Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news. I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation. To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done properly is in the language of Section 33.1 and is generally known as the Not Withstanding Clause. How it is interpreted makes a big difference. As well, the numbers the government used were pulled out of context from Ministry of Transport Charts that due to the way they are set up are nearly meaningless. The significance of street racing to the total accident picture is fractional. The government blew the issue way out of proportion without substantiating the numbers. In fact the numbers for 2006 and 2007 have not yet been released to the public. When they are, I will be the first to know because they will be issued to me first. So what were the numbers that were used to justify denying our rights? We don't know. My research covers the years 2000 to 2007. There are no street racing statistics at all. Street racing has never been significant enough to warrant a category of its own and it still isn't. Basically, the legislature had to have enacted the law based on fictional numbers. That is fraud. When the first cars were seized and towed under the Civil Remedies Act, that was car theft and extortion. The Civil Remedies Act was never intended to be used as it was and since it's federal legislation the province didn't have the option to change the wording. The wording is key and essentially confirms the police did not have a legal right to impound and crush anyone's cars. The money that had to be paid by those apprehended was done by extortion. My contention is that the Ontario government is going to have to pay all of that money back and then some to the victims of our various police forces' illegal actions. The reason I wrote the book is so that the general public is made aware that not only is the law illegal, but in other ways it destablizes all Ontario legislation. Section 172 is a law that needs to be re-written. But it won't be re-written unless enough people understand how dangerous this legislation is and gets informed enough to go after their MPPs knowledgeably. Elected officials don't like being harassed and they especially don't like to look like fools. If you want this law changed, the ball is entirely in your court. Your MPP is easily found on the net. I hope you are up to the challenge. If you don't like being targeted by illegal police action, this your golden opportunity to help yourself and everyone else at the same time. Ironically, it falls to potential street racers to stand up and protect democracy. I call it poetic justice.
Topic
Section 172 the illegal legislation governing street racing
Anything and everything that you do while driving a car could be considered "racing" or "stunt driving" with that set of definitions. :evil: Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists. :x 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. :twisted:
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.
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.
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!
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!
Oh good grief. That post-incident shenanigans from that crash has turned into a Gong Show. :roll: 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. Agreed completely. Good laws strengthen our society, bad laws weaken it.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
This is gonna be offtop... Straight out of the article 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. 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? I agree with everything he says but the 1-st sentence. 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? 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: 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.
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?
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.
Last edited by racer on Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
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!
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!
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:
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
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
"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. :roll: 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.
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.
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.
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.
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"
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:
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.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Sorry 'bout that. :oops: 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.
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....????
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....????
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
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.
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.
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
Also the legislation gives absolutely no protection or recourse for innocent motorists. 
Some responsibility here?
