Another "Damn Street Racer" busted!

Moderators: Radar Identified, Reflections, admin, hwybear, Decatur, bend

User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Toronto

Moderator

by: Radar Identified on
Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:26 am

Squishy wrote:Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply.
S. 128 would have worked in these circumstances and I don't think most of us would've had any problem with the officer using s. 128 instead of s. 172. Nothing about 172 limits or prevents the use of 128. We've even seen one case on this forum where someone was going 155 km/h a few months ago and was charged under s. 128. No roadside trial or impoundment, but severe consequences imposed upon conviction. So, no argument with you on that point.

The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger. The fact that he was pulled over meant the speeding was stopped. Very few people who get pulled over then get back on the road and resume driving the exact same way. It is "the law," but the intent of 172 was to "safeguard the public," supposedly. To me that seems to imply that it should only be used in limited circumstances, not whenever possible.

(I'd rather just see the whole thing scrapped.)
Squishy wrote:I know, I know...me, Fantino, big gay wedding.
Just remember: You said it, not me. :lol:


cruzmisl
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:24 pm

by: cruzmisl on
Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:03 pm

Regular guy is synonymous with "average Joe":D

In this context though a "regular" guy is anyone with no significant driving offence history and has the appropriate attitude.


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Stratford, Ontario

by: Bookm on
Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:02 am

Radar Identified wrote:The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger.
Bingo!


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “General Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests