"Ticket not on docket"

**bushati** · 12-22-2011, 10:35 PM

Offensive content removed.

**OpenGambit** · 12-22-2011, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by bushati

Offensive content removed.

^ what a shame. I would have liked to read that.

**bushati** · 12-23-2011, 03:17 AM

...

**Baggsy** · 12-23-2011, 05:55 AM

Whether you were going 200 or 60 is always relevant. If you're going 60 and you do something stupid, you can dent and get blood on my car. At 200 you have the capability to hurt the occupants.

I'm not sure if you've been on the 401 lately, but the average speed has come down significantly. The left lane bandits are still a big accident risk to everyone on the road, but you rarely see convoys of vehicles flying down the left lane at 160+ anymore.

While I don't agree with nailing people to the wall before they get to court, the law has made some people start paying attention to what they are doing. Whether or not that is significant to our joint safety is yet to be determined.

**OpenGambit** · 12-23-2011, 10:53 AM

I am not bothered at all by your charge. Generaly i don't think a violation of traffic laws (by itself) says anything about a person's character.
I mention the fact that you are not innocent by your own admission in response to those posts that imply that you were charged without any justifcation and suggested misbehaviour on behalf of the cop, some of which have now been deleted.

The fact of the matter is, dispite the issues with HTA 172 which i have made clear in more than just this thread. I just don't find your case to be a particularly sympathetic one.
After all, you deserve some charge and you know it. You got lucky and thats great.

My personal riding style and driving record isn't your concern. But the ppl that ride with me know that the limits on my riding are dictated by my skill, not the law.

**Rob MacLennan** · 12-23-2011, 11:01 AM

I think that we can discontinue the question of guilt or innocence now, and concentrate on the legal aspects of the question. As I've stated in the sticky post, at the top of the forum, that's what this forum is for.

**OpenGambit** · 12-23-2011, 11:13 AM

Just to point out.

The constitutional problem with HTA 172 lies within the combination of Jail time, and absolute liabiilty (lack of a due diligence defense).

While that would make the entire law constitutional as written, there is nothing unconstitutional about the impound aspect, which is the part people actually complain about here.

**Rob MacLennan** · 12-23-2011, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

Just to point out.

The constitutional problem with HTA 172 lies within the combination of Jail time, and absolute liabiilty (lack of a due diligence defense).

While that would make the entire law constitutional as written, there is nothing unconstitutional about the impound aspect, which is the part people actually complain about here.

On the basis that it levies a penalty prior to trial, which can't be demonstrated to have the same sort of undeniable benefit to the public that stopping a presumed impaired driver does. That is the measure that so many HTA 172 supporters point to, as showing it to be a reasonable penalty.

**turbodish** · 12-23-2011, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by OpenGambit

Just to point out.

The constitutional problem with HTA 172 lies within the combination of Jail time, and absolute liabiilty (lack of a due diligence defense).

While that would make the entire law constitutional as written, there is nothing unconstitutional about the impound aspect, which is the part people actually complain about here.

According to a Court of Appeal ruling in support of HTA172, there is the possibility of a due diligence defence, and as such there is no constitutional problem with that law as far as possible jail time is concerned. http://canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/201...010onca206.pdf