Section 172 the illegal legislation governing street racing

Bookm wrote:

If your feelin' confidant.... GET CHARGED!!

Then make it a "good one" (ie 200+)

It is actually quite interesting.....despite the 7 day impundment, the vehicle can actually be held until the court date if an arrest was made!

Proper1 wrote:

Bookm wrote:

If your feelin' confident.... GET CHARGED!!

That would be an impressive way to demonstrate your conviction (in more ways than one), but unnecessary. You're a citizen of Canada, the law applies to you, the law is an assault on you, and there's no other effective way to challenge it. Kvetching in an online forum, even as admirable a one as this, is never going to be an effective challenge to an unjust law. Wikipedia has a clear and concise article on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_c ... tional_law

There are many ways of promoting social justice. One is filing constitutional challenges. Another is going to jail for your convictions. The simplest is having your voice heard by the community, which is what we are trying to accomplish with this forum. If the law is unjust, and you feel it, we have no problem supporting online and mail-in petitions. Bel has one against 172, for example. Click it through, register your vote!

racer wrote:

. If the law is unjust, and you feel it, we have no problem supporting online and mail-in petitions. Bel has one against 172, for example. Click it through, register your vote!

Forgot about the petition.....coles notes what is it about?

and the stats thing keeps being brought up....can be construed however the person looking at it want it to be....

Canada Election 2008

38% Conservatives

27% Liberals

18% NDP

10% Bloc

6% Green

1% other

So Liberals/NDP/Bloc state.....wait here...55% wants us to be the government as we have a majority.

Coles notes on petition:

Revise section 172 so that no up-front penalties are imposed on motorist at roadside. (No 7-day vehicle impoundment, no license suspension.) After-conviction penalties to remain unchanged. At least that's what it was when I signed it a while ago.

hwybear wrote:

and the stats thing keeps being brought up

Referring to the reduction in fatalities or the conviction rates under 172 or...?

hwybear wrote:

So Liberals/NDP/Bloc state.....wait here...55% wants us to be the government as we have a majority.

Don't get me started on that one.

Radar Identified wrote:

Coles notes on petition:

Revise section 172 so that no up-front penalties are imposed on motorist at roadside. (No 7-day vehicle impoundment, no license suspension.) After-conviction penalties to remain unchanged. At least that's what it was when I signed it a while ago.

thank you....I personally can not support the petition with both the items involved in there. A modified version I would be able to and probably a lot more support from others as well.

thank you....I personally can not support the petition with both the items involved in there. A modified version I would be able to and probably a lot more support from others as well.

Modify it so that a person does not lose their ability to goto work for a week. I know that the local officers don't go out and look to lay this charge but if it is laid incorrectly, for any reason. Song lyric goes here......."Wrong, can't be undone...." Kenny Wayne Sheppard. I think thats how you spell it.....

hwybear wrote:

thank you....I personally can not support the petition with both the items involved in there.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on how far to go with amending s. 172. Hypothetically, would you consider signing it if it was to remove the vehicle impoundment?

Reflections wrote:

if it is laid incorrectly, for any reason. Song lyric goes here......."Wrong, can't be undone...."

Exactly.

Just stay below 49km/h over the limit and you'll get to work just fine.

I like 172. Finally some legislation with some teeth. Thats just my opinion though.

Just stay below 49km/h over the limit and you'll get to work just fine.

Thats not the only thing that'll get yer car towed.....too many loose definitions

Proper1 wrote:

Bookm wrote:

If your feelin' confident.... GET CHARGED!!

Kvetching in an online forum, even as admirable a one as this,

Hey Proper1, thanks for the comment for the site, but hey I have to say the word "Kvetching" is a new word to me. I actually googled it for its definition lol. Thanks, I just learned a new word today!

Radar Identified wrote:

Hypothetically, would you consider signing it if it was to remove the vehicle impoundment?

Exactly, then it would be "on-line" with the 90 day suspension (ie charged with offence, loss of licence)

Reflections wrote:

Modify it so that a person does not lose their ability to goto work for a week. .....

Does not prevent them from going to work...use their legs, bicycle, carpool, bus....it's also better for the environment

Reflections wrote:

Just stay below 49km/h over the limit and you'll get to work just fine.

Thats not the only thing that'll get yer car towed.....too many loose definitions

Insert sarcasim................It certainly is, why else would they call it the Street Racing Law?