This is just getting CRAZY!!!

Now I've seen everything...

Just a few minutes ago, I ran across the street to grab a quick sub, then headed back to work. As I approached the street, I heard the sweet sound of a hi-performance V8 coming up through the gears (far from foot-to-floor, but was definitely "workin")! I turn to look and its a real nice custom Chevy Trailblazer with a V8 conversion on 18" wheels. Very professionally built. About two seconds later, I hear the "swishhhh" of another car coming after him... Copper!

Well I was rather curious what the problem was and decided to walk over to the gas station they both pulled in to.

The driver came in to pay for his gas while the LEO ran his info in the cruiser. I asked him what law she alleged he broke. I was floored when he said, "Racing!!!". I thought he was joking. I quick wrote down my name and number and told him to call me if he needed a witness to help his defense, LOL.

I waited a few more minutes and saw the officer handing back his ID, but no ticket... phew! As she walked back to her cruiser, I sauntered up and explained that I plan on getting my old GTO back on the road soon and was concerned about what brought about this "racing" allegation. She explained that it was his acceleration that was defined as a "stunt". I told her I was under the impression that you had to spin (or attempt to spin) the tires to fall in to that category. She said, "No. Just rapid acceleration is enough to qualify as a stunt".

Well I just Googled like crazy and still haven't found where acceleration alone is considered a "stunt". OK Bear, it's your time to shine. Educate me quick before I'm on the hook! Our local paper is used to my controversial letters-to-the-editor and I'm about to put pen to paper once again, hehe.

(Please God, bring back the 80's. The 00's suck!)

I have yet to see anywhere in the HTA where the rate of acceleration is limited . I would like to hear the 'Bear's take on this.

If the driver was going through all the gears as indicated, the vehicle would/could be above the speed limit....maybe even close to 50 over at one point? The officer was unable to get an actual speed, hence the warning for racing!

Quite possibly the officer did not have the ability to articulate the evidence for a charge for the following sections of the racing legislation:

- outdistancing or attempting to outdistance other vehicle

- Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle

Other than that ....I do not know where else it (rapid acceleration) would fall under the racing legislation.

*******************************************

There is absolutely nothing like the rumble of an older car/corvette on the street, but these people are classy, drive nice and slow, not like morons! Especially in downtown areas. I can not believe you do not condone this type of driving behaviour in a business/built up area.

***********************

Hint: Time to stop the "google" *EDIT* too....go for the "meat" at Ontario Elaws.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/navigation? ... se&lang=en

then you can search!

So the way I translate this: Hard acceleration + Police Presence = Time to Chat . The funny thing is, no law was broken. Almost the same as the new drinking and driving law, you didn't do anything wrong but you lose your licence anyway. I'm all for the safety aspect of these situations but sometimes it can seem overboard.

Reflections wrote:

So the way I translate this: Hard acceleration + Police Presence = Time to Chat . The funny thing is, no law was broken.

Interpretation: Outdistance another vehicle perhaps? Or perhaps as I mentioned unable to get a radar reading....although still appears greater than 50km over the limit...good time to remind the driver of this legislation

Reflections wrote:

Almost the same as the new drinking and driving law,you didn't do anything wrong but you lose your licence anyway

Which law is this? There has been no changes in 11yrs that I know of.

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

So the way I translate this: Hard acceleration + Police Presence = Time to Chat . The funny thing is, no law was broken.

Interpretation: Outdistance another vehicle perhaps? Or perhaps as I mentioned unable to get a radar reading....although still appears greater than 50km over the limit...good time to remind the driver of this legislation

Reflections wrote:

Almost the same as the new drinking and driving law,you didn't do anything wrong but you lose your licence anyway

Which law is this? There has been no changes in 11yrs that I know of.

If the breatealyzer reads a warning you now get a 3 day suspension instead of 12 hour. I can understand the 12 hour but 3 days when no law was broken....seems heavyhanded. I'm all for safety but this is overboard.

I could understand 3 days if there is a breatealyzer [sp.] available for the public to try. Say have a beer and take a reading, have a second take a reading and so on. We the public have no access to know what 50mg/100ml feels like, I do know what copious amounts feels like . I like to enjoy myself and have a pint or two now and then, but I don't see the need to disrupt someones life for three days when technically they have done nothing wrong.

hwybear wrote:

If the driver was going through all the gears as indicated, ...

Nah.. he just performed the standard "car guy" thing; accelerate hard(ish) through first, use up a bit of second, then let off. No high speed involved. Just getting that high you feel when pinned back in your seat for a second or too. If you're not into muscle cars, you'll never understand

They should just simplify the Act to read, "Anything that may provide pleasure while driving shall be considered an impoundable offense, LOL.

Bookm wrote:

hwybear wrote:

If the driver was going through all the gears as indicated, ...

Nah.. he just performed the standard "car guy" thing; accelerate hard(ish) through first, use up a bit of second, then let off. No high speed involved. Just getting that high you feel when pinned back in your seat for a second or too. If you're not into muscle cars, you'll never understand

They should just simplify the Act to read, "Anything that may provide pleasure while driving shall be considered an impoundable offense, LOL.

Bookm wrote:

hwybear wrote:

If the driver was going through all the gears as indicated, ...

Nah.. he just performed the standard "car guy" thing; accelerate hard(ish) through first, use up a bit of second, then let off. No high speed involved. Just getting that high you feel when pinned back in your seat for a second or too. If you're not into muscle cars, you'll never understand

They should just simplify the Act to read, "Anything that may provide pleasure while driving shall be considered an impoundable offense, LOL.

Let's not let Bookm start making the laws then...sheesh

Bear, could you please clarify the outdistancing part? Would that include a legitimate pass?

Old thread revived

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Damn, and this thread was so wholesome.....

Because I'm a new member and the thread posed some questions that I'd be interested in reading an answer to.

Smile would ya.........

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Bear, could you please clarify the outdistancing part? Would that include a legitimate pass?

2 vehicles side by side and the other pulls away is outdistancing.....this is actually under the "racing" definition area, so there would be two vehicles involved.

Don't think this would apply to passing on a highway, but could a passing vehicle be greater than 50km over yes.......is there an exemption of the speed limit when passing = NO.