Considering the amount of kvetching and such about the law... what if instead, they instituted a requirement that any car in Canada is required to be electronically moderated so as to only be able to achieve a top speed of 140km/h?
Like mine! I'm curious to what people think of that..
1) Beanie, it seems both hypocritical and unchristian to turn a blind eye to opinions and rights with a blanket idea like "I'm not concerned about the rights and freedoms of 'law breakers'"
2a.) Chris, I don't want to protect idiots or those who are proximal to idiots so fiercely.
Though for a lark, I may use your argument when chatting up big D. in between Hey Joe and I'm your hoochie coochie man.
Don't kid yourself Mark, that's a definate posibility down this path. Or how about not selling sports cars here any more? Or a chip that monitors your driving habbits for the life of your car and any time you are pulled over it is scanned and you can be charged?
"I don't actually see anything in the legislation that specifically covers this "
The legislation does not directly target this.... yet. I appologise if I am seeming to muddy the issue. As I said this is not the yes no question it appears to be and I am bringing in all aspects of the 'street racing' campaign as it should be discussed in it's entirety.
It is the 'street racing' fear campaign that is allowing my rights to be violated in this regard. I should be free to drive down the street and not be pulled over if I am not breaking a law. That is the right given to me under the Charter. As a fairly young male driving a fast looking car with after market rims I am not free to do so. I am regularly detained and interrogated with no probable cause. You the general public don't care that I am being profiled. I take issue with that and hope to at least bring it to your attention.
Also in full disclosure I sold my car a few weeks back... it is just easier to speak as if I still own it. One of the major reasons I sold it is because of the harrassement that I should not have endured.
Okay here we go. Posting from work is NOT an option, so I have lots to get through.
Kristy's argument re: Rights/privilege is a sound one.
The Gun/Car analogy does not stand up, primarily because the Highway Traffic Act is different from the Criminal Code. So, apples and oranges there.
No one seems to grasp that Mike's objection is mainly to the punishment phase of the legislation, with a side order of profiling protest thrown in.
So here is the solution: Change the legislation in ONE SMALL WAY.
Any driver found going 50+ km/h over the posted limit is charged with (whatever you choose to call it).
Upon CONVICTION of said charge, vehicle is impounded for __ # of days/weeks months, I do not care.
1) Beanie, it seems both hypocritical and unchristian to turn a blind eye to opinions and rights with a blanket idea like "I'm not concerned about the rights and freedoms of 'law breakers'"
How is it hypocritical? I don't believe that you can break the rules of a particular society and then try to use the rights of that same society to protect you.
As far as being "unchristian", that label covers a huge range of differing views, and we've talked about specific issues before and my beliefs and reasons have often fallen outside what you would consider Christian. I'm also surprised that you would criticize me based on your sterotype of what I should or shouldn't believe...
Don't worry Kristy, eye-AIDs are a definate turn on for most guys.
Don't kid yourself Mark, that's a definate posibility down this path. Or how about not selling sports cars here any more?
"I don't actually see anything in the legislation that specifically covers this "
The legislation does not directly target this.... yet. I appologise if I am seeming to muddy the issue. As I said this is not the yes no question it appears to be and I am bringing in all aspects of the 'street racing' campaign as it should be discussed in it's entirety.
It is the 'street racing' fear campaign that is allowing my rights to be violated in this regard. I should be free to drive down the street and not be pulled over if I am not breaking a law. That is the right given to me under the Charter. As a fairly young male driving a fast looking car with after market rims I am not free to do so. Yes, you are.
I am regularly detained and interrogated with no probable cause. If you truly believe that, sue. What is actually happening is that you fit a broad profile that law enforcement has been directed to target, due to some high profile cases
You the general public don't care that I am being profiled. I take issue with that and hope to at least bring it to your attention. That's fair enough, so long as you realize that your particular minority garners little sympathy.
Also in full disclosure I sold my car a few weeks back... it is just easier to speak as if I still own it. One of the major reasons I sold it is because of the harrassement that I should not have endured.
My responses are in the quote. As stated earlier in this thread, my objection is to the application of this legislation, NOT the penalties imposed. If you want to impound the vehicles of reckless, racing, or dangerous drivers, I'm good with that. I just insist that the impound occur AFTER due process has been given. As an example, if you get nailed for drunk driving, I believe you lose your license for a year. I have no problem with impounding the person's car in order to ensure that they do not drive while suspended.
So here is the solution: Change the legislation in ONE SMALL WAY.
Any driver found going 50+ km/h over the posted limit is charged with (whatever you choose to call it).
Upon CONVICTION of said charge, vehicle is impounded for __ # of days/weeks months, I do not care.
I was actually trying to think this through the same way - what's a better alternative? However, I actually do like the the fact that there are immediate precautions taken by getting the driver off the road. Haven't worked out all the details, but I was thinking along the lines of a "bail hearing". This would happen far sooner than the actual trial, and give you a chance to show cause as to why you should get your car back prior to that. Problem is that it still doesn't address the cost involved for those wrongfully charged, and our courts are too busy as it is to handle something like this (which would need to be scheduled near immediately).
How is it hypocritical? I don't believe that you can break the rules of a particular society and then try to use the rights of that same society to protect you.
As far as being "unchristian", that label covers a huge range of differing views, and we've talked about specific issues before and my beliefs and reasons have often fallen outside what you would consider Christian. I'm also surprised that you would criticize me based on your sterotype of what I should or shouldn't believe...
no, you can't use the rights of the same society...but you can use basic human rights and that's what we are doing.
Freedoms trump all and should be fiercely sought and protected. (please no one make the protect the idiots and idiot-adjacent argument again, it is simply not valid.)
I'm not stereotyping, I know that we've both broken many laws...I'm surprised that you would tow a hard-line here.
How is it hypocritical? I don't believe that you can break the rules of a particular society and then try to use the rights of that same society to protect you.
That is pretty much the backbone of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, just because the Authorities say you broke a given law, does not mean you are guilty. They have to prove your guilt, within a very strict set of parameters. Thus, the Rights of a given scoiety are protecting the (alleged) lawless and, by extension, the Society as a whole.
That is pretty much the backbone of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, just because the Authorities say you broke a given law, does not mean you are guilty. They have to prove your guilt, within a very strict set of parameters. Thus, the Rights of a given scoiety are protecting the (alleged) lawless and, by extension, the Society as a whole.
For traffic violations you are basically guilty and have to prove your self innocent.
You get the fine then have the reasonability to prove you are innocent of the crime. (Parking tickets, speeding ticket, etc.)
How about if you are going 50 Km/hr over you get charged with dangerous driving and get assigned a court date but your car is then taken as evidence and returned back once the case has been resolve?
"The Gun/Car analogy" does stand up with the point being do something dangerous with an item you are legally allowed to have (after taking a test to show you have a competence to use sure an item) and then have the item taken away because of misuse. The same is for hunting, fishing, etc.
That's fair enough, so long as you realize that your particular minority garners little sympathy.
Hence the reason the Charter is there in the first place as the highest law in the land... to protect me from people like you who would take away my rights.
I'm not stereotyping, I know that we've both broken many laws...I'm surprised that you would tow a hard-line here.
Ok, I think I see your point. This goes back to the earlier legal vs. moral (right/wrong) issue. I won't do things I believe are wrong, but certain things which I believe are ok but illegal I will do. A few are conscious cases of civil disobedience, but many are just me being selfish and ignoring laws I think are pointless/stupid/inconvenient. However, regardless of whether I like a law, I'm still subject to it and the consequences that go with breaking it. I can't assume that because I disagree with a law that it doesn't apply to me. As far as a hard-line, you know me well enough to know that I rarely see grey
That is pretty much the backbone of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, just because the Authorities say you broke a given law, does not mean you are guilty. They have to prove your guilt, within a very strict set of parameters. Thus, the Rights of a given scoiety are protecting the (alleged) lawless and, by extension, the Society as a whole.
But when somebody is caught in the act of committing another crime, is detaining them violating their rights? Technically, yes, but we accept that because we don't want them running around doing more harm before their trial. And I know that this is a traffic law vs. a criminal law, but the underlying concept of having certain rights taken away prior to trial is well established and generally accepted. Or are you indicating that nobody should have their freedom taken away prematurely, even if caught in the act? If that's the case, we can save a ton on handcuffs since they are always used prior to this whole "proven" thing...
I would like to know the arguments against my suggestion? In fact, given the technological advancements.. we really could fairly readily draw out broadcasting technology that could interact with the installed governors, and have a dynamic speed control device (i.e. in-town limits you to 70 km/h, backroads to 100, and major highways to 140 - or whatever #'s would be best).
I'm feeling kinda lazy right now, so someone tell me why this idea is causing ocular acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?
That's fair enough, so long as you realize that your particular minority garners little sympathy.
Hence the reason the Charter is there in the first place as the highest law in the land... to protect me from people like you who would take away my rights.
Whoa whoa whoa . . . I'm on your side! WTF?!?
I was merely pointing out that the majority of posters so far seemed indifferent to your plight. I'm one of the people who agrees with you on this issue.
Chris, again, HTA offences are NOT the same as Criminal Code offences. That is why (Rights issues aside) seizure of property is more egregious in the speeding discussion.
ALL:
How about this for a solution:
Monetary punishment for all forms of speeding remain the same.
Every 10 km/h over costs you a point against your license to drive
Over 50 km/h results in your car being impounded AFTER conviction for an equivalent # of days to your speed (ie 60 km/h over = 60 day impound).
These are the only changes I see necessary to increase deterrent, while satisfying the punishment aspect the authorities claim to be after.
Thoughts?
Also, if an average schlub like me can come up with something like this, why are the pointy heade big brains in charge incapable of the same? My feeling is that they are seizing on an opportunity to extend their powers. Government as a rule is satisfied only with increasing it's dominion, rather than stagnation, or diminishment. Once in power Legislators tend to want to increase that power, usually at the expense of the governed. You have only to look south of our borders to see the truth of this. The U.S. government routinely exempts itself from such legislation like OSHA, financial reporting requirements, etc. It is no different in this country.
Ben Franklin once said that a people who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, and Rights for prosperity, will have neither, and deserve less.
"Whoa whoa whoa . . . I'm on your side! WTF?!?
I was merely pointing out that the majority of posters so far seemed indifferent to your plight. I'm one of the people who agrees with you on this issue."
But when somebody is caught in the act of committing another crime, is detaining them violating their rights? Technically, yes, but we accept that because we don't want them running around doing more harm before their trial. And once the officer has issued the summons, said detention is supposed to end, under the HTA
And I know that this is a traffic law vs. a criminal law, but the underlying concept of having certain rights taken away prior to trial is well established and generally accepted. In criminal case, yes, HTA, no
Or are you indicating that nobody should have their freedom taken away prematurely, even if caught in the act? If that's the case, we can save a ton on handcuffs since they are always used prior to this whole "proven" thing... Not saying that at all. Just want to use an apples to apples comparison. The gun/car thing does not qualify
Look, even at a RIDE check-point, they do not seize your car, although I am sure that is coming too, if the MADD fascists have their way. I still believe that the forfeiture aspect of the legislation would not stand a Charter challenge, although not much the Supremes do would surprise me. As a person of libertarian leanings, I object to the creeping extension of government intervention into our everyday lives. Look at the poor bastard who was murdered on the bus in MB. Some idiots are now calling for airport style screening for bus passengers. That sort of intrusion is insane, but is EXACTLY the type of situation that government likes to exploit to it's own benefit. THAT is wrong. But all to often, the people acquiesce because, "it's for our own good". THAT is wrong. I will decide what constitutes my own good, thank you.
"Whoa whoa whoa . . . I'm on your side! WTF?!? I was merely pointing out that the majority of posters so far seemed indifferent to your plight. I'm one of the people who agrees with you on this issue."
To be honest, I had never really been concerned since I would never drive that fast, and therefore I hadn't put too much thought towards it.
Part of me hates the idea that people drive that fast and convince themselves that they can handle their car in such a manner that they are not endangering others... people are very good at over-estimating themselves.
However, now that I've read this, I have to say that The Awesome's point (which people I think are now getting) that the power bestowed upon police may be too much is a good one. Further, this current punitive setup does go too far in the simple fact that it can have a cascade effect - you lose your car for a week, you can't work that week, you lose your job etc. etc. It's setting people up for a big downfall.
Personally, if I had to vote, I would say the setup needs to be changed. Nobody should be punished to such a degree that they cannot recover from it. The point of punishment (from the ideal mentality behind our legal system) is not vengeance, but rather prevention / deterrence and rehabilitation.
some of the arguments used to justify positions on here are pretty weak.
someone mentioned the fines go to the cops. i don't believe this has ever been true or is true in this case. general revenues? i think "im on tilt" could comment on that with the definitive answer.
you're not 'losing' your car (or your mom's). they are merely borrowing it for up to a week, along with your right to drive any other car. i think they are looking at this as a deterrent. and yes, deterrents work. that is exactly why you would be hard pressed to find me doing 50+ today. i like being able to get to work every day so i can get paid.
a few parallels...
if someone is merely charged with impaired now, the police can immediately suspend your license and impound your car, correct? no conviction? isn't that kind of arbitrary? i'm suprised the supreme court hasn't struct that down yet. (so if they can do it for impaired, why not 'dangerous' driving? the criminal charge vs ticket argument doesn't really apply IMO)
in fact, after conviction, a drunk can actually have his car taken away permanently now, not just impounded for a short while. and they can force you to put an ignition interlock in your car! (they'll even do this is you get caught repeatedly in the warning zone). wow, talk about suppression of rights!
i think your license is automatically (temporarily) suspended if you are even in the warning zone now of .05 to .079. right there at the roadside, no trial. who decided on these numbers? why not .06? and why does .08 mean *everyone* is impaired? a big old drunk can probably handle a car at .10. (so an arbitrary number has been chosen to be the dividing line between 'ok' and 'not ok'. i'm just glad they didn't choose 30 kmh over).
police can pull people over arbitrarily for RIDE. no just cause. (so they can do the same thing for a car that looks like it might be dangerous, in their opinion. with some of those mods, insurance is no longer valid, so those cars should not be on the road. as an aside, i'm glad they are randomly pulling trucks over and inspecting them, aren't you?)
what is the point of all this? laws are there (supposedly) for the greater good. this is not some kind of get rich quick scheme from the cops (unless they are taking bribes). i seriously doubt any incremental revenue from this would be even noticeable.
some of the numbers are arbitrary. so what? i think that is a great deal better than letting a cop use his discretion to decide if someone is ok at 51 over or .082. (mind you, i think they have discretion over whether to impound and suspend at the roadside from my reading of the law.)
you don't like the rules, fight them for all you are worth. but make some sensible arguments if you want support.
To be honest, I had never really been concerned since I would never drive that fast, and therefore I hadn't put too much thought towards it.
Part of me hates the idea that people drive that fast and convince themselves that they can handle their car in such a manner that they are not endangering others... people are very good at over-estimating themselves.
However, now that I've read this, I have to say that The Awesome's point (which people I think are now getting) that the power bestowed upon police may be too much is a good one. Further, this current punitive setup does go too far in the simple fact that it can have a cascade effect - you lose your car for a week, you can't work that week, you lose your job etc. etc. It's setting people up for a big downfall.
Personally, if I had to vote, I would say the setup needs to be changed. Nobody should be punished to such a degree that they cannot recover from it. The point of punishment (from the ideal mentality behind our legal system) is not vengeance, but rather prevention / deterrence and rehabilitation.
Mark
Mark I can actually say that as a man....I'm disgusted with you. Apparently you didn't get the freakin "real men don't admit to changing their point of view based on coherent arguments" memo. Real men stick to their fucking guns no matter the mountain of evidence (if anyone needs examples google WMD's/Trickle down economics/Republican/shrinkage etc) I would be more impressed if you'd just stuck to your original opinion and made some smart ass remarks. You're dead to me. (on the brighter side that explains the eau de estrogen I smell when you're around). Let me show you how a real man rolls!:
some of the arguments used to justify positions on here are pretty weak.
someone mentioned the fines go to the cops. i don't believe this has ever been true or is true in this case. general revenues? i think "im on tilt" could comment on that with the definitive answer.
you're not 'losing' your car (or your mom's). they are merely borrowing it for up to a week, along with your right to drive any other car. i think they are looking at this as a deterrent. and yes, deterrents work. that is exactly why you would be hard pressed to find me doing 50+ today. i like being able to get to work every day so i can get paid.
a few parallels...
if someone is merely charged with impaired now, the police can immediately suspend your license and impound your car, correct? no conviction? isn't that kind of arbitrary? i'm suprised the supreme court hasn't struct that down yet. (so if they can do it for impaired, why not 'dangerous' driving? the criminal charge vs ticket argument doesn't really apply IMO)
in fact, after conviction, a drunk can actually have his car taken away permanently now, not just impounded for a short while. and they can force you to put an ignition interlock in your car! (they'll even do this is you get caught repeatedly in the warning zone). wow, talk about suppression of rights!
i think your license is automatically (temporarily) suspended if you are even in the warning zone now of .05 to .079. right there at the roadside, no trial. who decided on these numbers? why not .06? and why does .08 mean *everyone* is impaired? a big old drunk can probably handle a car at .10. (so an arbitrary number has been chosen to be the dividing line between 'ok' and 'not ok'. i'm just glad they didn't choose 30 kmh over).
police can pull people over arbitrarily for RIDE. no just cause. (so they can do the same thing for a car that looks like it might be dangerous, in their opinion. with some of those mods, insurance is no longer valid, so those cars should not be on the road. as an aside, i'm glad they are randomly pulling trucks over and inspecting them, aren't you?)
what is the point of all this? laws are there (supposedly) for the greater good. this is not some kind of get rich quick scheme from the cops (unless they are taking bribes). i seriously doubt any incremental revenue from this would be even noticeable.
some of the numbers are arbitrary. so what? i think that is a great deal better than letting a cop use his discretion to decide if someone is ok at 51 over or .082. (mind you, i think they have discretion over whether to impound and suspend at the roadside from my reading of the law.)
you don't like the rules, fight them for all you are worth. but make some sensible arguments if you want support.
hey, anybody play any poker lately?
None of what you wrote made any sense. I'd like to say that you're wrong...but I can't make out any rational argument that could be in fact wrong. It's all just Greek to me.
Grunching because good god, this is the most viewed thread on this place in the last 5 years.
Anyway, I have two issues with the road system today.
1) The 100km/h limit was created at a time when cars were built with confetti and spit and would disintegrate in a mild wind. Todays cars are much safer than they user to be. In addition, everyone knows the speedlimit on the highways is really 120km/h. I'd like to see the speed limit upgraded but the law revised to make 30km/h over the limit the same as 50km/h over.
2) Why do I need to speed? it's usually because the morons on the road don't understand that the RIGHT lane is for going 100, the middle lane is for passing the right lane and the left lane is for passing the middle lane. I used to have to drive to pennslyvania every weekend and in Toronto, the cars spread evenly to every single lane, regardless speed.. creating roadblocks and forcing me to pass on the right. When I hit the border? Every fucks off and actually obeys the rules of the road and I can safely pass on the left.
Summary: Increase the speed limit to 120/kh but revise the law to account for 150km/s still being a major violation. Second, teach people to fucking drive in this country. I don't care if it involves recinding every single drivers license ever issued. We all need to relearn what the road is for.
Mark I can actually say that as a man....I'm disgusted with you. Apparently you didn't get the freakin "real men don't admit to changing their point of view based on coherent arguments" memo. Real men stick to their fucking guns no matter the mountain of evidence (if anyone needs examples google WMD's/Trickle down economics/Republican/shrinkage etc) I would be more impressed if you'd just stuck to your original opinion and made some smart ass remarks. You're dead to me. (on the brighter side that explains the eau de estrogen I smell when you're around). Let me show you how a real man rolls!:
Huh...
I'm sure hoping this is mostly tounge in cheek.. it is 8:00 in the morning, so I'm a little dopey.
"someone mentioned the fines go to the cops. i don't believe this has ever been true or is true in this case. general revenues? i think "im on tilt" could comment on that with the definitive answer."
Where do you think Fantino is getting the funds for his new helicopters? It's from this campaign.
"in fact, after conviction, a drunk can actually have his car taken away permanently now, not just impounded for a short while."
I put the important part in bold.
"if someone is merely charged with impaired now, the police can immediately suspend your license and impound your car, correct? no conviction? isn't that kind of arbitrary? i'm suprised the supreme court hasn't struct that down yet. (so if they can do it for impaired, why not 'dangerous' driving? the criminal charge vs ticket argument doesn't really apply IMO)"
Instead of asking go find out. They will not impund your car for a week. And as I mentioned it has surivived a Charter challenge in the Supreme Court as a very rare accepted violation. The Police were given a very narrow and specific set of guidelines to follow. It seems to have work as I for one have never been harrassed at a RIDE Check.
" think your license is automatically (temporarily) suspended if you are even in the warning zone now of .05 to .079. right there at the roadside, no trial."
For like 12 hours, enough time for the alcohol to wear off.
"police can pull people over arbitrarily for RIDE. no just cause. (so they can do the same thing for a car that looks like it might be dangerous, in their opinion. with some of those mods, insurance is no longer valid, so those cars should not be on the road."
Explain to me if you will what is dangerous about my 17" rims (stock are 16").
"as an aside, i'm glad they are randomly pulling trucks over and inspecting them, aren't you?)"
Commercial vehicles are a different animal and are treated differently under the HTA.
"what is the point of all this? laws are there (supposedly) for the greater good. this is not some kind of get rich quick scheme from the cops (unless they are taking bribes). i seriously doubt any incremental revenue from this would be even noticeable."
This is noticeable. Fantino is buying helicopters.
The point is that everyone should get very concerned when your rights under the charter are violated. Think past the 'speed is bad', 'law is good' and look at the details.
"some of the numbers are arbitrary. so what? i think that is a great deal better than letting a cop use his discretion to decide if someone is ok at 51 over or .082. (mind you, i think they have discretion over whether to impound and suspend at the roadside from my reading of the law.)"
I have personally witnessed a cop use his own discretion to tow a vehicle with stock suspension in perfect working order after pushing on the hood of the car and declaring the 'after market' suspension unsafe.
They have zero discretion at this point, the blitz is in full swing and they know that they are not to let anyone go.
"you don't like the rules, fight them for all you are worth. but make some sensible arguments if you want support."
I have. Unfortunately most Canadians have no idea what the Charter is or what thier rights are let alone care.
Comments
The above is some good reading. Not examples, but well written explaining the other side.
Like mine! I'm curious to what people think of that..
Mark
1) Beanie, it seems both hypocritical and unchristian to turn a blind eye to opinions and rights with a blanket idea like "I'm not concerned about the rights and freedoms of 'law breakers'"
2a.) Chris, I don't want to protect idiots or those who are proximal to idiots so fiercely.
Though for a lark, I may use your argument when chatting up big D. in between Hey Joe and I'm your hoochie coochie man.
2b.) Mark your post gave me eye-AIDS
"I don't actually see anything in the legislation that specifically covers this "
The legislation does not directly target this.... yet. I appologise if I am seeming to muddy the issue. As I said this is not the yes no question it appears to be and I am bringing in all aspects of the 'street racing' campaign as it should be discussed in it's entirety.
It is the 'street racing' fear campaign that is allowing my rights to be violated in this regard. I should be free to drive down the street and not be pulled over if I am not breaking a law. That is the right given to me under the Charter. As a fairly young male driving a fast looking car with after market rims I am not free to do so. I am regularly detained and interrogated with no probable cause. You the general public don't care that I am being profiled. I take issue with that and hope to at least bring it to your attention.
Also in full disclosure I sold my car a few weeks back... it is just easier to speak as if I still own it. One of the major reasons I sold it is because of the harrassement that I should not have endured.
Kristy's argument re: Rights/privilege is a sound one.
The Gun/Car analogy does not stand up, primarily because the Highway Traffic Act is different from the Criminal Code. So, apples and oranges there.
No one seems to grasp that Mike's objection is mainly to the punishment phase of the legislation, with a side order of profiling protest thrown in.
So here is the solution: Change the legislation in ONE SMALL WAY.
Any driver found going 50+ km/h over the posted limit is charged with (whatever you choose to call it).
Upon CONVICTION of said charge, vehicle is impounded for __ # of days/weeks months, I do not care.
Everybody happy?
As far as being "unchristian", that label covers a huge range of differing views, and we've talked about specific issues before and my beliefs and reasons have often fallen outside what you would consider Christian. I'm also surprised that you would criticize me based on your sterotype of what I should or shouldn't believe...
I typed something snarky about not needing a stinking man...but you have the best signature ever...I just can't stay mad at you.
My responses are in the quote. As stated earlier in this thread, my objection is to the application of this legislation, NOT the penalties imposed. If you want to impound the vehicles of reckless, racing, or dangerous drivers, I'm good with that. I just insist that the impound occur AFTER due process has been given. As an example, if you get nailed for drunk driving, I believe you lose your license for a year. I have no problem with impounding the person's car in order to ensure that they do not drive while suspended.
no, you can't use the rights of the same society...but you can use basic human rights and that's what we are doing.
Freedoms trump all and should be fiercely sought and protected. (please no one make the protect the idiots and idiot-adjacent argument again, it is simply not valid.)
I'm not stereotyping, I know that we've both broken many laws...I'm surprised that you would tow a hard-line here.
That is pretty much the backbone of innocent until proven guilty. I mean, just because the Authorities say you broke a given law, does not mean you are guilty. They have to prove your guilt, within a very strict set of parameters. Thus, the Rights of a given scoiety are protecting the (alleged) lawless and, by extension, the Society as a whole.
For traffic violations you are basically guilty and have to prove your self innocent.
You get the fine then have the reasonability to prove you are innocent of the crime. (Parking tickets, speeding ticket, etc.)
How about if you are going 50 Km/hr over you get charged with dangerous driving and get assigned a court date but your car is then taken as evidence and returned back once the case has been resolve?
"The Gun/Car analogy" does stand up with the point being do something dangerous with an item you are legally allowed to have (after taking a test to show you have a competence to use sure an item) and then have the item taken away because of misuse. The same is for hunting, fishing, etc.
Hence the reason the Charter is there in the first place as the highest law in the land... to protect me from people like you who would take away my rights.
[edited a bit since I misread a post]
But when somebody is caught in the act of committing another crime, is detaining them violating their rights? Technically, yes, but we accept that because we don't want them running around doing more harm before their trial. And I know that this is a traffic law vs. a criminal law, but the underlying concept of having certain rights taken away prior to trial is well established and generally accepted. Or are you indicating that nobody should have their freedom taken away prematurely, even if caught in the act? If that's the case, we can save a ton on handcuffs since they are always used prior to this whole "proven" thing...
I would like to know the arguments against my suggestion? In fact, given the technological advancements.. we really could fairly readily draw out broadcasting technology that could interact with the installed governors, and have a dynamic speed control device (i.e. in-town limits you to 70 km/h, backroads to 100, and major highways to 140 - or whatever #'s would be best).
I'm feeling kinda lazy right now, so someone tell me why this idea is causing ocular acquired immunodeficiency syndrome?
Mark
Whoa whoa whoa . . . I'm on your side! WTF?!?
I was merely pointing out that the majority of posters so far seemed indifferent to your plight. I'm one of the people who agrees with you on this issue.
Chris, again, HTA offences are NOT the same as Criminal Code offences. That is why (Rights issues aside) seizure of property is more egregious in the speeding discussion.
ALL:
How about this for a solution:
Monetary punishment for all forms of speeding remain the same.
Every 10 km/h over costs you a point against your license to drive
Over 50 km/h results in your car being impounded AFTER conviction for an equivalent # of days to your speed (ie 60 km/h over = 60 day impound).
These are the only changes I see necessary to increase deterrent, while satisfying the punishment aspect the authorities claim to be after.
Thoughts?
Also, if an average schlub like me can come up with something like this, why are the pointy heade big brains in charge incapable of the same? My feeling is that they are seizing on an opportunity to extend their powers. Government as a rule is satisfied only with increasing it's dominion, rather than stagnation, or diminishment. Once in power Legislators tend to want to increase that power, usually at the expense of the governed. You have only to look south of our borders to see the truth of this. The U.S. government routinely exempts itself from such legislation like OSHA, financial reporting requirements, etc. It is no different in this country.
Ben Franklin once said that a people who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, and Rights for prosperity, will have neither, and deserve less.
Higher fees won't stop it.
Mark
I was merely pointing out that the majority of posters so far seemed indifferent to your plight. I'm one of the people who agrees with you on this issue."
Ooops, that's my bad
Look, even at a RIDE check-point, they do not seize your car, although I am sure that is coming too, if the MADD fascists have their way. I still believe that the forfeiture aspect of the legislation would not stand a Charter challenge, although not much the Supremes do would surprise me. As a person of libertarian leanings, I object to the creeping extension of government intervention into our everyday lives. Look at the poor bastard who was murdered on the bus in MB. Some idiots are now calling for airport style screening for bus passengers. That sort of intrusion is insane, but is EXACTLY the type of situation that government likes to exploit to it's own benefit. THAT is wrong. But all to often, the people acquiesce because, "it's for our own good". THAT is wrong. I will decide what constitutes my own good, thank you.
All right then. Want a beer?
Then you don't agree with the law?
To be honest, I had never really been concerned since I would never drive that fast, and therefore I hadn't put too much thought towards it.
Part of me hates the idea that people drive that fast and convince themselves that they can handle their car in such a manner that they are not endangering others... people are very good at over-estimating themselves.
However, now that I've read this, I have to say that The Awesome's point (which people I think are now getting) that the power bestowed upon police may be too much is a good one. Further, this current punitive setup does go too far in the simple fact that it can have a cascade effect - you lose your car for a week, you can't work that week, you lose your job etc. etc. It's setting people up for a big downfall.
Personally, if I had to vote, I would say the setup needs to be changed. Nobody should be punished to such a degree that they cannot recover from it. The point of punishment (from the ideal mentality behind our legal system) is not vengeance, but rather prevention / deterrence and rehabilitation.
Mark
someone mentioned the fines go to the cops. i don't believe this has ever been true or is true in this case. general revenues? i think "im on tilt" could comment on that with the definitive answer.
you're not 'losing' your car (or your mom's). they are merely borrowing it for up to a week, along with your right to drive any other car. i think they are looking at this as a deterrent. and yes, deterrents work. that is exactly why you would be hard pressed to find me doing 50+ today. i like being able to get to work every day so i can get paid.
a few parallels...
if someone is merely charged with impaired now, the police can immediately suspend your license and impound your car, correct? no conviction? isn't that kind of arbitrary? i'm suprised the supreme court hasn't struct that down yet. (so if they can do it for impaired, why not 'dangerous' driving? the criminal charge vs ticket argument doesn't really apply IMO)
in fact, after conviction, a drunk can actually have his car taken away permanently now, not just impounded for a short while. and they can force you to put an ignition interlock in your car! (they'll even do this is you get caught repeatedly in the warning zone). wow, talk about suppression of rights!
i think your license is automatically (temporarily) suspended if you are even in the warning zone now of .05 to .079. right there at the roadside, no trial. who decided on these numbers? why not .06? and why does .08 mean *everyone* is impaired? a big old drunk can probably handle a car at .10. (so an arbitrary number has been chosen to be the dividing line between 'ok' and 'not ok'. i'm just glad they didn't choose 30 kmh over).
police can pull people over arbitrarily for RIDE. no just cause. (so they can do the same thing for a car that looks like it might be dangerous, in their opinion. with some of those mods, insurance is no longer valid, so those cars should not be on the road. as an aside, i'm glad they are randomly pulling trucks over and inspecting them, aren't you?)
what is the point of all this? laws are there (supposedly) for the greater good. this is not some kind of get rich quick scheme from the cops (unless they are taking bribes). i seriously doubt any incremental revenue from this would be even noticeable.
some of the numbers are arbitrary. so what? i think that is a great deal better than letting a cop use his discretion to decide if someone is ok at 51 over or .082. (mind you, i think they have discretion over whether to impound and suspend at the roadside from my reading of the law.)
you don't like the rules, fight them for all you are worth. but make some sensible arguments if you want support.
hey, anybody play any poker lately?
Mark I can actually say that as a man....I'm disgusted with you. Apparently you didn't get the freakin "real men don't admit to changing their point of view based on coherent arguments" memo. Real men stick to their fucking guns no matter the mountain of evidence (if anyone needs examples google WMD's/Trickle down economics/Republican/shrinkage etc) I would be more impressed if you'd just stuck to your original opinion and made some smart ass remarks. You're dead to me. (on the brighter side that explains the eau de estrogen I smell when you're around). Let me show you how a real man rolls!:
None of what you wrote made any sense. I'd like to say that you're wrong...but I can't make out any rational argument that could be in fact wrong. It's all just Greek to me.
(see how you do it Mark?)
Anyway, I have two issues with the road system today.
1) The 100km/h limit was created at a time when cars were built with confetti and spit and would disintegrate in a mild wind. Todays cars are much safer than they user to be. In addition, everyone knows the speedlimit on the highways is really 120km/h. I'd like to see the speed limit upgraded but the law revised to make 30km/h over the limit the same as 50km/h over.
2) Why do I need to speed? it's usually because the morons on the road don't understand that the RIGHT lane is for going 100, the middle lane is for passing the right lane and the left lane is for passing the middle lane. I used to have to drive to pennslyvania every weekend and in Toronto, the cars spread evenly to every single lane, regardless speed.. creating roadblocks and forcing me to pass on the right. When I hit the border? Every fucks off and actually obeys the rules of the road and I can safely pass on the left.
Summary: Increase the speed limit to 120/kh but revise the law to account for 150km/s still being a major violation. Second, teach people to fucking drive in this country. I don't care if it involves recinding every single drivers license ever issued. We all need to relearn what the road is for.
LOL
800Over for Prez.!
stp
Huh...
I'm sure hoping this is mostly tounge in cheek.. it is 8:00 in the morning, so I'm a little dopey.
Mark
Where do you think Fantino is getting the funds for his new helicopters? It's from this campaign.
"in fact, after conviction, a drunk can actually have his car taken away permanently now, not just impounded for a short while."
I put the important part in bold.
"if someone is merely charged with impaired now, the police can immediately suspend your license and impound your car, correct? no conviction? isn't that kind of arbitrary? i'm suprised the supreme court hasn't struct that down yet. (so if they can do it for impaired, why not 'dangerous' driving? the criminal charge vs ticket argument doesn't really apply IMO)"
Instead of asking go find out. They will not impund your car for a week. And as I mentioned it has surivived a Charter challenge in the Supreme Court as a very rare accepted violation. The Police were given a very narrow and specific set of guidelines to follow. It seems to have work as I for one have never been harrassed at a RIDE Check.
" think your license is automatically (temporarily) suspended if you are even in the warning zone now of .05 to .079. right there at the roadside, no trial."
For like 12 hours, enough time for the alcohol to wear off.
"police can pull people over arbitrarily for RIDE. no just cause. (so they can do the same thing for a car that looks like it might be dangerous, in their opinion. with some of those mods, insurance is no longer valid, so those cars should not be on the road."
Explain to me if you will what is dangerous about my 17" rims (stock are 16").
"as an aside, i'm glad they are randomly pulling trucks over and inspecting them, aren't you?)"
Commercial vehicles are a different animal and are treated differently under the HTA.
"what is the point of all this? laws are there (supposedly) for the greater good. this is not some kind of get rich quick scheme from the cops (unless they are taking bribes). i seriously doubt any incremental revenue from this would be even noticeable."
This is noticeable. Fantino is buying helicopters.
The point is that everyone should get very concerned when your rights under the charter are violated. Think past the 'speed is bad', 'law is good' and look at the details.
"some of the numbers are arbitrary. so what? i think that is a great deal better than letting a cop use his discretion to decide if someone is ok at 51 over or .082. (mind you, i think they have discretion over whether to impound and suspend at the roadside from my reading of the law.)"
I have personally witnessed a cop use his own discretion to tow a vehicle with stock suspension in perfect working order after pushing on the hood of the car and declaring the 'after market' suspension unsafe.
They have zero discretion at this point, the blitz is in full swing and they know that they are not to let anyone go.
"you don't like the rules, fight them for all you are worth. but make some sensible arguments if you want support."
I have. Unfortunately most Canadians have no idea what the Charter is or what thier rights are let alone care.