# Ontario's new 'Street Racing' laws



## cameron_highlander (11 Oct 2007)

So;

My new car of 3 weeks was taken away from me in the middle of nowhere Ontario (near Peterborough) under the new law we have in Ontario that is supposed to target street racers (people racing down city streets). Basically, I was attempting to pass a long line of cars on Hwy 7 in one of the passing lanes. If anyone has driven on Hwy 7 in -Ontario, you know that the speed limit varies between 60-80km/hr but the pace of traffic is usually 100km/hr on the long stretches, so you need to 'gun it' as it were to pass. So, I got caught...and justifiably so, I was speeding. 

However, among the other things that have gone through my mind this week (don't get my car until Monday) is how utterly unfair this law is. Why you ask? I'll list my problems (keeping in mind that yeah, I'm a dumbarse for speeding and getting caught, I know that).

-They aren't catching the real street racers, who aren't usually dumb enough to race in broad daylight. They are catching 'normal' speeders, who before were just slapped with a heavy fine and sent on their merry way (or in the case of my buddy, let off with a warning because he was a CF member). Now with this new law, you loose your car (vital for some, including me) and have to go to court...no choice and the police are obliged to do this, they have no discretion in the matter. 

-I was told "the tow truck driver will take you into town, your on your own there". WTF? I'm sorry, but if your taking away my car in the middle of nowhere for something like this, I would assume that you could help me a little more with finding a way home (cost me 158$ for a cab to my girlfriend's place). Also, I still don't know how to get my license back, the officer took it and drove off. 

-I'm paying 635$ in impound fees, possibly 150$ to get my license back and of course my costs to get home. That's over 900$ before I've even been found guilty. Wow. Thought it was innocent until proven guilty. Apparently not. 

-Drunk drivers, bad drivers, murderers and drug dealers are running rampant and killing people....hundreds a YEAR. Street racing kills 36 in 6 years (right from the OPP website) and it becomes this big of an issue. I have a problem with our laws being made and enforced at the leisure of the media (I'm looking at you Mr. Fantino..you media spotlight lover you).  

My view, this is a way for the OPP and the Government of Ontario to appear to be doing something when they aren't, and making a killing in fines while doing so. Meanwhile, I have to dodge people doing their makeup and smoking pot on their way down the 401 and any other Hwy, but I get dinged and turned into an 'evil street racer' for trying to pass. I know, I was driving 50km/hr over the limit (I think, the officer never told me how fast I was going) and that was dumb..very, very STUPID. But, why can I not be sent on my way with a heafty fine or severe warning (officer's discretion) instead of having to fight for my driving life because I'm being branded as something I'm not. It's like arresting a kid with 2g's of pot and treating him like you just caught a Colombian cartel boss (like they did a few years ago).

Maybe I'm being whiner and 'just another kid'. But this whole situation has really made me aware of how screwy the justice system is when it works to the will of media hype. I'm a young male with a new (and darned nice I might add) car. I am therefore by definition to the media, AG and the OPP a rich, careless playboy...without even knowing me. I saved up for that car for years, was finally able to buy it and now am looking at maybe not being able to drive it because of one (big I know) mistake (no prior traffic or criminal convictions in my life). Let's hope the judge is reasonable and my lawyer is good (Pointts is who I'm talking to now). 

I f**ked the dog on this one, big time. But why do I have to go through this whole process for a law that's not supposed to apply to me? This '50km/hr over is authomatically street racing' idea is bullocks, if the OPP (who patrol the highways) pulled over everyone going that fast the 401 would have ALOT fewers cars on it, thats for sure. But no, I'm young and male so the officer wouln't even consider dropping it to 49km/hr over on the spot. 





Wow; that feels better. I had to vent to someone. Now, does anyone hav any advice for me? I know a few police officers who are looking into this for me but no one knows whats going on, the OPP are just taking cars left right and centre because the law was rushed in and the OPP has to look like is doing something. Im also getting a lawyer to sort this out for me, but hey, I know a few officers are on this board s I was hoping I could get some advice. I have no priors, I go to school and NEED my car to get there, get to my late night job, training and martial arts training and of course I am a CF member. 

Anyone? I'm confused, worried and rather scared at the whole situation. I doubt I'll loose my license, but if I become un-insurable....

EDIT: Just so we're clear, I've got nothing against the OPP or any other police service. I hope to one day join your ranks after my CF service (maybe) and thats another reason I am concerned...street racing charge+ police application = BAD. I just have a problem with the idiots writing the laws.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2007)

You say you got no ticket, and no explanation of how fast you were going?  That sounds odd.

Do you have a location (town) where this happened along Hwy 7?


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Oct 2007)

I have not read the law in detail, but my immediate reaction when the law was passed was that it would probably be struck down by a judge if someone had the $$ to appeal it high enough. 

As you said speeding does not make you a street racer! 

Good luck, as someone who has got dinged for 50+ over I'm rooting for you... (on a deserted 80 kph limit highway betwen Sudbury and Timmins  : )


----------



## Koenigsegg (11 Oct 2007)

<speculation>
There have been a few issues of fraud, and even police officers planting pot in young peoples cars when they pull them over.  So, it may (may) be possible that this could be one of those things?
The no ticket is suspicious (from my experience), you were not told how to get your license back, and your car was impounded.  Two of things I find very odd.  and those two things, could make the third slightly questionable.
It's like the 7 proofs of continental drift.  individually they prove nothing.  But with 3 or more together, they make a very hard case.
</speculation>
I'm not saying it happened, or that it is too much of a possibility.  I'm just saying that in Barrie we have had issues with a few officers, and I have heard of fraud cases in the past (They can be really good).


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2007)

I have a question.  Where there any others who had their cars impounded and charged along with you?  In order to be racing, I would normally think of it as being more than one person in the race.  If you weren't racing with another person, then all you were doing was Speeding, and perhaps 'aggressive driving'.  

Should be interesting to see how this pans out.  I hope you update us after you have had your day in court.  I hope you get a good lawyer to argue your case.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Oct 2007)

Was this 'immediate impound' because of the difference in the posted speed to your actual speed? E.g. 40kph over the posted speed?

Hate to piss on your parade mate, but speeding is simply that, and really there is no excuse for it. Honestly now, no matter how we are inconvienced by slow drivers, there is not much we can do, but ride it out (literally).

I do feel your pain however, and I am not stirring the pot.

In Queensland, 20kph over, and you loose your license.

I travel 140km/day, and always never push it over 110 in a 100 zone. So far no ticket, and 32 yrs behind the wheel, nowadays, I would never exceed the limit of 40-50kph over. Good common sense, and I want to keep driving, plus I like my $$ in my bank, not in the hands of the police.

50kph over might not make you a racer, but it is outright deadly dangerous, with literally risking your life and others, regardless of your age and experience. I reckon the law will stick, and you'll end up convicted and black listed for years to come. Traffic judges who see all too often the horrors, death, pain and trauma accidents involving excessive speeding cause, will in my opinion show no mercy. If I was a judge, shy of a life threatening family emergency, I would convict wholeheartedly. In hindsight, I would expect the same from most decesnt drivers.

Like I said, hate to piss on your parade.

Chin up,

Wes


----------



## Meridian (11 Oct 2007)

As I was told by a former colleague who joined the OPP,  when the speed has no set fine and instead requires a court date,  a ticket can not be issued because no actual fine can be placed on it.  Instead, you get the court summons, and the officer provides his evidence to the crown for prosecution.  The CA and your lawyer (or you), get to debate it out in a live court, and see what the judge decides for you. This apparently was the case even before this new law;  you didn't automatically lose your car/license all in one go previously, but past a certain speed (I believe it was 49+ over), you still had to go to court to get the fine - no ticket, just a court summons.


IMHO, you may have a rough time convincing a judge that your speed was warranted if the flow of traffic was already 20-40 kph over the speed limit, and you still felt the need to pass this already speeding "flow of traffic".   What you probably have a crack at is appealing the immediate seizure of your vehicle and license as guilty until proven innocent, which is arguably anti-constitutional.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Oct 2007)

Here's the background on the law:

Bill 203
Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

Section 172 of HTA.

While you're at it, read Section 173.


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Oct 2007)

So under the law exceeding the speed limit by 50kph is considered "stunt driving", not "street racing"... 

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_070455_e.htm


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

> 172.  (1)  No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21


----------



## MPIKE (11 Oct 2007)

This is not personal and yes your story stings... Don't blame Julian. it's Dalton's law and we will be getting 4 more years of him..  

But this is what your up against.....



> Ontario Highway Traffic Act  notes: "the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely".  Therefore, those who abuse the privilege or otherwise compromise the safety of the general public must be held accountable to the full extent provided in law.


Disregard of this simple section is why the gov't has step in to ensure compliance with the laws of highway.  Deaths, Collisions, and road safety stats indicate that many are not getting the message. as pointed out by you;  



> If anyone has driven on Hwy 7 in -Ontario, you know that the speed limit varies between 60-80km/hr but the pace of traffic is usually 100km/hr on the long stretches, so you need to 'gun it' as it were to pass. So, I got caught...and justifiably so, I was speeding.





> I know, I was driving 50km/hr over the limit


sorry, not much sympathy for you. Your a danger to others at that speed.  Physics out explains any excuse here, I'm afraid..



> I was attempting to pass a long line of cars on Hwy 7 in one of the passing lanes.


This added with your speed puts you further into the danger category..  still in the wrong.
Why was it necessary to pass vehs already going 20ish over the limit??.  



> Drunk drivers, bad drivers, murderers and drug dealers are running rampant and killing people


On that day, you fell into that bad driver category and your action attributes to the Fatality and Personal injury rate on the Highways. 

Thats what the system sees of you.. I'm afraid..  Like it or not.. You've broken a law.

Good news though... You'll have your day in court and you've lawyered up so I would follow that advice and not answer shop here...

As for your career aspirations? I would swallow this pill and learn from it quickly..


----------



## Strike (11 Oct 2007)

Piper, I hate to say it, but unless you are using your car FOR work (and are insured for such), and not just to GET to work, than the courts won't see you as needing a car, no matter how far you have to go to get to school.


----------



## COBRA-6 (11 Oct 2007)

Piper, I went through this a few years ago (under the old law so no roadside suspension) so here's some advice:

*Go to points/x-copper!!*, see if they can get the crown to reduce the charges before it goes before the judge, being a first offence you stand a chance. Not sure if they can do that with the new regs seeing how they already suspended you, but give it a try... Once it gets in front of the judge I don't think that he can reduce the charge, only the fine for it. In my case he cut the fine from $600 to $300 because I was a student, but what I didn't know was that the fine paled in comparison to what I would pay in increased insurance premiums for the next few years (you are classed as a "high risk" driver for over 50 kph = $4k/yr rates for several years!!!). *Try everything you can to have the crown reduce the charge to less than 49kph before your court date!*

I also had an interview with the MTO where they asked why I should get to keep my licence, how I was going to drive more responsibly, and what would happen if I was caught speeding again... 

Hope that helps!


----------



## Shamrock (11 Oct 2007)

Here's some UFI for you:

130km/h is around 36 metres/second.  Given the typical length of a blink is 0.3 seconds, every time you blinked, you would have travelled just under 11 metres.  If the average blinks once every five seconds, you'd have spent about 3.6 seconds of every minute with your eyes closed (or close to 130 metres every minute).

A car travelling 100 km/h is going around 28 metres/second.  That driver will go around 8 metres per blink.

80 km/h, 22 metres/second.  7 metres/blink.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say I'm trying to get off...I'm guilty, pure and simple.
> 
> What I'm hoping is a reduction in the charge seeing as I'm a a) student, b) first offence, c) upstanding citizen (not to sound arrogant, but I am), d) need my car and e) really, really, REALLY embarassed and overall very upset and remorseful over the whole thing. It's embarassing and stressful and I'm sure as hell not doing this again.
> 
> It's a new law, and I'll be one of the first to go through so hopefully I'll set a precendet for how to deal with first time offenders. My only bright point is that people who actually race aren't even getting the max penalty unless they kill someone, and thats a whole new kettle of fish.



Also states the fine is a mininum of $2000.  So Merry Christmas!

Mate, again being honest, at 50kph over, you very easily could have killed someone, or yourself. All it takes is a split second, like a car turning on to the road in front of you. After all he thinks you are going 50kph slower.

You're  20, and an adult. I don't need to lecture you, but I am sure you get my drift.

An expensive lesson, which will cost you right now about $2900 so far.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Strike (11 Oct 2007)

After having a friend get in an accident over the weekend which could have killed her had the stars been alligned differently, I have absolutely no sympathy for you.

She moved to the outside lane to avoid the person in front of her when they braked suddenly.  She checked the lane quickly and it was clear, and had just settled and was braking when someone going well over the limit rear-ended her.

You might think you can control your speed, but you can't read minds and you could have easily caused an accident in the same way...except you probably would have pushed the car to oncoming traffic.


----------



## 284_226 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> EDIT: Just so we're clear, I've got nothing against the OPP or any other police service. I hope to one day join your ranks after my CF service (maybe) and thats another reason I am concerned...street racing charge+ police application = BAD.



I may be mistaken, but I think you'll find the Highway Traffic Act comes under the Provincial Offences Act, meaning it's not a criminal conviction against you.  Shows up on a driver's abstract, though.



> I just have a problem with the idiots writing the laws.



I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of legislators being "idiots".  Nobody, but *nobody* has any business travelling at 50 km/h over the speed limit.  As far as I'm concerned, Nova Scotia could use some legislation with teeth such as this.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> So long as they don't take out innocent bystanders, I consider it chlorinating the gene pool.



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.


----------



## 284_226 (12 Oct 2007)

If they run from the law, they're not just stupid, they're now criminals instead of summary offence violators.  The punishments meted out for evasion should be hardened correspondingly to make the run/no run decision a simple one - pull over, or you're going to spend a long time in cells for thinking you're young and bulletproof.

I have to disagree with the assessment that racing/stunt driving isn't much of a threat.  Speeding 20-30 km/h isn't much of a threat, and the fines reflect that.  Excessive speeding is a threat - even if only to the driver themselves - and I'm tired of paying out high insurance premiums because of youthful stupidity.  I have little sympathy for those who are getting their cars seized for a week.  I'd be content to watch them get crushed.  That would have an enormous impact on the youth that are borrowing mom and pop's car for their joyriding.


----------



## 284_226 (12 Oct 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

> [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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

That thesis is an interesting read, thanks.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Oct 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

+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 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

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 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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 (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> 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?


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> All you would be speeders out there use me as an example. It ain't worth it. Never was, but especially so now.



"Good judgment comes from experience.  Experience comes from bad judgment"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2007)

..............and I think the point has been made. With no need to continue we can shut this one down, with the usual caveats.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2007)

I have received an update from Piper that he would like posted. Here it is:



> My court date has come and gone and I got my charge 'changed', esentially. Instead of being charged under HTA 172(1) (that new street racing act) I'll be getting a straight speeding ticket as if I got caught before HTA 172(1). So, it's a way smaller fine, no further suspension but still 6 demerit points. Lesson learned. Wouldn't say I got off lucky, but I think it's a fair turn of events....considering I have no priors and this law isn't targeting the people it was originally meant to (street racers). Personal opinions about this law aside, let my example stand as a lesson to everyone. Keep your speed down on the highways, lest you want to help fund your local towing company and the provincial coffers.


----------

