Ontario's new 'Street Racing' laws

[284_226]

Unfortunately, helmet laws mean they may survive and require round the clock care... far better to waive that rule and get some organ donations out of it too.

That's so crazy, it'll probably work.  ;D

 

[J.J]

Piper,
Here is a hint....don't drive like an a$$hat. My wife/daughter and others that are special to me  drive on the hwy's and I don't want someone, like you, driving 50km + on the same roads as they do. You may feel more important than the others around you when you are driving, but you are not the only one on the road.
You would not be given a ticket, you were given a Part 3 summons...to appear in court and hopefully receive your minimum $2000 fine. I feel no sympathy for you, the law was was also designed for people just like you, not just the street racer. Suck it up and learn from it.

 

[Old Ranger]

When you get to dig brain matter out of your boot tread from an innocent driver because someone had to be speeding, then you can complain.  Or try and get to the pregnant lady whose water broke in the 6 hour back log on the highway.

I used to speed allot, but not in heavy traffic.  Concider it lucky that there was no accident, no one died, and your remorseful.

You will probably get a lighter sentence with your good track record and begging for the courts mercy.

Look at the bright side, maybe posting here will remind or inform others about speeding and save them a bit of grief, or a life.
And if you keep clean from now on, it shouldn't be a detriment to a Police application. I know officers with a far worse past.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[R933ex]

Piper,

If you are reallytruly embarrassed by this whole experience, I suggest 2 things:
1) Plead Guilt
2) Be proactive, use your experience to ensure others don't repeat your mistake.

In my limited experience I have been to many MVA's (usually fatal) and the faster you go the more likely some one is going to die.

As an additional point, I see from your profile that you are an OCDT, a future leader of men. (And women) I suggest strongly that you show leadership (which I suggest you have the capability of) and accept responsibility for your actions and then get on with your life.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

When is any new legislation not some sort of cash grab, especially when it comes to enforcement? 
Recall the photo radar debacle from the 90's.  And that only got dumped because some rich guy decided to fight it to the Supreme Court on general principle. 
I would tend to agree that the real street racers will definitely not stop now.  However, they pretty much didn't before (at least in the case of motorcycles).  The racers usually hide their licence plates, and with a full helmet we are pretty much beat.  And since our pansy pursuit policy pretty much forbids us to go after motorcycles unless there is a hell of a good reason, look for more of this crap. 
Hopefully the Darwinism factor continues to kick in, and there are lots of single vehicle fatalities.  Perhaps then the rest of the clowns might clue in to the idea that "dying is one of the sad things". 
As for Piper; see what you can work out.  Just because there is a harsh law doesn't mean the Justices will enforce it.  I routinely see $500 fines for Owner Operate No Insurance, and it is supposed to be a minimum fine of $5000.  Anyone can come up with a good, weepy story and with the right Justice you will be laughing.  Also, don't underestimate overworked/undermotivated Crowns.  Get the right one and they'll let you plead out of anything, just to clear a case.  One of our Crowns here allowed a guy from Leamington to plead to 65 in a 50 (no points, min fine) when he was actually doing 110.  Part of the agreement?  The guy had to promise to plant a tree in a local park.  Did I mention that the Crown had ambitions to run with the NDP? 
Hook up with a POINTTS guy or one of those.  If you were in Windsor, I could put you onto the best guy for the job.  I think they're all fairly decent.  Just don't get greedy.  Offer to plea to 29 over.  That should fly, or hopefully will.
Good luck. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, after all of this, I think what the originator got was a Part 1 Summons. Under certain violations that can be written, with no Schedule of Offence, a LEO can write a Part 1 Summons. Meaning, if it's covered by an Act or Regulation, but not by a Schedule of Offence, he can write a summons for the accused to appear in court to answer the charge. At that point it's up to the Justice or Judge. I'm only guessing. I don't know if this is part of the Highway Traffic Act or in a LEO's pervue. Different Officers in different jurisdictions have different athourity.

 

[J.J]

[I'll plead to 49 over, anything but that dreaded "50+ over".

Let me put it this way to the 'suck it uppers'. You try facing something that could ruin your life and oh did I mention 23000$ I just spent on a car, saving for years. Yeah, I was an idiot for driving that fast and yes, I deserve to be punished. What I'm saying/hoping for is some leniency because of my situation, who I am and of course the fact that I accept full responsibility for what I did. It's easy to say suck it up when you don't have the OPP Commissioner and the Attourney General all talking about "you" like your a person on par with a rapist or murderer. Thats my beef with this law, it's all based on fear mongering and the media flavour of the week.

I'm dumb, I made a big and possibly deadly mistake. I won't be doing it again, ever (never thought I would either). Do you think I should become uninsurable for years because of one mistake? Would you be willing to have the same punishment given to you if you committed the same offence? I was speeding and deserve a punishment (duhh), but I'm not a 'street racer' or a 'stunt driver', but the law defines me as such (thats my 'beef' with it).

I will coincide that it can cause you great hardship, but that is what a punishment is by definition. I can feel sympathy for you if this is the one and only time you have driven dangerously. If it is something that you have done in the past, then you do not learn from your mistakes, you need to suffer the consequences to learn a lesson. I bet you won't drive like that again.

<edit: repaired the quote box tag>

 

[rz350]

if you read this report http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/sect/traeng/its/downloads/gta-speed-limits-study.pdf

it seems to suggest most highways are vastly under-rated in their speed limit, if you follow normal and sound engineering principals used in highway design.

So I think the speed limit it self is the problem, and politicians are just using it to appear tough on crime, while my bike gets snatched out of my yard and my truck gets painted and people sell drugs on my corner.

 

[Meridian]

That thesis is an interesting read, thanks.

 

[Michael OLeary]

if you read this report http://www.civ.utoronto.ca/sect/traeng/its/downloads/gta-speed-limits-study.pdf

it seems to suggest most highways are vastly under-rated in their speed limit, if you follow normal and sound engineering principals used in highway design.

So I think the speed limit it self is the problem, and politicians are just using it to appear tough on crime, while my bike gets snatched out of my yard and my truck gets painted and people sell drugs on my corner.

I believe that this opinion and the referenced report have done little but introduce a red herring into this discussion.  The speed limit is not the problem, the problem is people who choose to exceed it at dangerously fast speeds.

With the 401 speed limit at 100 kph, and average speeds at 120+, we already have a socially accepted and officially tolerated speed limit of 120+ in effect.  With this ingrained acceptance of 20+/- kph over the limit in effect, increasing the posted speed limit to 120 would only result in people pushing the actual average driving speed to 140+, and then it’s a very small leap to see occurrences of mass drivers at dangerous speeds of 150+.

Presenting an argument solely on the physical characteristics of the roadway is a shallow and worthless argument.  Until it is backed with credible methods to educate drivers and influence change in the way people drive, then increasing speed limits only exacerbates the problem.

The law being discussed in this thread deals with people going 50+ over the speed limit.  If the speed limit were to be increased to 120, should that law then apply the same punishments for 30 kph over the posted limit, or would you expect another 50 kph on top of that?  Shouldn’t we want a generous safety margin highway usage model?


Piper, I’m not sure what you’re seeking here.  You have bragged about your car and how long you saved for it, and told us how you are an “upstanding citizen”.  With that background could you honestly say you weren’t aware of this new law and its ramifications if you broke it, as you did. 

I can think of three principal factors that might make someone try to pass a long line of cars on a minor highway ….. arrogance, stupidity or confidence in their vehicle because they’ve done it before.  Whatever the measure of the first two, I feel the third is a factor here given your expressed opinion of your wheels.  Given that, I find it difficult to believe you when you imply that this is an isolated event and that we should accord you the position of victim here. 

I'll plead to 49 over, anything but that dreaded "50+ over".

Let me put it this way to the 'suck it uppers'. You try facing something that could ruin your life and oh did I mention 23000$ I just spent on a car, saving for years. Yeah, I was an idiot for driving that fast and yes, I deserve to be punished. What I'm saying/hoping for is some leniency because of my situation, who I am and of course the fact that I accept full responsibility for what I did. It's easy to say suck it up when you don't have the OPP Commissioner and the Attourney General all talking about "you" like your a person on par with a rapist or murderer. Thats my beef with this law, it's all based on fear mongering and the media flavour of the week.

I'm dumb, I made a big and possibly deadly mistake. I won't be doing it again, ever (never thought I would either). Do you think I should become uninsurable for years because of one mistake? Would you be willing to have the same punishment given to you if you committed the same offence? I was speeding and deserve a punishment (duhh), but I'm not a 'street racer' or a 'stunt driver', but the law defines me as such (thats my 'beef' with it).

I guess this post puts me in the “ ‘suck it uppers’ ” camp.  Your protests at the opinions expressed here are starting to sound like the folks that complain that they should still be allowed to join the Army because they only have a “little asthma”, or that they “only tried hallucinogenic drugs once”. 

The law was clearly advertised before it came into effect. It wasn’t created to trap you, you chose to break it and, this time, got caught.  The results of that personal choice are yours to deal with, for as long as they last.

It took a few decades of aggressive public education and enforcement to get such things as seatbelt usage and driving sober into the public consciousness as sensible choices for everyday driving.  If it had been done 50 years ago, I might have known my father.  Perhaps this is where the real battle against dangerous speed has actually begun. 

I would say the bright side of this issue is that we didn’t read about your passing attempt in the morning paper and also mourn for anyone in an oncoming vehicle.  Maybe you will learn enough from this not to take such risks with others’ safety in the future.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yup, sorry Piper, my young cougar-bait friend, but I must whole-heartedly agree with Mr. O'Leary above.

Your act, IMO, is no different than someone taking  guns into a park and aimlessly shooting.....

 

[Shamrock]

You try facing something that could ruin your life..

This comment irks me.

Several years ago, I was hit by a truck doing 70 in a 40 zone.  I didn't bounce so much as smear.  I too faced a situation that could ruin my life.  The driver was in tears as I was poured into the ambulance; like you, she showed incredible remorse.  She did not contest her ticket and paid the fine.  She went on to later hit and kill another pedestrian.

Piper, your situation sucks.  But it's self inflicted.  

 

[geo]

+1 Shamrock
Reality check once in a while is needed.

I have had enough bad experiences on streets & highways to appreceate the intent of the law.

Will it work?
Will it catch others not specificaly performing street races?
Will the Gov't get a lot of money from the fines levied?

If there is anything that is certain, Piper will probably think twice before doing the fast/fast thing again.

 

[garb811]

I'll plead to 49 over, anything but that dreaded "50+ over".

Then you're not really accepting full responsibility for your actions then are you?

What I'm saying/hoping for is some leniency because of my situation, who I am and of course the fact that I accept full responsibility for what I did.

I'd agree the last one should buy you some leniency if you actually step up and accept full and unlimited responsibility for your actions.  As above, you're not doing that.  Reference your situation and who you are, you certainly aren't the standard "poor university student" so that should buy you no leniency and I certainly hope you're not planning on pulling out your military status to try to win some sympathy.

It's easy to say suck it up when you don't have the OPP Commissioner and the Attourney General all talking about "you" like your a person on par with a rapist or murderer.

They aren't.  You aren't facing anywhere near the liability an accused rapist or murder does.  It just seems that way because for the first time in your life, you're in a situation which hurts that you know you probably can't get out of.

Do you think I should become uninsurable for years because of one mistake?

Yes, it happens all the time, it's called deterrence as the fallout from breaking the law is more than what most people wish to bear.  Do you also think someone should not have their license suspended, face a fine, possible jail time and become essentially uninsurable because they made "one mistake" and had one beer too many in the mess and then get picked up at the front gate 200m away after arriving there without incident?

Would you be willing to have the same punishment given to you if you committed the same offence?

Yes. I, like you, are subject to the law and the punishments defined therein should I choose to break it.

There is no-one to blame for this but you, you made a series of conscious decisions which led you to the situation you are in.  Posting what you have speaks volumes as to your character. 

By the way, if you think the guy you're talking to at Pointts is a lawyer, you might want to ask him directly.  Pointts supplies "traffic court agents" to act as your representative, not lawyers.

 

[Meridian]

increasing the posted speed limit to 120 would only result in people pushing the actual average driving speed to 140+, and then it’s a very small leap to see occurrences of mass drivers at dangerous speeds of 150+.

Michael:

The thesis that was referenced does address your comment here by refuting your statement.  In fact, according to the thesis and studies it quotes (which may or may not represent all viewpoints), your comment is exactly what citizen's groups protest but which is apparently incorrect.    The greater argument is that speed holds less impact as a causal factor in major accidents than age and driver inexperience.    No matter what you post on the sign, inexperienced male kids who feel they won't get caught will still drive excessively and you will still see them causing major accidents. In places where the posted speed limit is actually relevant to the 85% rule, it would appear that a majority of people remain at the 85% rule.

How does this all apply to Piper?  Well I suppose his argument isn't that he was speeding, but that he wasn't speeding as excessively as the black and white of the posted speed limit and radar would attest.      If the speed limit on the highway correlated with the 85% rule and "Free-flowing traffic", then the speed limit would be approx 20km higher.  Thus when he passed this group, he was indeed speeding, however he would not be performing a "stunt" under the law, but rather increasing his speed by only 30km over the limit, rather than 50.    Still dangerous, perhaps, and still excessive, perhaps.  But it would fall differently under the law.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Michael:

The thesis that was referenced does address your comment here by refuting your statement.  In fact, according to the thesis and studies it quotes (which may or may not represent all viewpoints), your comment is exactly what citizen's groups protest but which is apparently incorrect.    The greater argument is that speed holds less impact as a causal factor in major accidents than age and driver inexperience.    No matter what you post on the sign, inexperienced male kids who feel they won't get caught will still drive excessively and you will still see them causing major accidents. In places where the posted speed limit is actually relevant to the 85% rule, it would appear that a majority of people remain at the 85% rule.

How does this all apply to Piper?  Well I suppose his argument isn't that he was speeding, but that he wasn't speeding as excessively as the black and white of the posted speed limit and radar would attest.      If the speed limit on the highway correlated with the 85% rule and "Free-flowing traffic", then the speed limit would be approx 20km higher.  Thus when he passed this group, he was indeed speeding, however he would not be performing a "stunt" under the law, but rather increasing his speed by only 30km over the limit, rather than 50.    Still dangerous, perhaps, and still excessive, perhaps.  But it would fall differently under the law.

If Piper was attempting to pass a "long line" of cars, as he described it, then it may be reasonable to assume that he was NOT within the 85% rule.

Also, according to his profile, he falls within your described demographic for high-risk drivers:

Gender:  Male
Age: 20

You assume that raising the speed limit would also raise the upper limit for "stunt" or dangerous driving, thereby negating his "crime" if nothing else changed.

This is all irrelevant.  He was speeding, well above the posted limit, and he was also above the newly published limit for dangerous and stunt driving which includes the "simple" offence of 50 kph over the posted limit.

He chose to break the law - the details after that really don't matter, do they?  Arguing against the circumstances only serves to undermine the basic principle that this is about public safety, and that takes precedent over anyone's personally diagnosed "need for speed".

 

[Meridian]

I'm not disputing that he was at fault, nor whether he is guilty or not.  I earlier made the argument that indeed, he was going to have a rough time trying to claim otherwise, and he has already admitted he is guilty.

However, he did post this topic, and from what I gathered from his original post, part of the premise of the topic is to discuss the law.  The law talks about speeding, what dangerous is, what a stunt is,  and all of that relates to how we set a speed limit. 

I realize that many of the posters here want to make sure Piper, young that he is, does not feel like he can "get off" or get any sympathy from those who sacrifice most to uphold security and public safety principles around the world.    I also realize in his posts he doesn't seem to get that entirely.   

So, in effect, the thesis is relevant to the greater discussion about the Speed Racing law,  and yes, I agree, much less relevant to Piper feeling better about himself.

 

[1feral1]

All you would be speeders out there use me as an example.

With a new law out, they'll be looking for stats to promote such.

The OPP and courts make just use you as an example to others, so if I was you, I would anticipate the worst, and have a slim hope for the best, which aint too good. You are lucky you are not losing your licence for a period of years.

In reality, there is not  an excuse for going over 50kph of a posted limit, or less even. Every day I am 110 in a 100 zone, and I know thats wrong, and the QPS could book me if they so desired. I've even passed them, so they have not yet anyways. As for you mate doing 175 in a 100 zone, and got off with his ID card flash, it did not work for me doing 117 in a 100 zone out of Brandon.

Roll with it, suck it up, pay the piper (ha), and carry on. A valuable lesson learned.


Regards,

Wes

 

[Roy Harding]

While I accept full responsibility for what I did (I'm saying it again), the reality is 'I promise I won't do it again' MAY work in court, but it won't work with the insurance companies. So, while I am responsible for what I did...it was dumb, etc...I'm going to attempt to use my paralegal help to try and make sure my demerit points are as low as possible. Who wouldn't?

...

In the '80s I was charged with impaired driving.  And I was guilty.  I did NOT hire a lawyer, POINTTS guy, or any other legal expert.  I stood up in court and said "Guilty, Your Honour".  And then, I accepted my fate - I paid my fine, I surrendered my license for the (at that time) required six months, I arranged rides into work, and I accepted what the CF did to one guilty of such an offense at the time (which, depending upon which base you were serving on, included COMPULSORY attendance at the ARC - or "spin dry" course - regardless of your past history).  Oh - and I paid OUTRAGEOUS insurance rates once I reclaimed my license.

For what it's worth - that was my one and only offense of ANY kind - never had a ticket before or since that incident, I lived in a small town 20 kms north of the Base I was employed on (so I "needed" my wheels for work), I was a Sergeant with a magnificent record - and I STILL just said "Guilty, Your Honour".  People thought I was a fool - and some still do, but I believed in accepting the consequences of my actions, and I still do.

Justice should not be negotiable.  You, Piper, are attempting to negotiate.

I guess I belong in the "suck it up" camp.


Roy

 

[Shamrock]

And if we're swapping stores here, a good friend of mine ended up as a red smear on the road a year ago when the car he was riding in went out of control. I know exactly how it feels.

If we're talking about a "good friend" then yes, maybe, I'll accept you know how it feels.  Has your good friend's life ruining experience had any affect on your driving habits?

Yes, it must be terribly embarrasing for you to have to walk all over the place and be known as "that guy".  Try getting peeled off a road with a priapism.  What about having a couple of neighbours bring over your shoes, found on either side of the road. 

So let me clarify what I was trying to really accomplish with this thread....with this new law, the officers have no discretion (according to the letter of the law, you'll see the word 'SHALL' in there) in this matter and you loose your car for seven days right off the bat BEFORE you are found guilty of any crime. I take issue with that. Secondly, I take issue with the labels the media is tossing around.

Okay, shoot.  How would you handle an individual travelling of 50 km/h in excess of the posted limit on a highway with "a long line of vehicles" already travelling in 20 km/h over?