No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public! O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court! Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie? Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo? Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER? I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles. Maybe you can get response from him! Commissioner Fantino, 3rd floor, 777 Memorial Avenue, Orillia, Ontario, L3V 7V3.
Squishy wrote:
Looks like the proposal for 172 was purely to address racing, not speeding/stunting. Maybe the media shouldn't get the blame - but it's stupid how people want to argue semantics. Trying to argue that, "There was only one car! How can that be RACING?!" as if that would get the charge thrown out.
Is it dangerous to do any of the actions classified as stunting or racing by the HTA? Yes it is. So don't do it and no one will have to worry about the consequences. With all the media coverage this has gotten, I'd say 90%, if not 100%, of the province's drivers know of 172. If someone knows the consequences but chooses to break that law anyways, they deserve what they get.
No Squishy it was proposed with the title STREET RACING to sell it to the public!
O.P.P Constable Tapp was charged under HTA 172, minus the impoundment of the police vehicle and found innocent AFTER his day in court!
Did the Officer that laid the charges make a mistake or did she lie?
Or did Constable Tapp lie or did he misread his speedo?
Will one of them make the same mistake when they pull over the next DAMN STREET RACER?
I wrote Julian Fantino letter asking him the same questions, to my surprise I never recieved any response, maybe he's just to busy excersing his right to Due Process with his own legal battles.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
And that's the problem with people disregarding this law just because they don't agree with it. If you continue to violate 172, then a lot more valid cases will make it to court. The lies/mistakes will get lost in all the cases that do result in a conviction. If people stayed within the law and then pointed out, "Hey, most of these 172 tickets don't result in convictions," then it's a lot more likely that 172 will be rewritten. Same with the speed limits. Just disregarding it and speeding isn't going to solve the problem. If everyone drove at the limit, then we would know whether or not 100 km/h is appropriate. I have been on heavily patrolled interstates where the majority of drivers are under or at the speed limit of 60 - they don't seem to have a problem with it.
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent! And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES! No sense in beating a dead horse!
The thing that's being disregard is the CANADIAN CHARTER of RIGHTS
YOU"RE GUILTY until proven innocent!
And even after being found INNOCENT, you're STILL on the HOOK FOR all FEES!
Sgt. Dave Woodford
The accused will have to pay $150 to have his licence re-instated. That fee on top of the cost of towing and impounding the vehicle means the driver will be out about $1,000 before he even gets to court, Woodford said.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law. After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
I agree that the roadside suspension and impoundment are too harsh and probably do violate our Charter (not a lawyer so I can't be 100% sure) - the way 172 is set up, it seems to assume that officers don't make mistakes and never let personal feelings influence things. But violating 172 anyways and then trying to get the cases dismissed is the wrong way to protest it, in my opinion. As the law is already in the books, you should be held to it until it is repealed and should suffer the consequences if you knowingly violate that law.
After re-reading the last bit of this thread, I'm not even sure we're debating the same thing. I'm saying that what 172 tries to stop is a good thing, regardless of the methods used to stop it. I think you're saying that 172 is unconsitutional and thus should be changed - which I don't necessarily disagree with; but we should still have stiff penalties associated with stunting and racing that are imposed by a court.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house???? This law is too much power and not enough control.. I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
And for the time that that policy is in place, I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
What if your neighbour had the fire and the fire department knock down your house????
This law is too much power and not enough control..
I'm all for getting people like these off the streets, making an end run around the Charter is not how it needs to be done. The law makers knew this was in violation of the Charter when they implemented it.......hhhhmmmm, doing something illegal even though you know it's wrong.....sound familiar
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire? In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not. What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
Squishy wrote:
I would make damn sure my kitchen didn't catch fire.
And how many people who have kitchen fires actually meant for their kitchen to catch fire?
In 2006, the government of Canada made street racing a criminal offence. This was long before Bill 203 came into effect, bringing the mandatory impoundment with it. There were already many laws in place that offered options to police and the Crown, some of them featuring jail sentences and permanent seizure of the vehicle after a conviction. It was all constitutionally valid. It offered recourse and options for the accused, while section 172 does not.
What happens in three or four years when this law is found to be unconstitutional? All of the innocent get a big cheque and apology, which is good. What's bad is that all of the guilty will also get a big cheque and apology and will be free to continue to drive like maniacs, because to pay compensation, how do you think the government is going to come up with the money?
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf! Squishy: Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage? Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it! Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto! Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy. The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
hwybear wrote:
you owe me a laptop....I just sprayed my keyboard with mocha
Sorry about that, I hope you drink decaf or half decaf!
Squishy:
Did you spin the tires under acceleration this winter on any of the vehicles in your garage?
Radar Identified: Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
Look at how he is relieving the burden that Mike Harris did when he downloaded costs to the City of Toronto!
Now he says the government will start uploading costs again, it will only take 10 years for it to be where it was before, leaving the burden for the next guy.
The Ban Man ain't stupid, he just thinks everyone else is![/quote]
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion? No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable. And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
Radar Identified wrote:
Squishy wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
Are you saying that the end justifies the means, in your opinion?
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Radar Identified wrote:
Sure you can blame others for "getting in his way," but any driver with half a brain would not drive faster than a speed that would enable him or her to reasonably react to other drivers on the road and their stupidity. At 250, that is not possible.
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads......and I'm nowhere near 250.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house? Fires out though......... I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work :lol:
Reflections wrote:
regardless of the methods used to stop it.
How would you like it if you had a grease fire in the kitchen and the fire department knocked down the entire house?
Fires out though.........
I have to yet see the fire department save anything but a concrete foundation.....so that example doesn't work
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due. Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences. The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes :shock: and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play. Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
M0J0 wrote:
Do you think McGuinty cares who's going to pay for it, thankfully he won't be around and he knows it!
If compensation is ordered to people who had their cars towed under 172, they'll likely either hit the police budget or something else that Ontarians can't afford to have diminished in order to pay. And depending on how quickly the challenges to this law go through the courts, he could very well still be Premier when the bill comes due.
Squishy wrote:
No, I'm saying that just because a law can be deemed unconstitutional does not mean that the purpose of the law is no longer valid. With that statement, I am referring to those who insist on going 50 over because they feel 172 should not be enforceable.
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
The other thing is that 172 may actually be letting some real idiots off lightly. Consider this for a moment... and hwybear can correct me if I'm wrong here... Let's say the guy going 250 km/h got arrested for Dangerous Driving instead of being charged under section 172. Crown has to show cause for the charge, so it goes before a Justice. The Justice goes and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
hwybear wrote:
That even happens to me with all lights activated, drivers just aimlessly pull out in front of me....happens on the 401, happens on 2 lane hwys from people on cross roads.....
Which illustrates my point, the guy was going too fast to react to anything, and I doubt he'd been given any sort of high-speed pursuit/driver training that would've been on the same sort of level that you've got.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
Radar Identified wrote:
Okay, thank you for clarifying. That said, I don't think too many people are driving more than 50 km/h over the speed limit just because they feel the law is not valid. Many of them were just speedy drivers before the law came into effect, and they continue to be so. However, when 172 is struck down, all of the acts that are stunt driving/racing would still be illegal and have some serious consequences.
I agree, but I have met several people with the exact attitude I described. I guess they would be "borderline" in their habits about whether or not to break that law - give them a law that they deem reasonable, and they will follow it; make a law with the same prohibitions but "unreasonable" penalties, and they will disregard it as if it doesn't exist. I know one person who follows the majority of traffic laws, but won't recognize mall stop signs because they are not enforceable under the HTA. Otherwise, he knows the HTA and follows it better than anyone else I know.
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public! Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
One more Skiing death in Ontario this year and it will be the same number of deaths used by Cannsfield to sell the Street Racing law to the public!
Who would've thought ski resorts could have produced so much carnage, when they're only open for 4-5 months a year!
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word. The Government put trust in the Police, not me! Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
Squishy wrote:
And yes, I have spun my tires this winter, but not intentionally. The act requires intent to fall under the definition of stunting. Obviously, this can be misinterpreted by an officer as intentionally spinning tires if I keep it up for too long (e.g., getting out of deep snow), but we have to put some degree of trust in our officers. We pay them to make these kind of judgement calls - some of them will make mistakes and some of them are dicks, but all of the officers I have come into contact with have been reasonable with good attitudes.
The act requires nothing, all is needed is the police officer and his word.
The Government put trust in the Police, not me!
Who in the hell would trust any officer from Peel Region, tell me you would, I need a laugh!
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one..... guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage :wink: )
I have seen the "lose traction" one used as a stunt...mind you it was a good one.....
guy turns from one road to another, hammers the gas spinning around the corner, loses control, goes over the curb, across the lawn and into a house (and not the garage )
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
WOW :shock: Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
WOW
Do you remember the vehicle involved? My cousin did something similar - turning right on a red, and the car behind didn't like how long he was stopped. Honked at cousin, cousin overreacted and gave it too much gas. His 4Runner did a few circles, hopped a grass median, and ended up on someone's lawn. He had two worn tires in the back, but two good tires in the front (he thought the 4Runner was FWD).
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
no traffic lighst involved.....turning from a thru road onto a sideroad, both roads paved. Was a pickup, plus a little village, so 3-4 witnesses watched it from a convenience store.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Fascination with police lights? It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks. Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
Squishy wrote:
That looks recent, I see blue lights.
Fascination with police lights?
It was last month, just after a police officer was shot and the same weekend the battery of this cruiser died in the middle of the train tracks.
Thankfully no one was hurt, N is for Neutral and P in this instance would be for PUSH it!
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.
and orders his licence suspended until disposition of the case. After he gets convicted, I believe that they could've ordered him to forfeit his car. I'd rather have people caught doing such insane things face those sorts of consequences, the difference being the evidence needs to be presented in court before the heavy penalties come into play.
)
