Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Reflections wrote:too many loose definitions

Anything and everything that you do while driving a car could be considered "racing" or "stunt driving" with that set of definitions. Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists.

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

That may very well be how this law ends up (vehicle seizure struck down, 7-day suspension stays). Quebec now has that for 40 km/h over the limit (cops issue 7-day suspension at the roadside). If the driver is the lone licensed occupant of the vehicle, it gets towed to the driver's home or a place where it can be held until someone can retrieve it. I still think that for most of the offences defined as "stunt driving" that the suspension and seizure is way too much, I think a normal PON would do just fine. If someone is genuinely racing or driving in an absolutely extreme manner (e.g. 300 km/h on the 400, 231 on the DVP), they should be arrested and spend the night in one of our lovely local jails, like the Don Jail or the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Detention Centre.

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

If only that were true, I'd support 172 myself. But it is not true. There is an astounding number of sloppily conceived definitions of what 172 calls "Stunt Driving" hiding under the deliberately misleading "Street Racing" title, any of which leads to instant, brutally expensive on-the-spot penalties without trial or avenues of appeal the moment the officer decides, for whatever reason, to lay a 172 charge. Whether or not there is ever a conviction on the charge is irrelevant, if in fact the case ever even makes it to court. The law also explicitly removes the charged person's right to seek redress, for any reason.

Every (sane) driver is against street racing, so that's why the authorities call it the Street Racing law and are careful to spin it as an initiative aimed at stopping that. But steet racing is not the issue: it's what's hiding under the rock that's the problem. I could be persuaded that going 50k over is automatic evidence of Dangerous Driving -- but we already have tried and proven laws against Dangerous Driving. And Careless. And Speeding, etc.

172 is a subversion of the Canadian judicial process. It is bad law.

Even after an investigation mistakes are made, idiotic as they may be! http://www.thestar.com/article/571339

Innocent people have been convicted after lengthy trials and sent to jail for criminal offences, only to be found innocent after spending years in jail.

And yet with a conviction rate under 50% for those charged under this farce of a law, yet everyone them have been penalized one way or another, Guilty as Julian would call it!

I know one thing for sure, Fantino is grateful for his day in court(s), every dog has it's day!

BelSlySTi wrote:Even after an investigation mistakes are made, idiotic as they may be! http://www.thestar.com/article/571339

Oh good grief. That post-incident shenanigans from that crash has turned into a Gong Show.

BelSlySTi wrote:Innocent people have been convicted after lengthy trials and sent to jail for criminal offences, only to be found innocent after spending years in jail.

We are the same province that thought Dr. Charles Smith was the Super-God of Paediatric Forensics, and look how that turned out. That's what happens when too much unquestioned trust and power is placed in someone's hands. Checks and balances are needed; this law doesn't have any.

Proper1 wrote:172 is a subversion of the Canadian judicial process. It is bad law.

Agreed completely. Good laws strengthen our society, bad laws weaken it.

hwybear wrote:

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

The only guy that that drove the same route as me is no longer working here and 86 km one way is too far to walk. I suppose I could take a weeks holidays.......and watch my insurance sky-rocket..........and be out the non-refundable $1000 bucks because of a mistake. And all the while, if I'm innocent, I lose, the government looks like the lost souls that they are and nobody in the faceless justice system gives a rats ass. All this so some goof ball polititian could get re-elected in his riding and is never heard from again.......hope his 5 years gets him a nice pension.

This is gonna be offtop...

BelSlySTi wrote:Even after an investigation mistakes are made, idiotic as they may be! http://www.thestar.com/article/571339

Straight out of the article

The Star wrote:The group was reportedly served 31 drinks over the course of three hours. They left in Mulcahy's Audi and crashed through a guardrail along the Joseph River sometime after 6 p.m. Only Elzinga was able to escape the sinking car.

Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a lot of other things.

Let's ask some meaningful questions here. Tyler was 20, so noone prevented him from drinking. Was he overserved? Not really. 8 drinks in 3 hours, with lunch/dinner, seems reasonable to anyone who drinks alcohol. Should he had been driving with that? No. Was he the only one coming up to get the drinks for the table? Noone knows. I'd say no. Also, there is no mention of how drunk Tyler himself was. Maybe the other 2 guys drank most? Maybe he drank most? Maybe the 3 guys had 10 drinks while the girl had only one, and she was supposed to be a DD? Seems likely given she was the only one to escape drowning vehicle, so she must have been the most sober. Why are these questions NOT asked in the investigation?

Lets ask the father some questions. He answere some here: http://santaclausfund.ca/News/Ontario/article/475196, a Toronto Star website.

Why do you speak with <The>

I'd like Tyler's accident to make a difference. I really feel there needs to be zero tolerance for alcohol up to the age of 21. Once someone takes one drink, it's easy to take two, three, four or 10 because we stop thinking.

So, using this logic, if a 50-old-feller drinks, takes his 'vette out for a drive with his grandson, and crashes into a minivan killing 8 people in it, including a pregnant woman (OK, that's too gruesome i agree), himself, and his grandson, would the drinking law have to be changed to 51?

What do you think parents should do?

Parents need to lobby the government to make changes. We tell our children all the time – as I told Tyler – don't drink and drive and don't speed. I know that I have said this to Tyler over 100 times. Obviously that doesn't work.

I agree with everything he says but the 1-st sentence.

Tyler had a speeding charge in 2006. How did you address that?

As I said, I told Tyler not to speed. I told him, `Your friends that are speeding are irresponsible.' I am not certain if he even mentioned the speeding ticket to me.

Why did you stress that?

Just because his friends talked about speeding so much. I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.

And then Tim went out and bought his son a high performance sport sedan. By Audi. Not a Beetle, not a Malibu, not a Camry, not even a Taurus, all good vehicles to get one from A to B. A friggin Audi. Some responsibility here?

What role does the club play in these types of situations?

I believe that many bars and clubs and restaurants across Canada serve people too much alcohol before they drive.

Hello.... People going to a bar to have more than 1 beer? When did THAT become news? I don't drink and drive, so when I drink I usually have well above the legal driving limit. And that had never been a problem with anyone. If someone goes to a bar, and the server tells him he's had enough after one drink, nothing will stop that someone to go home and drink more yet. And when we drink at home, we usually drink more than we do in bars and restaurants. Nothing at home really stops people from driving either. Noone comes to a bar saying "I'm driving tonight". What TM does not realise is that bar owner are not running their bar to control how much your precious son drinks before he drives. They sell alcohol to make a living. If bartenders were only allowed to serve no more than 2 drinks to a person, we'd have 1/10 of the bars we have, and a beer would be $10 in there. Even more reason to drink at home.

The Smart Serve recommends stopping serving alcohol to persons who exhibit 3 or more of the following signs of intoxication:

+ fine motor coordination shot (difficulty picking

up change, difficulty removing cards from wallet,

etc.)

+ speaking too loud or too softly

+ talking fast, then slow, then fast

+ slurred speech

+ bloodshot eyes

+ sweating when no one else is

+ dopey, not alert (respond slowly to questions)

+ poor motor control (stumbling, bumping into

others)

+ breathing slower and lighter than others

+ sleepiness

I know for a fact that I would develop "3 or more" of these from 8 drinks over 3 hours. Maybe Tyler and Co. were cut off the bar. Maybe he left angry at the bar for cutting him off? That is not uncommon especially when people are drinking. Maybe being cut off angered him enough to push the DD away and take the control to himself? And then to go Johnny Leadfoot on the pedal? Where is the statement of the only witness? She could tell us a LOT. The only thing we hear is "X charges have been laid against so and so". Charges are not results, and this is not a police state, but frightening people with BS charges is a prime example of one.

As bear said in "Don't ditch your Car, OR ELSE..." topic, in his reply to my comment:

hwybear wrote:People rely way too much on someone else to do something, then to blame them for their own ...

Here, in this context, I wholeheartedly agree. To Tim M.: stop shifting blame on young people, bartenders, servers, the AGCO, LLA, the OHTA, and everyone else, but again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty you need only look into a mirror.

Reflections wrote:the government looks like the lost souls that they are and nobody in the faceless justice system gives a rats ass. All this so some goof ball polititian could get re-elected in his riding and is never heard from again.......hope his 5 years gets him a nice pension.

Lost souls is the farthest from thr truth..............all you need to do is sit in one session , you get a full pension and what really bothers me, it that any MPP can move,withdrawl, cash in and LIF,LIRA (retirement fund) 100%, and all tax free.

Now let Joe Taxpayer try and do that in Ontario at the very most your going to get is 25% and only when your at deaths door, which is heavily taxed!

racer wrote:This is gonna be offtop...

Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a lot of other things. .

easier...8 x 15 = 120mgs (total drinks)

minus 3 x 15 = 45mgs (less 3 hrs of elimination)

total is 75mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood

racer wrote:I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.

"I told Tyler not to speed," and then I bought him a 340 horsepower Audi S4, which, I'm sure, is a great incentive to rigidly obey all traffic laws and drive in a courteous and careful manner. The actions and words don't match. If his son survived, we all know that Tim Mulcahy would have bought him the best legal defence team that money could buy to get him off the charge.

Tim Mulcahy STILL refuses to accept responsibility, at least on an emotional level. He, whether consciously or subconsciously, feels a deep level of guilt for facilitating and enabling this, and does not want that hanging over his head. Why else would he go so crazy about "the government/bars/other people needs to protect my kid because I couldn't do it myself"?

Here's another thought: If a cop car had come upon them just after they left the bar, would Tyler be off to the Crowbar Hilton for impaired driving? (Let's assume he was over the legal limit for argument's sake.) What would his father say or do then? Would the bartender and club have been charged for overserving them in that case? Did they ever do a toxicology report and determine just what Tyler's BAC was at the time of death? Tyler was 20, an adult, made poor choices and that's it. When will they start putting the blame at his feet?

Oh yeah and isn't it amazing that you can lose your car for 7 days for driving 50 km/h over the speed limit but not for blowing over the limit? And the ADLS for drunk driving can be appealed... not under s. 172, though, there's no appeal there.

Damn hijackers.............where's my bitch slap emotionicon????

Radar Identified wrote:

racer wrote:I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing.

Be careful with quoting, I've never said that:lol:....

The most responsible thing for the bar staff at the restaurant would have been calling the cops to stop the vehicle right after they left... Is that what TM was expecting the restaurant owners to do??? Wouldn't that have had Tyler's license suspended for 90 days (+ 2 years due to his other tickets)? Is that what anyone in his sane mind expects when they go to a bar, for the bartender to call the cops on them the moment they leave the establishment?

The truth is, that there is nowhere near enough information right about everything that is relevant to the case. Only names of people who had been charged. I have read the Star's interview of Elzinga, and in that interview she only mentions "having drinks on a terrace". She has never even mentioned that the total was 31 drinks... Not even close to that. I'd love to see the witness report made by OPP.

racer wrote: I'd love to see the witness report made by OPP.

Remember the OPP only gathered the evidence and took it to the Crown, the Crown then indicated that charges should be laid based on the totality of the evidence brought to him/her.

racer wrote:Be careful with quoting, I've never said that

Sorry 'bout that.

Should've done this:

Quoting Tim Mulcahy: "I was just shocked at the amount that the boys discuss cars and how fast they are and how much they like racing."

The crash happened when we had s. 172 in effect. It didn't stop it. It won't stop similar incidents from occurring. For that matter, it doesn't even stop people from racking up speeds faster than the Indy 500, like 239 on Highway 26, an 80 km/h zone, or 231 km/h on the Don Valley Parkway, a 90 km/h zone, or the guy from Oakville who admitted going 260 km/h on the 401. Taking someone's car for a week might give the safety advocates a warm and fuzzy feeling but many things that are "justified" in the context of safety have ended up putting numerous countries on a slippery slope. I don't think we need to go down that path.

i'd be interested in finding out how many 172 tickets also had the driver consuming 3-4 pints before driving. Even how many speeding tickets are issued to those consuming "legal" amounts but still a little tipsy....????

A lot of times, just from anecdotal evidence, I hear of someone caught under 172 where it was a big incident, alcohol was also involved. The two most recent were the guy who was caught going 231 on the DVP and another going 148 on Jane Street in Toronto, both of them were over the legal BAC limit.