Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news. I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation. To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done properly is in the language of Section 33.1 and is generally known as the Not Withstanding Clause. How it is interpreted makes a big difference. As well, the numbers the government used were pulled out of context from Ministry of Transport Charts that due to the way they are set up are nearly meaningless. The significance of street racing to the total accident picture is fractional. The government blew the issue way out of proportion without substantiating the numbers. In fact the numbers for 2006 and 2007 have not yet been released to the public. When they are, I will be the first to know because they will be issued to me first. So what were the numbers that were used to justify denying our rights? We don't know. My research covers the years 2000 to 2007. There are no street racing statistics at all. Street racing has never been significant enough to warrant a category of its own and it still isn't. Basically, the legislature had to have enacted the law based on fictional numbers. That is fraud. When the first cars were seized and towed under the Civil Remedies Act, that was car theft and extortion. The Civil Remedies Act was never intended to be used as it was and since it's federal legislation the province didn't have the option to change the wording. The wording is key and essentially confirms the police did not have a legal right to impound and crush anyone's cars. The money that had to be paid by those apprehended was done by extortion. My contention is that the Ontario government is going to have to pay all of that money back and then some to the victims of our various police forces' illegal actions. The reason I wrote the book is so that the general public is made aware that not only is the law illegal, but in other ways it destablizes all Ontario legislation. Section 172 is a law that needs to be re-written. But it won't be re-written unless enough people understand how dangerous this legislation is and gets informed enough to go after their MPPs knowledgeably. Elected officials don't like being harassed and they especially don't like to look like fools. If you want this law changed, the ball is entirely in your court. Your MPP is easily found on the net. I hope you are up to the challenge. If you don't like being targeted by illegal police action, this your golden opportunity to help yourself and everyone else at the same time. Ironically, it falls to potential street racers to stand up and protect democracy. I call it poetic justice.
Topic
Section 172 the illegal legislation governing street racing
Anything and everything that you do while driving a car could be considered "racing" or "stunt driving" with that set of definitions. :evil: Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists. :x That may very well be how this law ends up (vehicle seizure struck down, 7-day suspension stays). Quebec now has that for 40 km/h over the limit (cops issue 7-day suspension at the roadside). If the driver is the lone licensed occupant of the vehicle, it gets towed to the driver's home or a place where it can be held until someone can retrieve it. I still think that for most of the offences defined as "stunt driving" that the suspension and seizure is way too much, I think a normal PON would do just fine. If someone is genuinely racing or driving in an absolutely extreme manner (e.g. 300 km/h on the 400, 231 on the DVP), they should be arrested and spend the night in one of our lovely local jails, like the Don Jail or the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Detention Centre. :twisted:
Reflections wrote:
too many loose definitions
Anything and everything that you do while driving a car could be considered "racing" or "stunt driving" with that set of definitions. Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists.
hwybear wrote:
Exactly, then it would be "on-line" with the 90 day suspension (ie charged with offence, loss of licence)
That may very well be how this law ends up (vehicle seizure struck down, 7-day suspension stays). Quebec now has that for 40 km/h over the limit (cops issue 7-day suspension at the roadside). If the driver is the lone licensed occupant of the vehicle, it gets towed to the driver's home or a place where it can be held until someone can retrieve it. I still think that for most of the offences defined as "stunt driving" that the suspension and seizure is way too much, I think a normal PON would do just fine. If someone is genuinely racing or driving in an absolutely extreme manner (e.g. 300 km/h on the 400, 231 on the DVP), they should be arrested and spend the night in one of our lovely local jails, like the Don Jail or the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Detention Centre.
If only that were true, I'd support 172 myself. But it is not true. There is an astounding number of sloppily conceived definitions of what 172 calls "Stunt Driving" hiding under the deliberately misleading "Street Racing" title, any of which leads to instant, brutally expensive on-the-spot penalties without trial or avenues of appeal the moment the officer decides, for whatever reason, to lay a 172 charge. Whether or not there is ever a conviction on the charge is irrelevant, if in fact the case ever even makes it to court. The law also explicitly removes the charged person's right to seek redress, for any reason. Every (sane) driver is against street racing, so that's why the authorities call it the Street Racing law and are careful to spin it as an initiative aimed at stopping that. But steet racing is not the issue: it's what's hiding under the rock that's the problem. I could be persuaded that going 50k over is automatic evidence of Dangerous Driving -- but we already have tried and proven laws against Dangerous Driving. And Careless. And Speeding, etc. 172 is a subversion of the Canadian judicial process. It is bad law.
cruzmisl wrote:
Just stay below 49km/h over the limit and you'll get to work just fine.
If only that were true, I'd support 172 myself. But it is not true. There is an astounding number of sloppily conceived definitions of what 172 calls "Stunt Driving" hiding under the deliberately misleading "Street Racing" title, any of which leads to instant, brutally expensive on-the-spot penalties without trial or avenues of appeal the moment the officer decides, for whatever reason, to lay a 172 charge. Whether or not there is ever a conviction on the charge is irrelevant, if in fact the case ever even makes it to court. The law also explicitly removes the charged person's right to seek redress, for any reason.
Every (sane) driver is against street racing, so that's why the authorities call it the Street Racing law and are careful to spin it as an initiative aimed at stopping that. But steet racing is not the issue: it's what's hiding under the rock that's the problem. I could be persuaded that going 50k over is automatic evidence of Dangerous Driving -- but we already have tried and proven laws against Dangerous Driving. And Careless. And Speeding, etc.
172 is a subversion of the Canadian judicial process. It is bad law.
Even after an investigation mistakes are made, idiotic as they may be! http://www.thestar.com/article/571339 Innocent people have been convicted after lengthy trials and sent to jail for criminal offences, only to be found innocent after spending years in jail. And yet with a conviction rate under 50% for those charged under this farce of a law, yet everyone them have been penalized one way or another, Guilty as Julian would call it! I know one thing for sure, Fantino is grateful for his day in court(s), every dog has it's day!
Innocent people have been convicted after lengthy trials and sent to jail for criminal offences, only to be found innocent after spending years in jail.
And yet with a conviction rate under 50% for those charged under this farce of a law, yet everyone them have been penalized one way or another, Guilty as Julian would call it!
I know one thing for sure, Fantino is grateful for his day in court(s), every dog has it's day!
Oh good grief. That post-incident shenanigans from that crash has turned into a Gong Show. :roll: We are the same province that thought Dr. Charles Smith was the Super-God of Paediatric Forensics, and look how that turned out. That's what happens when too much unquestioned trust and power is placed in someone's hands. Checks and balances are needed; this law doesn't have any. Agreed completely. Good laws strengthen our society, bad laws weaken it.
Oh good grief. That post-incident shenanigans from that crash has turned into a Gong Show.
BelSlySTi wrote:
Innocent people have been convicted after lengthy trials and sent to jail for criminal offences, only to be found innocent after spending years in jail.
We are the same province that thought Dr. Charles Smith was the Super-God of Paediatric Forensics, and look how that turned out. That's what happens when too much unquestioned trust and power is placed in someone's hands. Checks and balances are needed; this law doesn't have any.
Proper1 wrote:
172 is a subversion of the Canadian judicial process. It is bad law.
Agreed completely. Good laws strengthen our society, bad laws weaken it.
Does not prevent them from going to work...use their legs, bicycle, carpool, bus....it's also better for the environment :) The only guy that that drove the same route as me is no longer working here and 86 km one way is too far to walk. I suppose I could take a weeks holidays.......and watch my insurance sky-rocket..........and be out the non-refundable $1000 bucks because of a mistake. And all the while, if I'm innocent, I lose, the government looks like the lost souls that they are and nobody in the faceless justice system gives a rats ass. All this so some goof ball polititian could get re-elected in his riding and is never heard from again.......hope his 5 years gets him a nice pension.
hwybear wrote:
Reflections wrote:
Modify it so that a person does not lose their ability to goto work for a week. .....
Does not prevent them from going to work...use their legs, bicycle, carpool, bus....it's also better for the environment
The only guy that that drove the same route as me is no longer working here and 86 km one way is too far to walk. I suppose I could take a weeks holidays.......and watch my insurance sky-rocket..........and be out the non-refundable $1000 bucks because of a mistake. And all the while, if I'm innocent, I lose, the government looks like the lost souls that they are and nobody in the faceless justice system gives a rats ass. All this so some goof ball polititian could get re-elected in his riding and is never heard from again.......hope his 5 years gets him a nice pension.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
This is gonna be offtop... Straight out of the article Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a lot of other things. Let's ask some meaningful questions here. Tyler was 20, so noone prevented him from drinking. Was he overserved? Not really. 8 drinks in 3 hours, with lunch/dinner, seems reasonable to anyone who drinks alcohol. Should he had been driving with that? No. Was he the only one coming up to get the drinks for the table? Noone knows. I'd say no. Also, there is no mention of how drunk Tyler himself was. Maybe the other 2 guys drank most? Maybe he drank most? Maybe the 3 guys had 10 drinks while the girl had only one, and she was supposed to be a DD? Seems likely given she was the only one to escape drowning vehicle, so she must have been the most sober. Why are these questions NOT asked in the investigation? Lets ask the father some questions. He answere some here: http://santaclausfund.ca/News/Ontario/article/475196, a Toronto Star website. So, using this logic, if a 50-old-feller drinks, takes his 'vette out for a drive with his grandson, and crashes into a minivan killing 8 people in it, including a pregnant woman (OK, that's too gruesome i agree), himself, and his grandson, would the drinking law have to be changed to 51? I agree with everything he says but the 1-st sentence. And then Tim went out and bought his son a high performance sport sedan. By Audi. Not a Beetle, not a Malibu, not a Camry, not even a Taurus, all good vehicles to get one from A to B. A friggin Audi. :? Some responsibility here? Hello.... People going to a bar to have more than 1 beer? When did THAT become news? I don't drink and drive, so when I drink I usually have well above the legal driving limit. And that had never been a problem with anyone. If someone goes to a bar, and the server tells him he's had enough after one drink, nothing will stop that someone to go home and drink more yet. And when we drink at home, we usually drink more than we do in bars and restaurants. Nothing at home really stops people from driving either. Noone comes to a bar saying "I'm driving tonight". What TM does not realise is that bar owner are not running their bar to control how much your precious son drinks before he drives. They sell alcohol to make a living. If bartenders were only allowed to serve no more than 2 drinks to a person, we'd have 1/10 of the bars we have, and a beer would be $10 in there. Even more reason to drink at home. The Smart Serve recommends stopping serving alcohol to persons who exhibit 3 or more of the following signs of intoxication: + fine motor coordination shot (difficulty picking up change, difficulty removing cards from wallet, etc.) + speaking too loud or too softly + talking fast, then slow, then fast + slurred speech + bloodshot eyes + sweating when no one else is + dopey, not alert (respond slowly to questions) + poor motor control (stumbling, bumping into others) + breathing slower and lighter than others + sleepiness I know for a fact that I would develop "3 or more" of these from 8 drinks over 3 hours. Maybe Tyler and Co. were cut off the bar. Maybe he left angry at the bar for cutting him off? That is not uncommon especially when people are drinking. Maybe being cut off angered him enough to push the DD away and take the control to himself? And then to go Johnny Leadfoot on the pedal? Where is the statement of the only witness? She could tell us a LOT. The only thing we hear is "X charges have been laid against so and so". Charges are not results, and this is not a police state, but frightening people with BS charges is a prime example of one. As bear said in "Don't ditch your Car, OR ELSE..." topic, in his reply to my comment: Here, in this context, I wholeheartedly agree. To Tim M.: stop shifting blame on young people, bartenders, servers, the AGCO, LLA, the OHTA, and everyone else, but again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.
The group was reportedly served 31 drinks over the course of three hours. They left in Mulcahy's Audi and crashed through a guardrail along the Joseph River sometime after 6 p.m. Only Elzinga was able to escape the sinking car.
Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a lot of other things.
Let's ask some meaningful questions here. Tyler was 20, so noone prevented him from drinking. Was he overserved? Not really. 8 drinks in 3 hours, with lunch/dinner, seems reasonable to anyone who drinks alcohol. Should he had been driving with that? No. Was he the only one coming up to get the drinks for the table? Noone knows. I'd say no. Also, there is no mention of how drunk Tyler himself was. Maybe the other 2 guys drank most? Maybe he drank most? Maybe the 3 guys had 10 drinks while the girl had only one, and she was supposed to be a DD? Seems likely given she was the only one to escape drowning vehicle, so she must have been the most sober. Why are these questions NOT asked in the investigation?
I'd like Tyler's accident to make a difference. I really feel there needs to be zero tolerance for alcohol up to the age of 21. Once someone takes one drink, it's easy to take two, three, four or 10 because we stop thinking.
So, using this logic, if a 50-old-feller drinks, takes his 'vette out for a drive with his grandson, and crashes into a minivan killing 8 people in it, including a pregnant woman (OK, that's too gruesome i agree), himself, and his grandson, would the drinking law have to be changed to 51?
What do you think parents should do?
Parents need to lobby the government to make changes. We tell our children all the time – as I told Tyler – don't drink and drive and don't speed. I know that I have said this to Tyler over 100 times. Obviously that doesn't work.
I agree with everything he says but the 1-st sentence.
Tyler had a speeding charge in 2006. How did you address that?
As I said, I told Tyler not to speed. I told him, `Your friends that are speeding are irresponsible.' I am not certain if he even mentioned the speeding ticket to me.
Why did you stress that?
Just because his friends talked about speeding so much. I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.
And then Tim went out and bought his son a high performance sport sedan. By Audi. Not a Beetle, not a Malibu, not a Camry, not even a Taurus, all good vehicles to get one from A to B. A friggin Audi. Some responsibility here?
What role does the club play in these types of situations?
I believe that many bars and clubs and restaurants across Canada serve people too much alcohol before they drive.
Hello.... People going to a bar to have more than 1 beer? When did THAT become news? I don't drink and drive, so when I drink I usually have well above the legal driving limit. And that had never been a problem with anyone. If someone goes to a bar, and the server tells him he's had enough after one drink, nothing will stop that someone to go home and drink more yet. And when we drink at home, we usually drink more than we do in bars and restaurants. Nothing at home really stops people from driving either. Noone comes to a bar saying "I'm driving tonight". What TM does not realise is that bar owner are not running their bar to control how much your precious son drinks before he drives. They sell alcohol to make a living. If bartenders were only allowed to serve no more than 2 drinks to a person, we'd have 1/10 of the bars we have, and a beer would be $10 in there. Even more reason to drink at home.
The Smart Serve recommends stopping serving alcohol to persons who exhibit 3 or more of the following signs of intoxication:
+ fine motor coordination shot (difficulty picking
up change, difficulty removing cards from wallet,
etc.)
+ speaking too loud or too softly
+ talking fast, then slow, then fast
+ slurred speech
+ bloodshot eyes
+ sweating when no one else is
+ dopey, not alert (respond slowly to questions)
+ poor motor control (stumbling, bumping into
others)
+ breathing slower and lighter than others
+ sleepiness
I know for a fact that I would develop "3 or more" of these from 8 drinks over 3 hours. Maybe Tyler and Co. were cut off the bar. Maybe he left angry at the bar for cutting him off? That is not uncommon especially when people are drinking. Maybe being cut off angered him enough to push the DD away and take the control to himself? And then to go Johnny Leadfoot on the pedal? Where is the statement of the only witness? She could tell us a LOT. The only thing we hear is "X charges have been laid against so and so". Charges are not results, and this is not a police state, but frightening people with BS charges is a prime example of one.
As bear said in "Don't ditch your Car, OR ELSE..." topic, in his reply to my comment:
hwybear wrote:
People rely way too much on someone else to do something, then to blame them for their own ...
Here, in this context, I wholeheartedly agree. To Tim M.: stop shifting blame on young people, bartenders, servers, the AGCO, LLA, the OHTA, and everyone else, but again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.
Last edited by racer on Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Lost souls is the farthest from thr truth..............all you need to do is sit in one session , you get a full pension and what really bothers me, it that any MPP can move,withdrawl, cash in and LIF,LIRA (retirement fund) 100%, and all tax free. Now let Joe Taxpayer try and do that in Ontario at the very most your going to get is 25% and only when your at deaths door, which is heavily taxed!
Reflections wrote:
the government looks like the lost souls that they are and nobody in the faceless justice system gives a rats ass. All this so some goof ball polititian could get re-elected in his riding and is never heard from again.......hope his 5 years gets him a nice pension.
Lost souls is the farthest from thr truth..............all you need to do is sit in one session , you get a full pension and what really bothers me, it that any MPP can move,withdrawl, cash in and LIF,LIRA (retirement fund) 100%, and all tax free.
Now let Joe Taxpayer try and do that in Ontario at the very most your going to get is 25% and only when your at deaths door, which is heavily taxed!
easier...8 x 15 = 120mgs (total drinks) minus 3 x 15 = 45mgs (less 3 hrs of elimination) total is 75mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood
racer wrote:
This is gonna be offtop...
Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a lot of other things. .
easier...8 x 15 = 120mgs (total drinks)
minus 3 x 15 = 45mgs (less 3 hrs of elimination)
total is 75mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
"I told Tyler not to speed," and then I bought him a 340 horsepower Audi S4, which, I'm sure, is a great incentive to rigidly obey all traffic laws and drive in a courteous and careful manner. :roll: The actions and words don't match. If his son survived, we all know that Tim Mulcahy would have bought him the best legal defence team that money could buy to get him off the charge. Tim Mulcahy STILL refuses to accept responsibility, at least on an emotional level. He, whether consciously or subconsciously, feels a deep level of guilt for facilitating and enabling this, and does not want that hanging over his head. Why else would he go so crazy about "the government/bars/other people needs to protect my kid because I couldn't do it myself"? Here's another thought: If a cop car had come upon them just after they left the bar, would Tyler be off to the Crowbar Hilton for impaired driving? (Let's assume he was over the legal limit for argument's sake.) What would his father say or do then? Would the bartender and club have been charged for overserving them in that case? Did they ever do a toxicology report and determine just what Tyler's BAC was at the time of death? Tyler was 20, an adult, made poor choices and that's it. When will they start putting the blame at his feet? Oh yeah and isn't it amazing that you can lose your car for 7 days for driving 50 km/h over the speed limit but not for blowing over the limit? And the ADLS for drunk driving can be appealed... not under s. 172, though, there's no appeal there.
racer wrote:
I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.
"I told Tyler not to speed," and then I bought him a 340 horsepower Audi S4, which, I'm sure, is a great incentive to rigidly obey all traffic laws and drive in a courteous and careful manner. The actions and words don't match. If his son survived, we all know that Tim Mulcahy would have bought him the best legal defence team that money could buy to get him off the charge.
Tim Mulcahy STILL refuses to accept responsibility, at least on an emotional level. He, whether consciously or subconsciously, feels a deep level of guilt for facilitating and enabling this, and does not want that hanging over his head. Why else would he go so crazy about "the government/bars/other people needs to protect my kid because I couldn't do it myself"?
Here's another thought: If a cop car had come upon them just after they left the bar, would Tyler be off to the Crowbar Hilton for impaired driving? (Let's assume he was over the legal limit for argument's sake.) What would his father say or do then? Would the bartender and club have been charged for overserving them in that case? Did they ever do a toxicology report and determine just what Tyler's BAC was at the time of death? Tyler was 20, an adult, made poor choices and that's it. When will they start putting the blame at his feet?
Oh yeah and isn't it amazing that you can lose your car for 7 days for driving 50 km/h over the speed limit but not for blowing over the limit? And the ADLS for drunk driving can be appealed... not under s. 172, though, there's no appeal there.
Be careful with quoting, I've never said that:lol:.... The most responsible thing for the bar staff at the restaurant would have been calling the cops to stop the vehicle right after they left... Is that what TM was expecting the restaurant owners to do??? Wouldn't that have had Tyler's license suspended for 90 days (+ 2 years due to his other tickets)? Is that what anyone in his sane mind expects when they go to a bar, for the bartender to call the cops on them the moment they leave the establishment? The truth is, that there is nowhere near enough information right about everything that is relevant to the case. Only names of people who had been charged. I have read the Star's interview of Elzinga, and in that interview she only mentions "having drinks on a terrace". She has never even mentioned that the total was 31 drinks... Not even close to that. I'd love to see the witness report made by OPP.
Radar Identified wrote:
racer wrote:
I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.
Be careful with quoting, I've never said that:lol:....
The most responsible thing for the bar staff at the restaurant would have been calling the cops to stop the vehicle right after they left... Is that what TM was expecting the restaurant owners to do??? Wouldn't that have had Tyler's license suspended for 90 days (+ 2 years due to his other tickets)? Is that what anyone in his sane mind expects when they go to a bar, for the bartender to call the cops on them the moment they leave the establishment?
The truth is, that there is nowhere near enough information right about everything that is relevant to the case. Only names of people who had been charged. I have read the Star's interview of Elzinga, and in that interview she only mentions "having drinks on a terrace". She has never even mentioned that the total was 31 drinks... Not even close to that. I'd love to see the witness report made by OPP.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
Remember the OPP only gathered the evidence and took it to the Crown, the Crown then indicated that charges should be laid based on the totality of the evidence brought to him/her.
racer wrote:
I'd love to see the witness report made by OPP.
Remember the OPP only gathered the evidence and took it to the Crown, the Crown then indicated that charges should be laid based on the totality of the evidence brought to him/her.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Sorry 'bout that. :oops: Should've done this: Quoting Tim Mulcahy: "I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing." The crash happened when we had s. 172 in effect. It didn't stop it. It won't stop similar incidents from occurring. For that matter, it doesn't even stop people from racking up speeds faster than the Indy 500, like 239 on Highway 26, an 80 km/h zone, or 231 km/h on the Don Valley Parkway, a 90 km/h zone, or the guy from Oakville who admitted going 260 km/h on the 401. Taking someone's car for a week might give the safety advocates a warm and fuzzy feeling but many things that are "justified" in the context of safety have ended up putting numerous countries on a slippery slope. I don't think we need to go down that path.
racer wrote:
Be careful with quoting, I've never said that
Sorry 'bout that.
Should've done this:
Quoting Tim Mulcahy: "I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing."
The crash happened when we had s. 172 in effect. It didn't stop it. It won't stop similar incidents from occurring. For that matter, it doesn't even stop people from racking up speeds faster than the Indy 500, like 239 on Highway 26, an 80 km/h zone, or 231 km/h on the Don Valley Parkway, a 90 km/h zone, or the guy from Oakville who admitted going 260 km/h on the 401. Taking someone's car for a week might give the safety advocates a warm and fuzzy feeling but many things that are "justified" in the context of safety have ended up putting numerous countries on a slippery slope. I don't think we need to go down that path.
i'd be interested in finding out how many 172 tickets also had the driver consuming 3-4 pints before driving. Even how many speeding tickets are issued to those consuming "legal" amounts but still a little tipsy....????
i'd be interested in finding out how many 172 tickets also had the driver consuming 3-4 pints before driving. Even how many speeding tickets are issued to those consuming "legal" amounts but still a little tipsy....????
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
A lot of times, just from anecdotal evidence, I hear of someone caught under 172 where it was a big incident, alcohol was also involved. The two most recent were the guy who was caught going 231 on the DVP and another going 148 on Jane Street in Toronto, both of them were over the legal BAC limit.
A lot of times, just from anecdotal evidence, I hear of someone caught under 172 where it was a big incident, alcohol was also involved. The two most recent were the guy who was caught going 231 on the DVP and another going 148 on Jane Street in Toronto, both of them were over the legal BAC limit.
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists. 
Some responsibility here?
