherever it's being stored. So in essence, the traffic officers can assess rather substantial penalties for which there is no appeal.

Link to comment

I had to chime in on this one.

 

I drive 1,200 km on an average week, calling on bike shops in the Toronto area.

 

This law is aimed at the idiots that weave thru thraffic, at excessive speeds on the 400 series controled access highways that never have a low traffic period where a motorcyclist (with any brains) would like to stretch the limits.

 

I have been riding on the roads of Ontario for 30+ years and have had a few tickets. Some that could have been huge, but were lowered by the traffic cop, as I was endangering no one but myself.

 

I witness these solo racing idiots almost daily in my travels and each time they are causing other startled motorists to pile on the brakes, disrupting traffic flow etc.

 

I don't like Maguintey's politics, but this one I must agree with.

 

My 2 cents worth.

Link to comment

Still doesn't fly.

 

You said "up to seven days". That seems to imply that seven days constitutes some sort of maximum time period. What the statute says, in effect, is that seven days is the minimum, and that according to subsection 15, upon payment of removal and impound fees the vehicle will be released. The problem is, if those fees aren't paid, for whatever reason, the vehicle is still for all intents and purposes, under impoundment until such time that they are paid. The quote from the article is dead on.

 

Now the license, that is a seven day max. Whether the Canuck DMV tacks on more time is a different subject.

Link to comment
The problem is, if those fees aren't paid, for whatever reason, the vehicle is still for all intents and purposes, under impoundment until such time that they are paid
But then it's no longer an impoundment, it's voluntarily leaving the vehicle in storage. You are free to come get it after 7 days. The fact that you can't or don't pay the fees doesn't make it ongoing involuntarily impounded from you.
Link to comment
russell_bynum
The problem is, if those fees aren't paid, for whatever reason, the vehicle is still for all intents and purposes, under impoundment until such time that they are paid
But then it's no longer an impoundment, it's voluntarily leaving the vehicle in storage. You are free to come get it after 7 days. The fact that you can't or don't pay the fees doesn't make it ongoing involuntarily impounded from you.

 

eek.gif

Link to comment
Just to clarify, speed doesn't kill. Sudden deceleration is the culprit.

That's not what the "experts" say.

Perhaps the "experts" are too wrapped up in physics??? Or to put it another way, without "speed" one can not achieve sufficient deceleration to cause injury and/or death. Similarly, reducing speed exponentially reduces the energy in an accident.

Less energy => less damage => less chance for injury and/or death. No??? confused.gif

Link to comment
So I assume you can provide facts linking traffic laws and higher fines to increased traffic safety then? Or is that your religion?
Sorry for the confusion . My point is that there are many who believe that the reason fines are used is only to raise revenue. While I can understand the passion and emotion on this subject, I can not find nor have I seen anyone present data which supports this belief. The two questions which beg to be answered are:

 

1. Are the fines actually a positive revenue stream? As opposed to revenue which just helps offset the cost of the police, judges, equipment, police facilities and equipment, etc. etc.

 

2. When the fines were set, was the intent of the politicians to raise revenue or was it some other motivation? For example were they trying (misguided or not) to make the roads safer, appease constituents, or some other motivation?

 

I'm not sure how you are linking me having a little fun when nobody's around to me making an illegal turn in front of other motorists causing their deaths. I have never killed or injured another person while driving a vehicle. Do you think me speeding through a deserted area devoid of houses somehow puts others at risk? Please explain how.
My point was not directed at you - I have no knowledge of where/how you ride. My point is that many times the people who create the accidents are not the ones involved. I frequently see this on the Colorado highways: vehicle flies up the right lane of the interstate and just before they reach a slow moving vehicle they suddenly swerve into a small opening in the left lane. The vehicle in the left lane brakes hard creating a domino effect of people slamming on their brakes where a vehicle with too little reaction time or a driver who is inattentive collides with the vehicle in front of them. This is even more exciting in winter (icy) conditions! eek.gif
Link to comment
Violators are lucky they're not being charged with murder.
Hey, great idea. In the spirit of this law, let's charge them with murder. Of course no matter that a murder didn't actually occur...
Actually I believe they typically charge people with "manslaughter" in traffic related deaths.
Link to comment
I got the impression you were going to refute the arbitrariness when you started that paragraph. Imagine my surprise when you effectively supported the argument that speed limits are arbitrarily set.
Ummmm, yes and no.
Link to comment
So I assume you can provide facts linking traffic laws and higher fines to increased traffic safety then? Or is that your religion?
Dude, you ought to lay off the ad hominem attacks.

 

How is that a personal attack?

Link to comment

 

"Just on the balance of probabilities if we can establish that a car is being used for the unlawful purpose of street racing, we will seize it and you will never see it again. We will crush your car, we will crush the parts."

 

Wow.

 

If it's more probable than not that your car may be used for racing, we'll take it. The tenses don't all match up there, but given that the rest of the quotes talk about seizing and destroying before they even hit the street, it doesn't really seem to be about seizing them if it's probably that they've actually been used in street "racing."

 

Imagine this standard applied to motorcycles. Wearing racing leathers with beefed up suspension on your Gixxer? Watch it get crushed. Along with your replica helmet.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...