How much will 50km speeding cost?

[infernobuster]

The costs involved in this new speeding law is pretty high .. i know someone just this week had their vehicle impounded.

Towing cost $300
Impound fees $300 a day
Surcharges $200 approx
Speeding ticket is gonna be anywhere from $2000 to 10,000 .. depends on the judges decision.

On top of all of this, vehicle is impounded for 7 days.

AND .. you can count that your insurance will be doubled .. if not more.

[omnivore]

It is preposterous that the towing companies on contract have upped the standard rates as mush as 10x the regular rates, just because they are on contract, and have a major cash cow happening. Literally, the towing/storage company can expect to increase their income this year at least 200x last year's income. Riot anyone?

[LucTdeC]

I don't know how long that type of activity would be tolerated. Once this law sets in and more and more people get their vehicles impounded, opportunistic Tow Companies could find a lot of attention upon their rates. Just takes one guy who is motivated enough or with the ear of someone important.

I don't think people will be allowed to be exploited to that degree. I still have some hope.

[mat2312]

My bike got towed downtown because of a parking infraction. It was $130 tow/impound.


Why the sudden increase? To me each impound rate should be equal and because of the 'contract' that would mean a monopoly right? Aren't there laws against these kinds of things because regardless of what service the tow truck companies are providing to the police, they are still a registered business and are drawing a profit from such endeavours.


Why does the vehicle have to be impounded in the first place? Why can't it be towed to your house and your license suspended? Is it because of the financial hit?


I'm surprised nobody has brought up the cruel and unsual punishment aspect of the charter. To me its cruel/unusual that 49kph over gets you what? $300 fine and 50kph over gets you $2000 tow/impound + $2000 fine = $4000.

Its sickening.

[johnnn]

Why would you ever expect to recoup the costs of seizure? If you get you car seized for travelling at 50 above, it's hard to argue you were not in the wrong to some degree. Here is the simplest way to not have to endure this problem, don't travel so quickly. I really have trouble understanding why people are fixating on the whole 50 above issue. On the 400 series higways, the speed limit is 100kph, the cops typicaly give you leeway up to about 120, which means they already turn a somethat blind eye to speeding. And for practical purposes, they likely don't seize your car for doing 151, as there is room for a margin of error.

That said, it's hard to make an arguement that you were trying to follow the posted speed limit, but there was a minor calibration error, when you are travelling at the minimum 50% faster than the appointed speed limit. Yes it's easy to go really fas on a bike, it doesn't mean that you should.

Here's the other thing, if you are travelling that quickly and DON'T notice a cop or radar trap soon enough to slow down so you don't lose your ride, you are clearly not paying attention to your environment, or just don't care and you deserve to lose the privilege of riding or driving on our highways and biways.

Complain about sheep all you want, people are sheep and like to go along with the herd, it's safe, it's comfortable. The police are charged with protecting the sheep, if you want to be a wolf, watch for the traps and the wolf hunters, and if you are not careful, expect to pay the price.

I think the majority will agree with you in principle. We will agree that if you drive over 50km/h that you deserve to face the punishment deemed proper by the government. After all, driving is a right (just like marriage is) but we don't need to do it ie. if we don't like the rules we can choose not to participate.

Where I, and I assume most others disagree with the law is that it gives the police vague and arbitrary power to impost their and the government will on the people. If you know how a totalitarian regime operates you will notice the similarities. The law also violates the principls by which our legal system operates as it violates the charter of rights. By impounding our vehicles and suspending our licenses on the spot the police and government are issuing a penalty, determing guilt and in essence stealing our property. Further, by determining guilt on the spot the police are destroying any chance of having a fair trial, a charter right!

Now what you wrote implies that the person who is pulled over was commiting the act, ie he was speeding. But what about the person targeted by the police for no reason? What if your neighbour who is a cop hates that you come home at 2am on your bike and wake him up. What is going to stop him from writing or influencing a fellow officer to write one of these tickets? Say he makes up that you did a wheelie? Well you lose your bike and get suspended automatically with no recourse not to mention the damages you could face in court.

Lets look at an example a little less conspiratorial. Say you are doing 100km/h up the 400. At the same time the police are chasing a speeding bike up the 400 behind you. The bike flies past you and you think nothing of it. A minute later the police are behind you with their sirens on. You get pulled over because they assume you are the bike they were chasing and you get nailed for a 50+ ticket and fleeing from the coppers ticket. They make a mistake and it costs you impounding fees plus license suspension, possibly 2,000-10,000$'s in fines, I believe possible jail time, a 6 month license suspension and probably a drastic insurance increase which may make it impossible for you to ride a bike anymore. Or, if you depend on your license for work you could essentially be forced into bankrupcy because of a mistaken identity. Even if you beat this in court your license was taken for a week, you lose hard earned money to a towing company for nothing and the suspension goes on your insurance record.

I will add something about the insurance recrod. I was told by a friend of mine who fights tickets for a living. (she does it legit, not like ex copper, they don't just talk to the prosector...they get disclosure for everything and actually try to beat every ticket!). She told me that a suspension on your license without a charge...ie. you have a suspension but you beat the charge in court, it will not raise your insurance record. For instance, if your license gets suspended for say failure to pay tickets or whatever they can do to suspend it that is not due to moving violations, the insurance will not raise the rate.

I am just going to say this....if I ever get charged with one of these tickets I will be contacting a lawyer and I will be going to the supreme court arguing that my constitutional rights have been violated.

[Dilligaf0220]

Don't forget the victim tax on the fine as well, probaly close to an extra $400 tacked onto the fine.

[grahamsn]

edit...
Lets look at an example a little less conspiratorial. Say you are doing 100km/h up the 400. At the same time the police are chasing a speeding bike up the 400 behind you. The bike flies past you and you think nothing of it. A minute later the police are behind you with their sirens on. You get pulled over because they assume you are the bike they were chasing and you get nailed for a 50+ ticket and fleeing from the coppers ticket. They make a mistake and it costs you impounding fees plus license suspension, possibly 2,000-10,000$'s in fines, I believe possible jail time, a 6 month license suspension and probably a drastic insurance increase which may make it impossible for you to ride a bike anymore.
...edit

Your hypothetical situation of mistaken identity could have just as easily happened before the new legislation came into effect. Do you think that in the past the police would just issue you a ticket or a summons for running? No, they would put you in jail, suspend your licence, and tow and impound your vehicle, just as they would today. Running from the police was always considered much more serious than doing 50 km/h over the limit, and it still is today.

I also believe that this situation is less likely to occur than most of you fear. Even with many motorcycles on the street being identical these days, most of us are wearing vastly different gear, clothing, etc... The police will generally be ovservant of these differences.

[mat2312]

Your hypothetical situation of mistaken identity could have just as easily happened before the new legislation came into effect. Do you think that in the past the police would just issue you a ticket or a summons for running? No, they would put you in jail, suspend your licence, and tow and impound your vehicle, just as they would today. Running from the police was always considered much more serious than doing 50 km/h over the limit, and it still is today.

I also believe that this situation is less likely to occur than most of you fear. Even with many motorcycles on the street being identical these days, most of us are wearing vastly different gear, clothing, etc... The police will generally be ovservant of these differences.

Wow I love people like you. The difference is that in the past, when you were charged for going 50kph+ over you were given a summons and had your day in court which is THE fundamental aspect of our justice system.

Now before you even face the judge, you have to pay $2000 to $3000 out of pocket. It's an illegal law and will be struck down.


As it stands now, yes running from the police is still more serious than getting your 50kph ticket. But calculating the risks, provided you are on a highway with some space and are a generally competent rider, running is a viable option when faced with a police state's overbearing laws.

The logic of "well you know the law don't do it" is very flawed. They could pass a law saying anyone going 40kph over will be shot on the spot, would you support it? afterall they knew the law ahead of time.

In regards to your last paragraph you mentioned it is 'less likely' than we anticipate. But honestly even ONE time is too many. There should be no way at all for someone to be punished before their trial. DUI is a little different there is an inherent risk to the public where it is in the direct interest of public safety to keep that person off the road for that period of time.

[RoadHogg]

The costs involved in this new speeding law is pretty high .. i know someone just this week had their vehicle impounded.

Towing cost $300
Impound fees $300 a day
Surcharges $200 approx
Speeding ticket is gonna be anywhere from $2000 to 10,000 .. depends on the judges decision.

On top of all of this, vehicle is impounded for 7 days.

AND .. you can count that your insurance will be doubled .. if not more.

I can see 300 for the tow.. But 300 a day storage... BS
Show me proof that some company is charging that much.. Not what someone told you.. And if they are take it to the OPP(if it was opp that charged him or you)

If there is a company doing that then make sure you take a receipt to the OPP, but pay the bill as soon as you can, because it will only get higher..
In the Burlington/Oakville/Mississauga area expect to pay 150-250 for the tow (A few in Oakville are charging 360 for the tow) and 25-100 a day storage... Oakville will probably be the most expensive area to get caught.. Mississauga has new laws regarding cost, and Burlington is regulated also.. But if you know your doing 50 over your going to pay up for it..
Besides thats a drop in the hat to what the cops and the system are going to charge you.. and your insurance company.

[Gnu]

Why would you ever expect to recoup the costs of seizure? If you get you car seized for travelling at 50 above, it's hard to argue you were not in the wrong to some degree. Here is the simplest way to not have to endure this problem, don't travel so quickly. I really have trouble understanding why people are fixating on the whole 50 above issue. On the 400 series higways, the speed limit is 100kph, the cops typicaly give you leeway up to about 120, which means they already turn a somethat blind eye to speeding. And for practical purposes, they likely don't seize your car for doing 151, as there is room for a margin of error.

That said, it's hard to make an arguement that you were trying to follow the posted speed limit, but there was a minor calibration error, when you are travelling at the minimum 50% faster than the appointed speed limit. Yes it's easy to go really fas on a bike, it doesn't mean that you should.

Here's the other thing, if you are travelling that quickly and DON'T notice a cop or radar trap soon enough to slow down so you don't lose your ride, you are clearly not paying attention to your environment, or just don't care and you deserve to lose the privilege of riding or driving on our highways and biways.

Complain about sheep all you want, people are sheep and like to go along with the herd, it's safe, it's comfortable. The police are charged with protecting the sheep, if you want to be a wolf, watch for the traps and the wolf hunters, and if you are not careful, expect to pay the price.

If you actually read the Bill, there is a list of choices for the cops to pick from for seizing your vehicle, not just going 50 over. So they can pull you over for any of those reasons and seize your vehicle.

[grahamsn]

Wow I love people like you. The difference is that in the past, when you were charged for going 50kph+ over you were given a summons and had your day in court which is THE fundamental aspect of our justice system.

Now before you even face the judge, you have to pay $2000 to $3000 out of pocket. It's an illegal law and will be struck down.


As it stands now, yes running from the police is still more serious than getting your 50kph ticket. But calculating the risks, provided you are on a highway with some space and are a generally competent rider, running is a viable option when faced with a police state's overbearing laws.

The logic of "well you know the law don't do it" is very flawed. They could pass a law saying anyone going 40kph over will be shot on the spot, would you support it? afterall they knew the law ahead of time.

In regards to your last paragraph you mentioned it is 'less likely' than we anticipate. But honestly even ONE time is too many. There should be no way at all for someone to be punished before their trial. DUI is a little different there is an inherent risk to the public where it is in the direct interest of public safety to keep that person off the road for that period of time.

If you had read my post more carefully, you would have noticed that I made no comment either agreeing or disagreeing with the new legislation. I simply commented on the consequences of running from the police. The consequences of having done 50 over, even under the new laws, become insignificant in relation to the penalties associated with running. I personally don't agree with all aspects of the new laws. However, I still have no respect for someone who runs from police and endangers innocent people, and I believe that they deserve to be punished severely for it.

[RedDragon]

This law does need to be challenged in court right to it's highest levels. If you allow a government to essentially find you guilty without a trial , then we are no better than the countries we deem terrorist states. The fundamental parts of our judicial system is that we all must get our day in court without prejudice. This is not a "Star Chamber" or "vigilante justice". Canada prides itself on being a world leader when it comes to justice. Even dictator Saddam Hussein was allowed to present a case in his trial. the province is becoming more draconian than ever. Furthermore let's not blame only Mcguinty all parties agreed to this law,including Tory and Hampton. I think we as riders and drivers need to put our money where our mouths are. Why not come together set up a legal fund hire Edward Greenspan or someone else and challenge the constitutionality of this law. Unless we do something it's just idle talk and rants like mine on boards where we care for a minute, then back to our sheltered lives. If people like Che Guevera, Martin Luther King The Dali Llama or even Tommy Douglas didn't stand up for what's right imagine how much more screwed up this world would be......rant over..flame if you want

cheers,

RedDragon

[CAV_MAN]

This law does need to be challenged in court right to it's highest levels. If you allow a government to essentially find you guilty without a trial , then we are no better than the coutries we deem terrorist states. The fundamental parts of our judicial system is that we all must get our day in court without prejudice. This is not a "Star Chamber" or "vigilante justice". Canada prides itself on being a world leader when it comes to justice. Even dictator Saddam Hussein was allowed to present a case in his trial. the province is becoming more draconian than ever. Furthermore let's not blame only Mcguinty all parties agreed to this law,including Tory and Hampton. I think we as riders and drivers need to put our money where our mouths are. Why not come together set up a legal fund hire Edward Greenspan or someone else and challenge the constitutionality of this law. Unless we do something it's just idle talk and rants like mine on boards where we care for a minute, then back to our sheltered lives. If people like Che Guevera, Martin Luther King The Dali Llama or even Tommy Douglas didn't stand up for what's right imagine how much more screwed up this world would be......rant over..flame if you want

cheers,

RedDragon

VIVA La Revolution!! I like your thinking

[mat2312]

If you had read my post more carefully, you would have noticed that I made no comment either agreeing or disagreeing with the new legislation. I simply commented on the consequences of running from the police. The consequences of having done 50 over, even under the new laws, become insignificant in relation to the penalties associated with running. I personally don't agree with all aspects of the new laws. However, I still have no respect for someone who runs from police and endangers innocent people, and I believe that they deserve to be punished severely for it.

You can run without endangering people's lives. People just driving on the highway are taking a considerable risk.


The consequences aren't insignificant compared to running. I understand that running from the police brings a whole lots of legal trouble if you're caught including criminal charges. But there are people out there who cannot afford $2000 without even being found guilty yet simply because officer hardass has to make their quota or doesn't like bikes.

Is running the answer? its not, but to some its the only chance they have to avoid unfair treatment. When the state infringes upon your rights sometimes you have to fight back. But if you're going to run, do it as safely as possible, avoid people...avoid school zones etc. and to the police if someone is cruising at 150kph in their own lane at 3am leave them alone if we were to get literal with every law on the books people who really enjoy dragging a dead horse down yonge street on a sunday will lose out.

I still am a firm believer unless its a major felony ie. Murder, Rape, Child Molestation, Bank Robbery. There shouldn't be any police chases, our roads would be much safer, all the officer has to do is get your plate number which can be done very methodically.


As riders we see 10X as many people committing illegal unsafe non-speed related traffic acts on the roads that pose a much greater danger to the general public. If we can eliminate those, we could go 160 on the 401 without issue.

[Bandit Bill]

You can run without endangering people's lives. People just driving on the highway are taking a considerable risk.

I'm sorry but THIS gets my dumb sentence of the week nomination quote.

You have control over nothing more than your throttle, brakes, and approxamite vector in a chase or run situation. Everything else is out of your control - how can you pre-determine when anyone comes darting out of an alley in your path, you have no control when that semi-clueless motorist pulls out of McD's blocking your vector, you have no control of the situation when you blow through the intersection at 110 km/h, and Joe Average blows the light in a rolling right hand turn.. Similar analogies exist for highway running situations. No one has a right to increase the 'considerable risk' of others in sharing the highway as an escape route, most of all.

You basically only have control over what you can immediately control in a running situation, and it's rarely done under a cool and collected mindset - to think that you aren't putting others at risk when you mix running and the fickle finger of chance, is to assume a false sense of immortality, for yourself or others.

[Gil]

Being able to drive in Ontario is a privilege...not a right.

Police can already suspend someones licence for 90 days for blowing over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. One can blow between 80-89 mg not get charged and STILL have your licence suspended for 90 DAYS.

Your car can be seized and impounded for 45 days if you allow a "disqualified" driver to use YOUR car. The owner is responsible for allowing the person to drive the car.

Maybe if some of you had been to some of these crash scenes you might think differently. Imagine watching your spouse die or someone else you cared about. What if you were responsible for killing someone?

Then again some boast of the legislation violating their rights and taking the issue to the supreme court. Ya right. Put your money where your mouth is and go get picked up intentionally if your so dedicated to the cause. A load of hot gas if you ask me.

[johnnn]

Being able to drive in Ontario is a privilege...not a right.

Police can already suspend someones licence for 90 days for blowing over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. One can blow between 80-89 mg not get charged and STILL have your licence suspended for 90 DAYS.

Your car can be seized and impounded for 45 days if you allow a "disqualified" driver to use YOUR car. The owner is responsible for allowing the person to drive the car.

Maybe if some of you had been to some of these crash scenes you might think differently. Imagine watching your spouse die or someone else you cared about. What if you were responsible for killing someone?

Then again some boast of the legislation violating their rights and taking the issue to the supreme court. Ya right. Put your money where your mouth is and go get picked up intentionally if your so dedicated to the cause. A load of hot gas if you ask me.

Actually, driving is a right and a privelidge. Everyone has the RIGHT to driver if they meet the qualifications to do so...ie age, sigh and passing a test and purchasing insurance. The government can arbitrarily say to someone that they cannot driver and therefore it is a right.

And going out with the intention of getting a ticket is just stupid. Why would anyone intend to get one of these tickets? If I do get one I will challenge it constitutionally. Then again my family has a history of lodging constitutional arguments including my mother who is dealing with one as we speak.

[Rob MacLennan]

Being able to drive in Ontario is a privilege...not a right.

Police can already suspend someones licence for 90 days for blowing over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. One can blow between 80-89 mg not get charged and STILL have your licence suspended for 90 DAYS.

Your car can be seized and impounded for 45 days if you allow a "disqualified" driver to use YOUR car. The owner is responsible for allowing the person to drive the car.

Maybe if some of you had been to some of these crash scenes you might think differently. Imagine watching your spouse die or someone else you cared about. What if you were responsible for killing someone?

Then again some boast of the legislation violating their rights and taking the issue to the supreme court. Ya right. Put your money where your mouth is and go get picked up intentionally if your so dedicated to the cause. A load of hot gas if you ask me.

How far behind can the, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!" argument be? Yes, driving is a privilege and not a right. We do, however, have a right against "unreasonable search or seizure."

An impaired driver generally shows signs of impairment, which would make it unconscionable to allow him to retain control of the vehicle, however I've always been on the fence about imposing sentence before trial in this case also.

I'm unaware of this law regarding seizure of a vehicle if you allow a disqualified driver to drive it. Is this prior to sentencing? Can you post the applicable statute?

Your "tugging at the heartstrings" argument is meaningless. The law should be equal, fair, and devoid of emotion. What you are supporting, is punishment before trial based on POTENTIAL. Punishment must fit the crime, not what the crime MIGHT have been. Should a legal gun owner who leaves his firearm unlocked be charged with murder?

Should I be charged under this new law, I would fight it with all my means. I would HAVE TO. If that included taking it to The Supreme Court, if my means were adequate to it, then I would. I'm not foolish enough, nor wealthy enough, to put it to the test.

[croco]

I also believe that this situation is less likely to occur than most of you fear. Even with many motorcycles on the street being identical these days, most of us are wearing vastly different gear, clothing, etc... The police will generally be ovservant of these differences.

You may believe that is unlikely to occur, but it happened to me. In May 2006 I was riding my SV650 with my girlfriend on The Grange Sideroad, doing maybe 70-75km/h in a 60km/h zone. All of a sudden some guy with a passenger on another SS (might have been a gsxr600) passed me, going MUCH faster than me. A few seconds later I see an unmarked cruiser behind, I pull to the side of the road, and get tagged with THREE summons. Failure to stop, speeding 110, and careless.

I obviously took it to court, and I still haven't resolved the issue. Due to lack of disclosure on the firs trial date, then running out of time on the second trial date, I now have yet another trial date in April 2008. TWO YEARS AFTER THE ORIGINAL OFFENCE.

Now I am pretty much guaranteed to win under the 11b, but under the new law I would have lost my bike on the spot FOR SOMETHING I DID NOT DO.

And if you don't believe me, my record has been clean for the past 5 or 6 years, and before that my highest ticket was 21km/h over the speed limit.

[dgmorr]

In regards to the daily impound fee, my car was impounded in some farm lot (theft recovery) between St. Thomas and nowhere, it was $110 per day. My guess is this will be a lot higher in the city.