I'm pretty sure the vast majority of drivers around the world could travel at 185 km/h in a straight line; i don't think they consider themselves as elite drivers, all that's required is one arm, one leg and a brain-cell.

The problem with going 185 on a public road and especially in an Ontario plated vehicle is that neither are designed for it. The only reason we hear of 185 is because that's as fast as your rev-limiter will allow you to go.

A lot of people seem to ignore tire limitations: speed rating, pressure & design life. When you travel at 185, it's going to take a lot longer to brake... even tapping/locking the brakes could force you to lose control of the vehicle. Small steering adjustments will have more immediate and more compounded results.

If ambulance drivers who're transporting gunshot victim don't travel at 185, where are you going that requires 185?

If you look at interviews with Formula 1 & NASCAR drivers, all of them follow the rules of the road; they wouldn't hop in an Ontario plated car and do 185 on an Ontario Highway: http://youtu.be/qgibddzMXxk?t=6m7s

It shows a complete lack of respect for human life and surrounding property. I'm not sure about incarceration, but the strip/cavity/genitalia search upon entering prison is demoralizing enough that drivers wouldn't dare go +1km/hr ever again.

We also have the ludicrous situation where, unless you are transferring a vehicle, you never have to get it inspected. In Europe vehicles older that 3 years are inspected every year to make sure they are roadworthy.

There are some people that no matter how severe the consequences of their actions might be will still do stupid things. Some of them kill people, some steal, some will drive 85 over the limit. I don't see any reason for tangents here, this is about the law as it's written and applied not morality. We may not like what they are accused of but they are entitled to a trial and to have their guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

iFly55 wrote: The problem with going 185 on a public road and especially in an Ontario plated vehicle is that neither are designed for it. The only reason we hear of 185 is because that's as fast as your rev-limiter will allow you to go.

Perhaps on lower end cars. Definitely not the case with higher end.

iFly55 wrote: If ambulance drivers who're transporting gunshot victim don't travel at 185, where are you going that requires 185?

They are not performance cars. Ambulances are built on truck chassis . Definitely incapable of those speeds. They max out at much lower speeds.

iFly55 wrote:If you look at interviews with Formula 1 & NASCAR drivers, all of them follow the rules of the road; they wouldn't hop in an Ontario plated car and do 185 on an Ontario Highway: http://youtu.be/qgibddzMXxk?t=6m7s

Funny video. The racer is being interviewed by a child. What kind of message would he be sending if he admitted to speeding on local roads to a child ?

iFly55 wrote: It shows a complete lack of respect for human life and surrounding property.

I agree 185 is excessive (especially depending on driver and vehicle ability). If you need to be going that fast you might be better flying . I think the harshness of the conviction should be directly proportional to traffic, road conditions, time of day/night, etc . If it can be proven that the roads were empty on a clear night with excellent weather and visibility this driver should not be punished as severely as someone who was completely reckless and risked countless lives . Also, I would say that more then likely this person did this for a short period of time as opposed to putting pedal to the metal for a long period of time.

"elite" drivers that want to drive 185 should go to cayuga and stick to normal speeds on the highway. what if a deer ran out? or a truck blew a tire and swerved into your lane? there's not time to break. not to mention tires are probably not rated higher then S (which is just at 180km/h). they could blow out then your really screwed.

I don't consider my self as an elite driver, That night was my mistake, and mistakes comes with consequences, I do agree with someone here that said most of you post of me being a dumb ass I agree but that was not the question I was asking :p, some good advice from here too thank you to that, my court hearing is on the 16th, my lawyer said to take it to trial because I would risk nothing.. anyways I am looking at October to November court trial.

One Question:

Can I get my G full before my court date?

I can get my G Full on October 5th I believe.

Vasile wrote:

One Question:

Can I get my G full before my court date?

I can get my G Full on October 5th I believe.

You can still get your G license.

You shouldn't be driving. It is a privilege that you are clearly not responsible enough to have earned.

trenchknife wrote:You shouldn't be driving. It is a privilege that you are clearly not responsible enough to have earned.

lol... I have learned my lesson, I know that but you are one of those lil *EDIT* who come here just to hate, *EDIT* happens move on, face the consequences and forget, last time I checked this was legal advice not for you to come here and tell me how mad you seem... anyways yeah, there should be a separate forum for people like you nd *EDIT*.

Vasile wrote:

trenchknife wrote:You shouldn't be driving. It is a privilege that you are clearly not responsible enough to have earned.

lol... I have learned my lesson, I know that but you are one of those lil *EDIT* who come here just to hate, *EDIT* happens move on, face the consequences and forget, last time I checked this was legal advice not for you to come here and tell me how mad you seem... anyways yeah, there should be a separate forum for people like you nd *EDIT*.

very well put... Id reccomend a knitting forum, he could post all day long from his mothers basement.

trenchknife wrote:You shouldn't be driving. It is a privilege that you are clearly not responsible enough to have earned.

Your opinion whether he should or should not be driving is just that, and irrelevant for the discussion here.

When I got clocked doing 184 on that same stretch of road, it was because I was trying to bed in a new set of brakes on my way back form the mechanic, on a car and on tires that were designed to do upwards of 300 km/h. I have been driving for 30+ years with 15+ years of HPDE track experience (the last few at the instructor level), had a clean driving record, and I have even coached OPP officers on car control. Only when I found a perfectly straight, clear stretch of road on a clear day, with no other car in sight for easily 2-3 km, four lanes wide in each direction with a huge median (where the officer was hiding) did I momentarily speed up and then slam on the brakes to get them to the temperature needed for the material transfer to occur and then continued coasting at or below 100 km/h. An "elite" vehicle and about as "elite" as drivers get without being professional racers, under the safest conditions I could possibly encounter anywhere, but breaking the law is breaking the law. I could easily make an argument that an average driver in an average vehicle exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h on a road with other vehicles is a greater danger to himself and those around him than me exceeding it by 84 km/h under those specific circumstances, but that is besides the point. So - let's stay on topic and limit our discussion to the HTA and the possible consequences of the offence. Unless you're the Judge at his trial, nobody cares whether *you* think he should be driving.

diabolis wrote:Unless you're the Judge at his trial, nobody cares whether *you* think he should be driving.

Actually I care too, especially if either of you are going to be anywhere near where I will be driving. I think you will find that the others using that road care as well. You were careful to make sure the road was clear of other cars for 2-3 km but obviously didn't look carefully enough because you missed the cop.

diabolis wrote:An "elite" vehicle and about as "elite" as drivers get without being professional racers, under the safest conditions I could possibly encounter anywhere

Roger Rodas probably also felt he was an "elite" driver with an "elite" car. His opinion may have changed last November though.

jetblue wrote:

diabolis wrote:Unless you're the Judge at his trial, nobody cares whether *you* think he should be driving.

Actually I care too, especially if either of you are going to be anywhere near where I will be driving. I think you will find that the others using that road care as well. You were careful to make sure the road was clear of other cars for 2-3 km but obviously didn't look carefully enough because you missed the cop.

I made sure that it was perfectly safe and that NOBODY was around me when I momentarily sped up, and I certainly don't condone speeding or for that matter driving too fast for the circumstances, even if the speed is well within the posted limit. The police officer was hiding in the 8-meter wide, below-grade median that is covered by 8' high overgrown weeds and bushes. In the middle of a 400-series divided highway, the only potential danger that could possibly hide in such a place would be a rabbit, a rodent or an OPP officer. I fully agree with you that I also don't want to be around anyone that does those speeds anywhere near other people, outside of the controlled environment of a race track.

jetblue wrote:

diabolis wrote:An "elite" vehicle and about as "elite" as drivers get without being professional racers, under the safest conditions I could possibly encounter anywhere

Roger Rodas probably also felt he was an "elite" driver with an "elite" car. His opinion may have changed last November though.

Rogers Rodas was an idiot driving 90 mph (145 km/h) on a street in the middle of town. What happened to him and Paul Walker was natural selection at work, pure and simple, and it is fortunate that they didn't take anyone else out. However, if you want to pursue that argument, for every Rodas you can think of I can come up with 10 others who are IMHO worse off than Rodas and Walker (by this I mean severely disabled) as a result of an accident that happened not as a result of exceeding the speed limit but rather inattention, inexperience or stupidity. My point here is that there is a difference, and that blanket statements like "he should not be driving" do not necessarily reflect the actual danger that someone poses to himself and others simply by choosing to momentarily speed up if the conditions allow it. Weaving in and out of traffic on the other hand, even at legal speeds, does pose a huge risk. That is all.

But again, we're getting off-topic. I would be quite happy to discuss speed limits and safety in another venue, but as I commented earlier this is not the forum to do it. What you - or I - think about it is irrelevant to the thread here. It's about the HTA offence itself and how to go about defending against the charge.

diabolis wrote:I certainly don't condone speeding

except of course if you are a self described "elite" driver.... then it's OK

jetblue wrote:

diabolis wrote:I certainly don't condone speeding

except of course if you are a self described "elite" driver.... then it's OK

I believe an elite driver is 'entitled' to elite driving privileges. As a driver , I would be much more comfortable to be in the company of highly qualified drivers doing a buck fifty-sixty on the freeway than with all the current nut jobs on the roads doing ten or twenty less than the limit who still manage to be the ones that cause the most accidents on the road. There is also a major difference between a self described elite and a driving guru with serious professional credentials.

Jetblue, prove me wrong and tell me that you have some serious professional track training experience to back your sarcasm ?