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!
The fine is not the issue but I am worried about insurance rates. First speeding ticket in my life Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court
So was at court today in Orillia for a friend, and I had submitted a couple notice of motion a couple weeks ago that I wanted to deal with before arraignment. I met with prosecutor before hand, and it went something like this:
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law?"
Me: "What do you mean?"
Prosecutor: "Do you have the case law for your motion?"
Me: "All the case law is quoted in the motion that I…
1)failure to change address on license (i got married a couple of months earlier and moved)
2) license plate not fully visible
I got pulled over because I had 2 letters peeling off my license plate. I know ignorance isn't a defense, but I really had no idea that this was an issue. Plus, you see many cars on the road with peeling plates. I got both tickets and…
I was driving around 140km/h on a 100km/h posted on the highway. I was in the fast lane. The officer was very nice and reduced it to no points and just 15km/h over.
I only have my G2.
1. Will this affect me taking the G test next month?
2. I am very grateful for the officer lowering the ticket... should I just pay the 52.5$ and leave it as is.. I am a secondary driver under my dads name and we have…
Hi, thanks in advance for the help. Been driving for 10 years, clean record until today when I got slapped with two tickets. First: going 135 at 100 on the 401, second: not having a valid sticker (I recently moved and completely forgot about it)
My friend tells me I should fight the speed ticket, if anything to reduce the fine and points. Would be alot of help if anyone could walk me through…
My wife, who has never had a traffic ticket in her life, just got 11 points.
Two tickets: "following too closely" and "failure to stop"
She was on a residential street and was behind a car at a crosswalk waiting for a pedestrian. Pedestrian crossed, they continued. Cop was drivig towards them down a side street , and as they passed he went after my wife.
I was driving in mid lane and was following a line of cars around speed limit.
The vehicle in front of me was large and I decided to change to the left lane to get better line sight.
As soon as I entered the left lane, I saw the car in front of me approximately 200m away stopped dead (for some odd reason, there was more traffic on the left lane).
Over the last few months I have received several parking tickets from the City of Kitchener. I haven't paid any of them and have attempted to dicuss the situation with the parking authority of the City, however, they're very unreceptive and defensive.
I work at a downtown construction site....ironically a Court House. The site takes up a whole city block, of which ONE side has 2 hour parking…
I was driving on a teusday night in the rain and fog at whites and highview by St. Mary CSS in Pickering, ON. At the time I was waiting at a red light to make a left north onto whites. There was also a car on the opposite side of the intersection making a left. The cars beams were pointed almost directly at my face and as a result, with the combination of the rain and fog, I…
I am new to this website and this is my first post so please forgive me if I've put this question in the wrong place. Please bear with me until I learn the ropes a bit.
So here are my questions:
Antique cars and hot rods (1930's- early '60's) and seat belt use in Ontario. If these vehicles never came from the respective factories with any seat belts, do they have to be retrofitted ?
OK so Jshreck has been taking some heat for the concept of providing the DL as being not required and therefore inadmissable in court. Personally, I think that argument would fall on deaf ears in the lower court and any chance at victory would have to be in the highest court. That would be quite something. When pigs fly I think, but along that line of thought, allow me to continue.......
I have a court date soon and am wondering whether the officers just read off their disclosure notes when interrogated.
Basically, according to the disclosure notes and the said distances and speeds quoted, by doing some simple math it just doesn't add up. My concern is whether the officer can change his story when on the stand after maybe realizing this?
Last week I was driving home from college in the sauga area. I drive a 1995 Chevy Monte Carlo v6 which I've owned since 2000, I really haven't done anything to the car except tinted windows (not completely darken) and some rims, and Nothing Engine wise. Anyway I look in my rear view mirror and out of no where i see cherry flashing. When pulled over the officer asked do you…
I was charged 2 days ago with RED LIGHT - FAIL TO STOP and set fined $150 and I guess 3 points. I was driving turning left on the intersection with a traffic light, and when I jst about to turn left the light turned to orange and I didn't have enough time to stop. Once I turned I saw the light turned to red and 2seconds later I saw a police beacon flashing through my rear-view mirror. It…
I figured pleading not guilty is the same as saying it was signed which is stupid. A friend of mine told me I could plead guilty with explanation and try to get the fine reduced when I come in.
So this Friday I was stopped by a local officer for going 110 in a 80zone. He also claims I was going 105 in a 50zone,which we literally passed when he stopped me as I was braking. It has been 3 days already and I can't seem to locate my ticket on their Internet site "pay ticket". Is there a way to determine if he has filed for certificate of offence to the courts? It has been 3 days I presume…
My trial date is in a couple days for a speeding ticket (york region) and i am nervous it is my first ticket ever as well as first trial
I did notice my ticket was filed beyond 7 days, 10 days after the day i got the ticket to be exact, which is stamped on the ticket. is this enough to have it dismissed?
If you look close enough, beside the drivers' side "A" pillar you will see a white circle = front antenna of Genesis radar......plus look above the dash pad...there is the Spectre RDD.
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.
)
Any suggestions on how to handle this? I can't afford to spend a day at the court 
