PDA

View Full Version : A hard look at the `street racing' law -and Why we have this new law


bmdbley'sBro
11-19-2007, 12:21 AM
-
here's a great article READ IT.

it would appear we have this law cause a Drunk left turned infront of cars doing 112kph in a 80 zone.

A hard look at the `street racing' law

Recent passage of Bill 203 will only be a lucrative source of revenue for the government

Tim Chisholm
Special to the Star
Nov 17, 2007


Ontario Bill 203 was supposed to be a proposal to combat street racing, but it's just politics at its worst.

A private member's bill was proposed in the spring of 2006 and was pretty much shot down. The bill has always included the controversial issue of "officer discretion" on whether the driver was "racing" or not.

About the only well-thought issue that 203 contained was making it illegal to run nitrous on the street. As hard as it is to imagine, before 203, it was not illegal to have a fully operational nitrous system on your street car.

With 203, the system can be in place, without the bottle connected, but if the bottle is connected, you are in trouble. Good on 203 for this: nitrous is for the drag strip, and that's where it should stay. There was no 50 km/h-over issue on the Bill 203 proposal.

The elected official who conceived many parts of 203 is Newmarket MP Frank Klees. Mr. Klees was the minister of transportation in the early part of this century.

I had an argument over the phone with Klees in the spring of 2006 when a "safer roads" bill was initially proposed. My argument was simple: the new law could sink a car enthusiast who is doing nothing wrong, other than simply driving his or her modified car.

It's because the bill negatively profiles the modified car enthusiast and gives the officer full discretion, with no due process for the accused. Pretty simple, a copper having a bad day can screw a car enthusiast simply because he chooses to. When I suggested that this will happen often if 203 becomes law, Klees told me he "could live with that."

I was relieved that the proposed bill got shot down.

But then in May 2006, the accident that killed Rob and Lisa Manchester, and which left their 8-year-old daughter an orphan, hit the headlines. This accident took place in Klees' riding. The accident was blamed on "street racers," reportedly travelling 150 km/h in an 80 km/h zone when Manchester made a left-hand turn into the path of the two "racers."

With the Manchester deaths, there was no way the government could continue to brush off 203 and Klees, and understandably so. Street racing killed two members of Klees' own riding and he was the man already pushing the proposal.

By the spring of this year, you'd have to be on another planet to not realize that 203 was going through. The media wheel was turning at full speed every accident headline involving "speed" was replaced with "street racing."

We had Prime Minister Stephen Harper spewing the term, Premier Dalton McGuinty following suit, and (now former) attorney-general Michael Bryant was threatening to crush cars. Then OPP chief Julian Fantino chimed in with "50 km/h over is street racing," in his opinion, and he wants a plane.

By June 2007, those of us in the enthusiast community were pointing out that only 0.12 per cent of traffic deaths are related to "street racing," and "What the hell is the inspiration for these draconian proposals?" And then whammo, Bill 203 gets royal assent. And funny, just before it received assent, the 50 km/h-over penalties were added.

In an interesting feat of timing, the boys charged in the influential accident that killed the Manchesters were due for sentencing right around the time that Bill 203's provisions were to become official.

Then a few facts started coming out. The boys were not doing 150 km/h, but actually 112 km/h. Manchester was drunk, twice over the limit. The judge ruled that the boys were not street racing, and that Manchester's alcohol level was a factor.

You have to wonder how Manchester's condition was overlooked, considering his death was exploited as a result of "street racers" for 14 months. When the fact is, had Manchester lived, he would have been facing serious DUI charges. I'm sure everyone involved will claim they didn't know, but I will always be convinced that it was nothing more than politics at its worst.

I understand that, as of last week, more than 1,300 vehicles have been seized under the new legislation. I'm not sure how many were "street racing" versus driving 50 km/h-over, but at $2,000 a judgment, it seems that Fantino might have just paid for that plane he wanted. And we will all be reminded how much safer our roads are now.

Those who express shock and outrage at people brushing off 130-140-150 km/h as not being that fast in today's machinery will find that the new "street racing" legislation will morph as time goes by.

And they may express more shock and outrage when they nonchalantly coast down an 80 km/h back road on a Sunday drive, inadvertently speed up to 100 km/h as they coast down a hill and get dinged for 50 km/h over as they enter a 50 km/h zone where the OPP are hiding. They'll then get a life-altering financial burden under legislation designed to combat street racers and make roads safer.

The car enthusiast community will continue to fight this new legislation. The law leaving the officer to be judge and jury on the side of the road and levy these types of punishments violates our Charter of Rights.

Similar laws are in place in Florida, and recently a judge there ruled in a case that the "street racing" charges made at the discretion of the officer were "unconstitutional."

So it's only a matter of time before our new visionless law gets scrapped.

It's a real shame when politicians lack vision and common sense and make knee-jerk decisions based on their heart strings. It's even worse when they let law enforcement swoop in and capitalize on a potential cash cow.

It's not about making our roads safer and ridding the roads of street racers. The ERASE (Eliminate Racing Activities on Streets Everywhere) project was designed to do that.

When ERASE ran out of applicable fines for the 0.12 per cent of trouble on the road, police started hanging out at the racetrack entrances to hassle and fine drivers who were taking it to the track. Yep, the program encouraging you to take it to the track was trying to bust you when you took it to the track.

For what it's worth, along with being a car freak, I'm a 40-year-old business professional, husband and homeowner.

And I haven't had a traffic violation charge in more than 20 years. And I am mad as hell that this legislation was passed.

My late father (also an enthusiast) taught me that the roads are a dangerous place. The highways are even more dangerous. The cars I was raised around were dangerous they could kill you in a second.

No crumple zones, no ABS, no traction control, no airbags, some had no seatbelts, and none of them had eight cupholders or GPS. I was also informed early on that I would be learning to drive with a manual gearbox.

Maybe it's time to take a step back in what we promote. I've heard some suggest that head injuries in professional hockey today could be improved if helmets were not mandatory. Pretty simple theory: you give much more respect for others' safety when you're not wrapped up in a suit of armour.

Today's roads are seriously dangerous and will not become safer. And no matter what the manufacturers tell you, the car will not save you.

Deal with it responsibly or stay off the road.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheels reader Tim Chisholm drives a VW Rabbit and a modified Ford Mustang GT and a Morgan Plus8.


http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/32975#
[/SIZE]

i pretty much agree with every word 1000% *th-up*

v_bimmer
11-19-2007, 12:37 AM
interesting read!!! but man every thread you make is about streetracing, come down buddy, you are not in trouble!!

AceOfSpades
11-19-2007, 12:43 AM
interesting read!!! but man every thread you make is about streetracing, come down buddy, you are not in trouble!!
jstalin about bankruns
europrince about canadapost.com
its nothin new lol:D

enfield
11-19-2007, 08:28 AM
Thanks for posting. I agree. This is not about safety and all about $$

Drunk Drivers should have their cars & license taken away for 6 months and mandated to go to AA for 2 years.

I have no respect for Drunks who drive.

JUS_CRZN
11-19-2007, 09:04 AM
Interesting read.

1BADRIDE
11-19-2007, 09:42 AM
Great article...

except:

"And they may express more shock and outrage when they nonchalantly coast down an 80 km/h back road on a Sunday drive, inadvertently speed up to 100 km/h as they coast down a hill and get dinged for 50 km/h over as they enter a 50 km/h zone where the OPP are hiding. They'll then get a life-altering financial burden under legislation designed to combat street racers and make roads safer."

Sorry.... if the road says 80 and you go 100... that's called NOT PAYING ATTENTION. If you pass a sign that says 50km/hr at 100km/hr... well, duh.

Every week I drive out from my residence in North York to my house in Lakefield. There are PLENTY of zones that go from 80km/hr right down to 50km/hr with approx. 500m of lead notice WHICH I OBEY. Damn, my kids go to school in that area, no way in hell I want people blasting through there at 2x the limit - AND DO NOT GET ME WRONG - the drivers out there can DRIVE, not like the retards on the roads here in the GTA. What's the point of licensing drivers if any jackass can get one?

Just do what the ****ing signs say - what's so difficult about this? Afraid of getting your plates read enroute to the track? Tow it to the track! Can't afford it? WTF are you playing this game then? Go earn a better living THEN play the game WHEN you can afford it.

Are people just ****ing stupid these days?

I play within my means. I wasn't always able to play - it took years of hard work before I could.

INFAMOU$
11-19-2007, 09:50 AM
The writer of this article is from GTAMC "Greater Toronto Area Mustang Club" He has had some great posts there..

StikiGreenZ
11-19-2007, 09:51 AM
AND DO NOT GET ME WRONG - the drivers out there can DRIVE, not like the retards on the roads here in the GTA.

Yeah ok buddy... People in your town master drivers eh? :huh?:

propr'one
11-19-2007, 10:04 AM
You guys are focusing on the wrong aspect of this law.

my ONLY problem with this law is officer discretion. If this law remained exactly the same, except the cop can't take your car/licence at the side of the road, i'd be all for it. (look at what the laws were before. Realistically, if they dropped the licence/car impound part, the difference between what was then and what is now is:
-Before it was non-criminal, (but the courts could charge you with a criminal offense later if they so chose, and believe me, if it merited it, they would)
-The fine is now 2K, before it was closer to 1K.

**** LETTING POLICE OFFICERS BE JUDGES. THEY ARE REGULAR, POWER TRIPPING PEOPLE, MOST OF WHOM HAVE LESS EDUCATION THAN WE DO.

If i get convicted of something by a JUDGE, i'd be far less likely to think i've been done wrong than if i am "convicted" of something by a cop.

On a side note, a friend of mine got a racing charge last week (in his range rover. Family men are streetracing SUV's left right and centre). Once he beats the charge (he's a lawyer), he's gonna go after the cop. We'll see how it goes.

Blades
11-19-2007, 11:45 AM
Great article...

Afraid of getting your plates read enroute to the track? Tow it to the track! Can't afford it? WTF are you playing this game then? Go earn a better living THEN play the game WHEN you can afford it.



That has to be the most atrociously stupid comment I ever seen on a car forum. what are you a cop? No everyone can afford to get a tow to the track or a garage near the track to store there car yet they still love the hobby and are doing it LEGALLY!! why would you want to punish them?? just because they cant afford to tow it?? just because they want to take there car to Cayuga or Shannoville for a couple of runs doesnt mean they have to go full out.

INFAMOU$
11-19-2007, 01:42 PM
Great article...

except:

"And they may express more shock and outrage when they nonchalantly coast down an 80 km/h back road on a Sunday drive, inadvertently speed up to 100 km/h as they coast down a hill and get dinged for 50 km/h over as they enter a 50 km/h zone where the OPP are hiding. They'll then get a life-altering financial burden under legislation designed to combat street racers and make roads safer."

Sorry.... if the road says 80 and you go 100... that's called NOT PAYING ATTENTION. If you pass a sign that says 50km/hr at 100km/hr... well, duh.

Every week I drive out from my residence in North York to my house in Lakefield. There are PLENTY of zones that go from 80km/hr right down to 50km/hr with approx. 500m of lead notice WHICH I OBEY. Damn, my kids go to school in that area, no way in hell I want people blasting through there at 2x the limit - AND DO NOT GET ME WRONG - the drivers out there can DRIVE, not like the retards on the roads here in the GTA. What's the point of licensing drivers if any jackass can get one?

Just do what the ****ing signs say - what's so difficult about this? Afraid of getting your plates read enroute to the track? Tow it to the track! Can't afford it? WTF are you playing this game then? Go earn a better living THEN play the game WHEN you can afford it.

Are people just ****ing stupid these days?

I play within my means. I wasn't always able to play - it took years of hard work before I could.

You are completely missing the point trying to be made with your COCKY "do what the sign says" attitude.. It has nothing to do with that.. It has to do with COPS taking away your charter of rights.. How about on a rainy or snowy day when you ass end slides out in the slightest way on your BMW or how about you are beside a civic and the cop is having a bad day and says.. YOU WERE PERFORMING A STUNT.. or YOU WERE TRYING TO RACE THAT CIVIC.. a cop can make up whatever they want and you won't be able to do a thing about it.. so fast forward 9 months later when you FINALLY have your day in court and EVEN IF you prove yourself innocent.. they have made it clear that the costs of "tow, impound and whatever other fees you had due to the STUPID discretion of the cop (bus pass, taxi, loss of wadges) WILL NOT be refunded" I would like to see how pleased you would be about that.. even tho you were "obeying the signs"..

This law is completely ridiculous and to think that some punk that was too stupid to get a real education has the power to judge and jury me.. Um.. ya NO.. How about we focus on DUI or cell phones or things that THEY SHOULD change laws for... If they want people to stop driving CARELESSLY then F*cking enforce the laws we already have!

JMW
11-19-2007, 03:02 PM
it will never change
it will just get worse

summit425
11-19-2007, 03:55 PM
Let's leave Ontario!

1BADRIDE
11-19-2007, 05:22 PM
^^^ YAY

Nah - just causing grief on Max... isn't that everyone's job here?

:D :D

Seriously tho - was in a bit of a rush this morning to get out the door.

Still in a rush but here is some more to clear up stuff:

- If you know you'll get bit at the track, TOW IT. You know they'll be there until the situation changes - don't be a fool. When things lighten up (like ERASE did), you will be able to drive to the track without being harassed. If you can't afford it... well enough said.

- Officer discretion? This is so wrong it's not even worth talking about. I FULLY AGREE this is a very, VERY bad thing, but like ERASE and the car crushing episodes, it won't last forever and there will be lots of lawsuits and cell phone videos to prove how crooked that idea is before it is quashed.

- Follow the signs (I can't even beleive there is anyone arguing with this). The signs indicate the LEGAL SPEED LIMIT. If you're going faster than the sign, don't act all surprised and shit if you get bit. I drive according to weather conditions, and I have yet to see any slip or slide look even REMOTELY like racing. This is all hypothetical BS.

You guys KNOW this shit is going down - just play ball for a little while and let them tally up their stats and find out it was another HUGE waste of tax dollars like ERASE and then they wipe it all out.

Oh yes, other than the tourists - people anywhere WAY out of the GTA appear to be better drivers. What does that mean? It means the majority is driving THROUGH in the right lane. People overtake in the left lane and switch back to the right. There's no cutting off, no riding asses, none of the EVERY DAY BULLSHIT I see here in the GTA. I've made no less than 125 trips to and from Lakefield in the past 2 years and this is first hand. For God's sake, I have a TEN minute drive from Bathurst and Steeles to my office and I can almost guarantee there is ALWAYS someone doing something utterly stupid. I won't even get into Markham where my last house was... good lord! I wouldn't say MASTER drivers, but these are people who for the most part (and clearly seen by stats and just plain doing the drive on a regular basis) take their license to drive VERY seriously. Many people in the outskirts of Lakefield need their licenses to survive, literally.

I drove my CF'ed up Type-R'd Civic Hatch all riced out WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT. Why not? Because I didn't drive like a ****ing jackass! I did get pulled over once to confirm ownership of the car AND THAT IS ALL. No ticket, no beat down, and the cop was honest and said "You look like a kid with your toque pulled down like that... and well the car... LOL".

Don't get me wrong, there are crooked cops out there that will say shit and/or do shit to screw you over if they <don't like you> <had a bad day> <whatever> feel like it... just don't give any reason to let that happen. If something does happen, document the entire incident accurately and take it as far as you can.

Unfortunately we live in one of the poorest run provinces; controlled by people who are not even remotely in touch with the current generation. Look at all the scummy things our government does and NO ONE DOES A THING ABOUT IT EXCEPT WHINE.

Shit is going down AND WE ALL KNOW IT. Until it's over, play by the rules or be prepared for the consequences.

I love y'all! *muah* :D

EDIT: OH YES - I have done my fair share of stupid things on the road... but that was then, and this is TODAY; Things are very different and I have altered my ways accordingly. When this proves to be truly stupid (i.e. getting bit for 150km/hr over when doing 100 in a 80 zone), then I'll have something to say.

bmdbley'sBro
11-19-2007, 05:44 PM
I just like to bend over its easier
yeah so its a little more each time, but so what

just bring lube it hurts less as time passes

just play ball for a little while and let them Fk u in the ass.


fixed :D

1BADRIDE
11-19-2007, 05:54 PM
HAHAHHAHA ^^^^ :D :D :D

It's not that I like getting hosed by our Government or the police, but speeding and driving stupidly isn't going to HELP. Keep it calm on the roads and keep the fight against Bill 203 going. Eventually these political tards and this organized gang we call the Police will move on to the next media craze.

Has anyone here been stopped while driving a fully and completely street legal vehicle, LEGALLY on the road and been given "fake" tickets or had their car seized? It's funny how people think that "OMGZorz! I was doing 100km/hr in a 50 zone and I gotz pulled over!!!!!!1 Whyyyyyy meeeeeee??????"

http://www.gtamc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37161&page=1&pp=10&highlight=fighting+bill

^^ This is the thread you guys should be reading...

bmdbley'sBro
11-19-2007, 06:22 PM
.

Has anyone here been stopped while driving a fully and completely street legal vehicle, LEGALLY on the road and been given "fake" tickets or had their car seized?



yes yes i have been. mostly they just wanted to 'verify' my papenzee's
and know where i was coming from (address) & the name (1st & last) of the persons place i was at..

this usually adds time to the interaction :D - as homey don't play that

'why do you need the name of some1 u don;t even know, what crime did they commit?
what crime are you investigating.?
my friends have a right to privacy & theres suppossed to be no guilt by association..
did you stop me soley to ask me these intrusive questions? what did i do wrong?

they once had a pair of cops on a road in qc in partnership with the inurance industry
taking DNA swabs for some study (turned out to be testing for THC)
they set up a road block...

I declined i was then asked What i had to hide.. i put it in park & jsut lost it,
was there for a while..
amazed i didn't get arrested i mean all that freedom loving fascist hating crap coming out my mouth :D
both my grandparents served in ww2

JMW
11-19-2007, 07:16 PM
i had a riced out civic and was drive exatly the speed limit.....i got pulled over at the same time by 5 officers patrol cars....just as my mom drove by..they wanted to kno if i had drugs....and because my mom saw...made me sell the car the next morning..
i did nothing

propr'one
11-19-2007, 07:47 PM
your mom sucks.

and 1badride, you are COMPLETLY, 100% missing the point.

i'm not saying cops issue fake tickets (they do, been there done that), but the point is, they shouldn't be put in a position where they are the only person who has any say on what happens to you if you are accused of an offense.

I could not like the fact that you disagree with me on this thread, become a cop (or shoot a friend of mine who's a cop a couple bucks) and you'd have no car for a week, no licence for a week, be about 4-5K in the hole after you pay for your lawyer (and i'm sure beat the charge), and then in 6 months when its all said and done, either me or my friend just give you another ticket, tell you to have fun in court, and take your keys once more.

1BADRIDE
11-19-2007, 08:25 PM
your mom sucks.

and 1badride, you are COMPLETLY, 100% missing the point.

i'm not saying cops issue fake tickets (they do, been there done that), but the point is, they shouldn't be put in a position where they are the only person who has any say on what happens to you if you are accused of an offense.

I could not like the fact that you disagree with me on this thread, become a cop (or shoot a friend of mine who's a cop a couple bucks) and you'd have no car for a week, no licence for a week, be about 4-5K in the hole after you pay for your lawyer (and i'm sure beat the charge), and then in 6 months when its all said and done, either me or my friend just give you another ticket, tell you to have fun in court, and take your keys once more.

Quoting myself:

"- Officer discretion? This is so wrong it's not even worth talking about. I FULLY AGREE this is a very, VERY bad thing, but like ERASE and the car crushing episodes, it won't last forever and there will be lots of lawsuits and cell phone videos to prove how crooked that idea is before it is quashed."

...so you're saying you'll become a cop (or pay your current cop friend off) to purposely (and apparently for no other reason than you paying him off) to come and falsely claim I am speeding and seize my vehicle causing me the grief you indicated in your response to me, and then as I "recover" your friend will do it again? Do I have that right?

propr'one
11-19-2007, 09:04 PM
I dont understand the second part of what you said. Also, i'm obviously
A) not becoming a cop
B) not paying anyone to give you a ticket

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, just trying to prove my point.

1BADRIDE
11-19-2007, 09:42 PM
Ok... let me spell it out:

You: "...but the point is, they shouldn't be put in a position where they are the only person who has any say on what happens to you if you are accused of an offense..."

Me: " Officer discretion? This is so wrong it's not even worth talking about. I FULLY AGREE this is a very, VERY bad thing, but like ERASE and the car crushing episodes, it won't last forever and there will be lots of lawsuits and cell phone videos to prove how crooked that idea is before it is quashed."

= SAME THING

For some reason you think I like the fact that they are judge, jury, executioner. I *MOST DEFINITELY* DO NOT. When I said not worth talking about - I meant HERE (nothing organized here, there is sort of elsewhere). There is/was something sort-of being organized at GTAMC that I'm reading up on.

Anyways, LMAO.

I think my point was supposed to be if you're not doing dumb things, it's likely you won't be bothered. ;)

BimmerboyPH
11-19-2007, 10:44 PM
You are completely missing the point trying to be made with your COCKY "do what the sign says" attitude.. It has nothing to do with that.. It has to do with COPS taking away your charter of rights.. How about on a rainy or snowy day when you ass end slides out in the slightest way on your BMW or how about you are beside a civic and the cop is having a bad day and says.. YOU WERE PERFORMING A STUNT.. or YOU WERE TRYING TO RACE THAT CIVIC.. a cop can make up whatever they want and you won't be able to do a thing about it.. so fast forward 9 months later when you FINALLY have your day in court and EVEN IF you prove yourself innocent.. they have made it clear that the costs of "tow, impound and whatever other fees you had due to the STUPID discretion of the cop (bus pass, taxi, loss of wadges) WILL NOT be refunded" I would like to see how pleased you would be about that.. even tho you were "obeying the signs"..

This law is completely ridiculous and to think that some punk that was too stupid to get a real education has the power to judge and jury me.. Um.. ya NO.. How about we focus on DUI or cell phones or things that THEY SHOULD change laws for... If they want people to stop driving CARELESSLY then F*cking enforce the laws we already have!


Thank you! You are currently the smartest person on this forum! I espacially agree with your last paragraph! Lets compare the death tolls for speed related accidents to DUI's, I'm sure we will see the speed is just a little ripple in a very big pool!

SamE30e
11-19-2007, 11:38 PM
Thanks for posting. I agree. This is not about safety and all about $$

Drunk Drivers should have their cars & license taken away for 6 months and mandated to go to AA for 2 years.

I have no respect for Drunks who drive.

Thats an assumption, not every drunk driver is an alcoholic. It should be determined in court, some people are just careless and some are actual alcoholics.

enfield
11-20-2007, 02:54 PM
Thats an assumption, not every drunk driver is an alcoholic. It should be determined in court, some people are just careless and some are actual alcoholics.

Well here's some facts http://www.stopdrinkingadvice.org/alcohol-related-car-accidents/

How about 2 years in jail for drunk driving instead? *th-up*

SamE30e
11-21-2007, 12:44 AM
Well here's some facts http://www.stopdrinkingadvice.org/alcohol-related-car-accidents/

How about 2 years in jail for drunk driving instead? *th-up*

Yea, a 2 year sentance is a good idea. But not necessarily in a institution. How about 2 years house arrest with a 3 year license suspension?

Again, it all depends on the situation thats why impared driving is a criminal offence, and requires you to be shown before a judge. Because there is so many different circumstances involved with this particular law.

Example: 130lbs women goes to a bar after work to meet some friends (she has a perfect driving record, isn't an alcoholic and has no criminal record) and has 4 beers in an hour an a half, leaves feeling fine. The rule of thumb is 1 beer raises your B.A.C .025 and goes away after 1.5 hour (Because beer is digested which liquor isn't). So hypothetically lets say her B.A.C is just above the limit and she has 0.081mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, she's pulled over by a RIDE stop and is requested to do a road side approved screening test and it registers a F (Which is fail when the BAC reaches above 0.081). She wasn't driving irratically, swerving, or speeding.

Do you honestly think that she should be put in prison?

Now if she had hit and killed someone it would be a different story.


Just my $0.02, I'm not saying drunk driving is right, it is the dumbest thing and I have no respect for anyone who willingly does it knowing they are close to the limit, but honest people do make mistakes too. They should be punished but not as severly as the idiot who gets shit faced, drives knowing they're drunk and hit and kills somebody.

Furious
11-21-2007, 01:55 AM
i have to agree with proprone, its the discression issue thats the problem..

enfield
11-21-2007, 08:26 AM
Yea, a 2 year sentance is a good idea. But not necessarily in a institution. How about 2 years house arrest with a 3 year license suspension?

Again, it all depends on the situation thats why impared driving is a criminal offence, and requires you to be shown before a judge. Because there is so many different circumstances involved with this particular law.

Example: 130lbs women goes to a bar after work to meet some friends (she has a perfect driving record, isn't an alcoholic and has no criminal record) and has 4 beers in an hour an a half, leaves feeling fine. The rule of thumb is 1 beer raises your B.A.C .025 and goes away after 1.5 hour (Because beer is digested which liquor isn't). So hypothetically lets say her B.A.C is just above the limit and she has 0.081mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, she's pulled over by a RIDE stop and is requested to do a road side approved screening test and it registers a F (Which is fail when the BAC reaches above 0.081). She wasn't driving irratically, swerving, or speeding.

Do you honestly think that she should be put in prison?

Now if she had hit and killed someone it would be a different story.


Just my $0.02, I'm not saying drunk driving is right, it is the dumbest thing and I have no respect for anyone who willingly does it knowing they are close to the limit, but honest people do make mistakes too. They should be punished but not as severly as the idiot who gets shit faced, drives knowing they're drunk and hit and kills somebody.

She should know that she is 130lb and realise that the rule of thumb for a 200lb guy does not apply to her.

She should have her driver's license taken away for life because she is stupid! :D

SamE30e
11-21-2007, 11:26 AM
So you're telling me if you drank 4 beers and felt perfectly fine and you believed that you were below the limit and actually weren't, you should have your license taken away?

bmdbley'sBro
11-21-2007, 04:22 PM
So you're telling me if you drank 4 beers and felt perfectly fine and you believed that you were below the limit and actually weren't, you should have your license taken away?

uhmm beer alters your Judement.
so while You may Judge yourself as feeling fine you may not be..

and in this case wouldn't u just blow yellow & get a 12hrs warning suspension??

Shit thats NICE HUH? Give the drunk guy a Break but rape the f'n speeder :confused:


^ wow any 1 catch just how rediculous it is to even compare the 2..
Dui to sober enjoyment of a road: speeding.

But now the speeder has the harsher laws against him? its like 'perverse' or something worse

enfield
11-21-2007, 07:16 PM
So you're telling me if you drank 4 beers and felt perfectly fine and you believed that you were below the limit and actually weren't, you should have your license taken away?

Yes - if I am a fu*king drunk driver then take my license away for 6 months and send me to AA for 2 years as a part of my probation.

However, that would never happen. My rule of thumb is to never drink more than 1 alcoholic beverage in a 24 hour period. I also do not drink on an empty stomach. I also only drink once or twice a month.

4 beers in one sitting. Need to see AA right away *wave*

Like the other poster said. Give the drunk a break!

The Germans do not give the drunk a break & that is why they have a lower death rate per driven kilometre compared to here. Around 40% of accidents involve alcohol.

Boots R
11-21-2007, 07:20 PM
When i'm leaving a party, I like to line up 9 shots, shoot them all, and drive as fast as I can to see if I can make it home before I puke.

bmdbley'sBro
11-21-2007, 08:38 PM
-
interesting article from the 8th...

who this law is effecting...

The ranks of those caught under the new law are hardly the street-racing type:
They run the gamut from teenaged girls to elderly men,
and just about every demographic in between.

The most common age of offenders has been 21, the average age is 30, and half the charges have been laid against drivers 26 and under.
About 13 of the drivers were 65 or older, and 41 were 17 or younger. Almost 84 percent were male and 16 percent were female.

When police lobbied for the new law, they expected the province’s most aggressive drivers would get caught and hopefully learn a lesson.

They didn’t anticipate the number of charges would be so high
and represent every segment of the driving public.


http://www.fftimes.com/National/Campaign-against-speeders-leaves-drivers-stunned/08-Nov-2007


'representative of every segment of the driving public' - half being over 26yrs old.

wow somehow the article a few pages back about it being a b.s Cash grab,
revenue generator that will ensnare normal people was SPOT ON! and its not even 2months in yet

how can anyone claim its not a joke when it was made to 'fight Street racers' but somehow
(in less then two months) seems to have nailed every represented segment of the driving public
(or 'criminals' as some call them: fantino) but very few actual 'racers'????

SamE30e
11-21-2007, 11:48 PM
Yes - if I am a fu*king drunk driver then take my license away for 6 months and send me to AA for 2 years as a part of my probation.

However, that would never happen. My rule of thumb is to never drink more than 1 alcoholic beverage in a 24 hour period. I also do not drink on an empty stomach. I also only drink once or twice a month.

4 beers in one sitting. Need to see AA right away *wave*

Like the other poster said. Give the drunk a break!

The Germans do not give the drunk a break & that is why they have a lower death rate per driven kilometre compared to here. Around 40% of accidents involve alcohol.


Basically point is not everyone who blows over is an alcoholic, and some people deserve a break because not everyone is a bad person, people make mistakes. If no third party is harmed and there was no mens rea then why have a harsh punishment as if there was.

elroy
11-22-2007, 03:25 PM
so how does this make sense...i agree with the 50 over law, sounds sensible. There was a recent accident in the ajax/pickering area where a 14 year old (yes 14) met into an accident where he killed his two friends. This kid owned the car...you tell me who sold the car to him. For this mistake, he was given a 10G bail and house arrest. but a speed doing 50 over get 10G fine, license suspension and vehicle seizure? wheres the logic in this?

enfield
11-22-2007, 05:20 PM
Basically point is not everyone who blows over is an alcoholic, and some people deserve a break because not everyone is a bad person, people make mistakes. If no third party is harmed and there was no mens rea then why have a harsh punishment as if there was.

So what you are saying is that it is okay to drive at 250kph on the 401 as long as it was not a "bad person" driving and they did not harm a third party?

What have you been *drink* ?? Why has the AA comment got you sooo defensive? :confused:

A law is broken if someone drives over the limit period.

bmdbley'sBro
11-23-2007, 03:57 PM
So what you are saying is that it is okay to drive at 250kph on the 401 as long as it was not a "bad person" driving and they did not harm a third party?

What have you been *drink* ?? Why has the AA comment got you sooo defensive? :confused:

apparently the 401 was designed for much faster limits then it currently has




A law is broken if someone drives over the limit period.

LOL.. everyday everyone breaks 'some law'...because theres so many, period.

doing 50kph over (or 25mph) on an empty straight road at night is not that dangerous..
its the 'when & where' that determines danger levels, period *wave*

JMW
11-23-2007, 06:34 PM
[QUOTE=bmdbley'sBro;1081808]apparently the 401 was designed for much faster limits then it currently has

but not 250 haha

elroy
11-24-2007, 01:11 AM
it probably was, but at the same time theres drivers who go speed limit...if not under driving along side someone doing 140...thus they have to set some limit. Maybe its time they make the driving tests harder. My friend never drove...and a week before his test drove and practised everyday...yet he managed to pass. and no he was not very good AT THAT TIME.

harder tests -> better drivers -> less drivers -> more room on the highway to uhh go speed limit

AceOfSpades
11-24-2007, 01:36 AM
solution: no lisence for female drivers
no female -> less accidents -> govt will realise the roads is safer -> increase in speed limit

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7897/n50701994068528052cg0.jpg
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7592/n50701994068599588lt7.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4209/n5070199406862239nb3.jpg
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3392/n50701994068558590we6.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/6223/n50701994068517839ml8.jpg

pretty much sums it up,

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7613/n50701994068609796kb1.jpg

SamE30e
11-24-2007, 03:04 AM
uhmm beer alters your Judement.
so while You may Judge yourself as feeling fine you may not be..

and in this case wouldn't u just blow yellow & get a 12hrs warning suspension??

Shit thats NICE HUH? Give the drunk guy a Break but rape the f'n speeder :confused:


^ wow any 1 catch just how rediculous it is to even compare the 2..
Dui to sober enjoyment of a road: speeding.

But now the speeder has the harsher laws against him? its like 'perverse' or something worse


If you blow at all, they police officer doesn't have to do a road side breath test. You can be detained on reasonable grounds.

I think everyone is mixing my thoughts up. Drunk drivers should be punished, drunk drivers who kill or injure people should be punished worse. People who blow over and are perfectly coherant and drive the same as they would sober or don't cause any harm to a third party, should be punished, not as severly. It is possible to blow over and not have felt the equivilant effects of the alcohol. Next time you have a friend with a breathalyzer, take a shot of alcohol, swish it around in your mouth then spit it out, take the breathalyzer every 5 minutes after that for an hour and tell me what happens. Police are instructed to make you wait to do the breathalyzer but some don't.

I'm in no way defending driving under the influence, its stupid and people should be punished for it.

bmdbley'sBro
11-24-2007, 03:41 PM
If you blow at all, they police officer doesn't have to do a road side breath test. You can be detained on reasonable grounds.

I think everyone is mixing my thoughts up. Drunk drivers should be punished, drunk drivers who kill or injure people should be punished worse. People who blow over and are perfectly coherant and drive the same as they would sober or don't cause any harm to a third party, should be punished, not as severly. It is possible to blow over and not have felt the equivilant effects of the alcohol. Next time you have a friend with a breathalyzer, take a shot of alcohol, swish it around in your mouth then spit it out, take the breathalyzer every 5 minutes after that for an hour and tell me what happens. Police are instructed to make you wait to do the breathalyzer but some don't.

I'm in no way defending driving under the influence, its stupid and people should be punished for it.

hey i agree with that ...

and i was just recently reading something about how breathalyzer's are actually 23% off most times.. :eek:

SamE30e
11-25-2007, 07:16 PM
hey i agree with that ...

and i was just recently reading something about how breathalyzer's are actually 23% off most times.. :eek:


Thay come out of calibration sometimes but they get the job done.