168 in 100 zone. 400
bigmistake
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by bigmistake »

Hi Guys,

Yesterday night I was charged for stunt driving (excess over 50km/h) and I have a few inquiries. I'm sure you've all heard the same story, but the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up to 168. Regardless, I was pulled and that's that. However, when he pulled me over, he asked for my information and only said (you were going 168, this calls for roadside towing and 7 day suspension).

I then sat in the tow trucks car and the officer finally came up to me and told me that going 50km/h over the speed limit is considered stunt driving, so that is why I am charged under that. Does that make sense? His exact words were that because I was doing 50+ it is considered stunt driving.


Thank you for the help.

Ps - first time ever being pulled over + just in time for exam week (ugh!)


bigmistake
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by bigmistake »

I'm sorry, I've read about it. Standard issue.

Curious if anyone has even seen this be dropped to 49+ speeding?


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined:
Location: Ontario

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by Stanton »

It's possible. I think the more common plea deal is to drop the stunt driving charge but leaving the speeding offence as is (68 over in your case). It's still a terrible conviction in terms of insurance rates, but you wouldn't be looking at an additional licence suspension.


bigmistake
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by bigmistake »

Thanks for the reply.

I still find it unusual that speeding exists on top of stunt driving. It was a slow acceleration that got me to 168 (heavy foot that night)...he literally said I have to put stunt driving because it is over 50km/h.

Anywho, my insurance is going to be through the roof. Hopefully I can figure this out. I've heard of some incredible scenarios and horrid ones as well.


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by hwybear »

bigmistake wrote:I still find it unusual that speeding exists on top of stunt driving. .
can put it another way, as an example

a person can be charged with "impaired driving" and can also be charged with "driving with over 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
now relate that to the HTA
a person can be charged with "stunt driving" and can also be charged with "speeding at X km/hr in a Y km/hr zone" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1128
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by bend »

bigmistake wrote:the unmarked cop in an SUV was tailing me for a good 2-3 minutes as I was travelling 120~135 km/h. Then as he came close I decided to boot it up to 168.
This act, without considering the numerical value of speed, falls under stunt driving. That is why can be combined. You can't engage in contests with other vehicles on the road. Either pull into the far right lane, or pull over if need be.


viper1
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 502
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by viper1 »

hwybear wrote:
bigmistake wrote:I still find it unusual that speeding exists on top of stunt driving. .
can put it another way, as an example

a person can be charged with "impaired driving" and can also be charged with "driving with over 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
now relate that to the HTA
a person can be charged with "stunt driving" and can also be charged with "speeding at X km/hr in a Y km/hr zone" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
I thought that those 2 charges were criminal charges?
As I understand it a person cannot be guilty of 2 criminal offenses in the same occurrence.

Are "stunt" and over "50" criminal?

It used to be over double the speed you lost license.

Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"


User avatar
hwybear
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2933
Joined:
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by hwybear »

viper1 wrote:
hwybear wrote:
bigmistake wrote:I still find it unusual that speeding exists on top of stunt driving. .
can put it another way, as an example

a person can be charged with "impaired driving" and can also be charged with "driving with over 80mgs of alcohol in 100ml of blood" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
now relate that to the HTA
a person can be charged with "stunt driving" and can also be charged with "speeding at X km/hr in a Y km/hr zone" (which has a numerical value) as BOTH are seperate offences
I thought that those 2 charges were criminal charges?
As I understand it a person cannot be guilty of 2 criminal offenses in the same occurrence.

Are "stunt" and over "50" criminal?

It used to be over double the speed you lost license.

Cheers
Viper1
I was describing and example where there are 2 criminal offences, and then 2 provincial offences both as you mentioned coming out of the same incident. This was b/c the original poster asked that there is a speeding charge that could also be applied to those 50km+ the speed limit, guess I should have put it another way.......
- performing a stunt with a motor vehicle, greater than 50km over the limit HTA 172
- speeding (at whatever speed) HTA 128 still applies

I have never, ever heard or seen the double over lose your licence thing!!
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


viper1
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 502
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by viper1 »

In the mid sixties when I got my license.

Double the speed was about the most serious offense to get.

DWI was not criminal then either.

Probably before you started.

Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"


User avatar
Decatur
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 693
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by Decatur »

Impaired driving was certainly criminal in the mid 1960's and even as early as the 1920's. The section in the early 50's to mid 60's was 223.


OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined:

Re: 168 in 100 zone. 400

Unread post by OPS Copper »

Unrelated but sort of related. Your right you cannot be convicted of impaired driving and over 80 but you can be charged with both and court even fought on both. If found guilty the judge will decide which one your guilty of.






Post Reply

Return to “Stunt Driving”