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!
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
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.
)
