hwybear wrote:

90 day ADLS and 12 hour suspension are actually both Provincially imposed suspensions, HTA 48. FYI

I have no further arguement but this post is here so that I get the last word. Hummmph.

Reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:

90 day ADLS and 12 hour suspension are actually both Provincially imposed suspensions, HTA 48. FYI

I have no further arguement but this post is here so that I get the last word.

Oh come on. We cannot argue with the mighty Bear... He's a cop, AND he's a good guy.

racer wrote:

Reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:

90 day ADLS and 12 hour suspension are actually both Provincially imposed suspensions, HTA 48. FYI

I have no further arguement but this post is here so that I get the last word.

Oh come on. We cannot argue with the mighty Bear... He's a cop, AND he's a good guy.

He know's I am arguing against the law itself not him, this post added incase I'm ever down his way.

Reflections wrote:

He know's I am arguing against the law itself not him, this post added incase I'm ever down his way.

Exactly!....now where's my boston cream donut

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

He know's I am arguing against the law itself not him, this post added incase I'm ever down his way.

Exactly!....now where's my boston cream donut

OK, the cop made the first donut joke, "GAME ON"

hwybear wrote:

No difference between the 7 day suspension and the

- 90 day ADLS suspension

OR in criminal matters where conditions are imposed on people who are not yet convicted and must abide by until trial

The license suspension is ok it's the impounding property that is the charter issue.

oh ok...never thought of that as with a 90day ADLS...vehicle is only impounded until a licenced driver can pick it up

casper wrote:

Here is a good article by Jim Kenzie..

http://wheels.ca/Columnists/article/248098

Followup:

Julian Fantino's reply:

http://wheels.ca/article/250631

Public Opinions:

http://www.wheels.ca/article/254338

Another good article I found.

"When Ontario passed new street racing laws last fall, they were hailed as the toughest in North America.

The legislation gives police the power to seize cars and licences on the spot if drivers are charged with street racing, or stunt driving.

As of May 20, 2008, police had laid 5,139 street racing or stunt driving charges since the law was enacted on Oct. 1, 2007.

But CBC News has learned that the vast majority of people charged under the new laws are never convicted of the crime.

George Papazov says he's a perfect example.

Last October, the 23-year-old got stuck in traffic on Toronto's Don Valley Parkway.

He wasn't far from his exit, so he crept slowly between the idle cars on his motorcycle. It didn't take long until he saw the flashing lights of a police cruiser.

"First thing he said is, 'Your bike is gone for a week,'" said Papazov.

The officer seized Papazov's motorcycle and licence for seven days right on the side of the road.

Papazov was charged with stunt driving and his bike was towed — at a cost of almost a $1,000.

When Papazov got his day in court, the charges didn't stand up. Papazov was found guilty of making an illegal lane change and fined $600.

OPP Const. Dave Woodford says what happens in court is not his concern. "My concern is getting those people off the road."

Simply being charged with stunt driving cost Papazov more than $2,000 in non-refundable towing and legal costs. He said he had to sell his motorcycle to pay the fees.

"Anything can be stunt driving," said Papazov. "It gives the officer the power, on the spot, to decide if you're guilty or not."

More than 5,000 drivers have been charged since the law took effect but according to statistics provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General to CBC News, the conviction rate is only about 33 per cent.

As of April 1, 1,080 street racing cases had gone to trial, with 325 convictions. According to the ministry, 526 cases were reduced to speeding, while 229 were either withdrawn, dismissed or stayed.

Most fines for those convicted ranged from $2,000 to $10,000, but some fines have been as low as $200.

Papazov says that means many drivers, like him, are paying for something for which they're never convicted.

But OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley says taking vehicles off the road is the entire point of the law.

"Ultimately, we've seen an increase in safety and really the best thing about this law is [the] immediate consequences.""

casper wrote:

OPP Const. Dave Woodford says what happens in court is not his concern. "My concern is getting those people off the road."

Statements like this should really concern the general population. Whether you have kids, employees, spouses, etc. you will probably be (or know someone who is) affected one day by some gung-ho cop, like this one, who seems to think he can just make up the law as he goes along, based solely on his own "concerns". And (of course) he won't be reprimanded for his actions. He'll still be held in high regard by his brothers in black.

casper wrote:

But OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley says taking vehicles off the road is the entire point of the law.

"Ultimately, we've seen an increase in safety and really the best thing about this law is [the] immediate consequences.""

Why not just run up and shoot the guy dead before he even says a word. That's even MORE "immediate"!!

CBC has done a 2 part series on this section of HTA and how its affecting people

First part was tonight @ 6 pm which I missed ffs

2nd part is tomorrow same time

if anyone finds this first part please post a link

I will be getting a copy of the whole thing on DVD

but I dont know when.

IMHO:After Review

This new law won't be tossed all together though as some want!

I see a minimum of 3 revisions of HTA 172 coming down the Pipe

1.Seizure of vehicle for 7 days will be toast!

2.(6)Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat. In regards to driving a MC,where in The MC handbook,distributed by MTO,when approaching a bump/pothole,raise slightly off the seat(or crush your testies)

And I see the Officer not being able to direct which pound yard,said vehicle goes too!

And Maybe Hwybear can confirm this for me please

If I was charged under this section of HTA

And I was to argue/state my point on the roadside

Is it possible for me to receive a 5K fine for doing so,fact or fiction?

My 2 cents

Linkage

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/cheung-race-080609.mov

BelSlySTi wrote:

And Maybe Hwybear can confirm this for me please

If I was charged under this section of HTA

And I was to argue/state my point on the roadside

Is it possible for me to receive a 5K fine for doing so,fact or fiction?

FICTION...police do not set the fine at all...issue a summons for a court date and the JP decides the fine....it is supposed to be a minimum of $2k in court

It is brothers and sisters in BLUE

And I fully support them 100%.

If you stand back at look at the stats that have been collected on a unbiased perspective there are several issues not mentioned.

- Convictions for 172 (straight foward stat)

- Reduced to speeding (in other words they pled guilty to the speed involved...so instead of a minimum $2k racing fine...it probably is around $600)

- withdrawn, dismissed or stayed (this area makes no mention as to if another offence was pled to...thus saving the driver from the minimum $2000 fine) (such as the Papazov motorcycle case above)

Also at the start of this law, we were issuing both a racing charge and a speeding charge...so usually one was dropped, the other pled...so that also taints the stats as well.

If they want to show stats....how about actual charges laid for racing or stunt driving..............then what is the number that actually walked away with absolutely nothing. If someone agrees to a plea it is to save themselves some coin or demerit points or the court is busy and trying to speed up time.

Just a sideways view on this "law". How many people have been killed or injured by street racing in the last 5 years??? I thought I saw Citynews had the number 46 death's somewhere on their website. I'm not saying there is no need for this law but I believe that "46" is a lot less then the "not wearing a seat belt" or "Drunk Driving" deaths over the same time period. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this "Political Policing" at it's best?????