How much will 50km speeding cost?

[eastcoast_gsx]

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.

Its not just for speeding either for the recrod. I know of 2 bikes impounded for chaning lanes a few times (probably more then needed) as they worked their way through traffic.

Didn't you also hear Wolley talking about things like "Driving to fast for weather conditions", and other **** like that??

What they have done is give a blank cheque to officers... if you don't see that they you probably never will until that cheque is written with your name on it

[mat2312]

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.

Every example you've mentioned is exactly why the laws should be focused on actual road dangers instead of speed. Those instances are what cause accidents not the fact i'm going 80kph in a 60. No soccer mom will get her car impounded for an unsafe lane change. I don't support going 50kph down residential streets. I don't support the guys who blow by on Kingston Road. I do however think that people going 150kph on the highway @ 3am or up north away from the city-retards should be left alone. These laws are for show, they're making an example out of people to save face.


I'm wondering how an officer is going to determine what a 'safe' speed is for road conditions. My old K5 in 4W could tackle ANY weather our country threw at us.

The Drinking and Driving laws are completely a different issue than these. Drinking is an addiction, Drunk Drivers are notorious offenders. When you sit down and have drinks you know full well the consequences there are no 'maybes' whereas with these new laws everything is left to the 'judgement' of an officer. Because our police forces aren't perfect this is an imperfect law which WILL result in unjust punishments.


Driving is a RIGHT because I've paid for my car, my insurance, my vehicle regisration and my taxes pay for the roads. My money has gone to something therefore I'm entitled to the service I've paid for. The Government has no right to arbitrarily deprive me from my assets without a legal justification. Under the Charter there are certain obligations the government has to follow in order for them to have a legal justification, they are violating those.

[zooropa_chris]

Why do we always hit the brakes when we see a cop, even when we aren't speeding?
Why are the signs at the side of the road on the 401 telling me that 100km/hr is a safe speed when I find myself only doing 65km/hr is a snowstorm?
Why are cops bothering regular people for driving like a normal person, when we have goons with guns walking around the malls?
They say the rules in our society are for our own safety, so why are cigarettes and junk food and alcohol legal?
If everyone drove the speed limit and followed all the rules, would there be no accidents...or even less accidents?
Why do they not give motorcycle police protective equipment at least equivalent to what we have as recreational riders?
Why do motorcycles have the same speed limits when they can stop and swerve twice as fast as a truck, and it is riden by a person not playing with a CB, cell phone, radio, heat contols, talking to a passenger?

I agree rules are supposed to be for our own protection based on previous accidents/research, but enough is enough. If they really wanted to make us follow those rules, they would have passed the rule that all vehicles must have a govenor on it that won't let it go over 100km/hr.

Won't happen because it is not about safety, it is about collecting our hard earned money as a source of revenue for our greedy politicians and creating the illusion that they are making the world a safer place for us all.

And we voted McGuinty back in again. We are as dumb as a stump...no wonder they figure they have to give us all these rules, we would kill ourselves otherwise.

[croco]

And we voted McGuinty back in again. We are as dumb as a stump...no wonder they figure they have to give us all these rules, we would kill ourselves otherwise.

Tory and Hampton are just as guilty as McGuinty, as they all supported this legislation.

[zooropa_chris]

Tory and Hampton are just as guilty as McGuinty, as they all supported this legislation.

True enough. As I look at a ballot, I think to myself, do I vote for "Clown A", "Clown B", or "Clown C".

[Team Lazy]

Why do we always hit the brakes when we see a cop, even when we aren't speeding?

Because we are inherently law-abiding, or afraid of being caught. Stems from childhood.

Why are the signs at the side of the road on the 401 telling me that 100km/hr is a safe speed when I find myself only doing 65km/hr is a snowstorm?

Because it's a MAXIMUM speed. In ideal conditions (supposedly)

Why are cops bothering regular people for driving like a normal person, when we have goons with guns walking around the malls?

Dumbest. Post. Ever. If you know of somebody walking around with a gun in a mall, tell the cops. I bet they drop there ticket books and run right on over there... If you know of somebody comitting crime and still have the stones to say something like this, I'd say you're no better than they are. Do you really think the cops can tell such a fine upstanding person such as yourself from a criminal by looking at you? That's called profiling dude.

They say the rules in our society are for our own safety, so why are cigarettes and junk food and alcohol legal?

Because it's our RIGHT to put that junk into us. As opposed to the "right" to drive, which doesn't exist.

If everyone drove the speed limit and followed all the rules, would there be no accidents...or even less accidents?

Probably. But that's not realistic, is it?

Why do they not give motorcycle police protective equipment at least equivalent to what we have as recreational riders?

Money, very likely. Protection costs.

Why do motorcycles have the same speed limits when they can stop and swerve twice as fast as a truck, and it is riden by a person not playing with a CB, cell phone, radio, heat contols, talking to a passenger?

Because they can't stop and swerve nearly as fast. They accelerate faster than cars, but are less controllable. And most riders have approximately 1/4 of the mAD SkiLlz they think they do.

I agree rules are supposed to be for our own protection based on previous accidents/research, but enough is enough. If they really wanted to make us follow those rules, they would have passed the rule that all vehicles must have a govenor on it that won't let it go over 100km/hr.

How does that help speeding in a 40 km/hr zone? And is it really more realistic than asking people to just "please, be safe out there?"

Won't happen because it is not about safety, it is about collecting our hard earned money as a source of revenue for our greedy politicians and creating the illusion that they are making the world a safer place for us all.

It is about collecting money. If you don't want them collecting from you, don't drive like you have a right to do it. It's a dangerous world, so I always wear a helmet

And we voted McGuinty back in again. We are as dumb as a stump...no wonder they figure they have to give us all these rules, we would kill ourselves otherwise.

I'll give you that one. Only thing is, if you didn't vote, you have no right to complain. If you did, fire away!


As for this driving is my RIGHT crap, seriously guys, check the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's available online, just Google it. And get back to us and show me where the "right" to operate a motor vehicle is. You wanna start thinking that driving is a right, I'll say that you're barking up a non-existent tree. I said it in another post, the people who wrote the laws, are very likely the same lawyers who will have to defend it in court. And it wouldn't have passed if there was a legitimate Charter argument. I hope there exists a defense for those wrongly accused, but that ain't it. That's just being dumb. It's gonna take some DEEP pockets.

[mat2312]

How is a motorcycle less controllable than a car?

[Team Lazy]

How is a motorcycle less controllable than a car?

Must have something to do with those skinny little wheels? Delicate balancing act? Lack of steering/braking aids?

Seriously, go out in your ABS equipped car and stand on the brakes as hard as you can from 130 km/h. Easy huh? Try it on wet pavement. Still easy huh? Heck, turn the steering wheel while you're slowing down. Wanna see how easy it is on a bike? Go for it.

I'm sure you have arguments against all that, but they really aren't valid. Seriously, look at cornering speeds in a car vs a bike, and you'll see how much more grip there is in a car. The only thing a bike does faster is accelerate, and that creates big problems. HUGE problems for guys with big paychecks and minimal ability.

[Rob MacLennan]

How is a motorcycle less controllable than a car?

Perhaps a better statement would be that it requires less skill to get 80% performance out of a car than a motorcycle.

Most people can 4 wheel drift a car without crashing. Most street riders who 2 wheel drift a bike will be getting up close and personal with a lamp post. The number of bike riders I see who simply stamp on the rear brake in a panic situation, even sport riders, is frightening. Sure, a bike can do things like change lanes far faster than a car, but it takes a conscious use of counter steering; something that far too many riders fail to understand, even though they use it every day.

And if you screw up in a car, you don't fall over.

Team Lazy is right that most riders seem to have an overweening opinion of their own ability. We're the elite; far better than those stupid cagers. Well, maybe not so much.

[ddusseld]

I tend to agree with posters who express that driving is a right. It might not be defined in the the charter but it is a de facto right. It simply is not a privilege as really anybody can drive. The few restrictions to driving do not make driving a privilege. People have the expectation of being able to drive if they choose to get their license. They have that right. Can they lose this right? Sure, but it should only be after being convicted of a crime that causes this.

As for this driving is my RIGHT crap, seriously guys, check the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's available online, just Google it. And get back to us and show me where the "right" to operate a motor vehicle is. You wanna start thinking that driving is a right, I'll say that you're barking up a non-existent tree. I said it in another post, the people who wrote the laws, are very likely the same lawyers who will have to defend it in court. And it wouldn't have passed if there was a legitimate Charter argument. I hope there exists a defense for those wrongly accused, but that ain't it. That's just being dumb. It's gonna take some DEEP pockets.

[ddusseld]

Have you ever been on a motorcycle? Have you ever driven a car? How can you actually ask this question?

How is a motorcycle less controllable than a car?

[eastcoast_gsx]

People... they need the extra money to pay jackasses like this guy.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...schertzer.html

More:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/to...lice/1999.html

[mat2312]

Have you ever been on a motorcycle? Have you ever driven a car? How can you actually ask this question?

You can control a motorcycle alot better than you can control a car. Its lighter and slows down faster. It manuevers better than a car. You can take turns alot faster on a bike than in a car.


Maybe the average driver can control a car better due to SKILL. But you take a really good car driver and a really good bike rider and you'll notice the bike is easier to control/maneuver.

[Team Lazy]

You can control a motorcycle alot better than you can control a car. Its lighter and slows down faster. It manuevers better than a car. You can take turns alot faster on a bike than in a car.


Maybe the average driver can control a car better due to SKILL. But you take a really good car driver and a really good bike rider and you'll notice the bike is easier to control/maneuver.

Just. Plain. Wrong.

Go ahead and Youtube some onboard laps of Mosport on both car and bike. If you can't see how much faster the cars corner then you're only kidding yourself. Or don't. Whatever. I'm not even going to try and convince you, but understand that if you actually believe that, you're almost the only person driving or riding who does. It's pretty much common knowledge that cars can out-corner a bike. Heck, it's been posted on HERE in the past 2 weeks!!

For the record, the track record at Mosport in a car is 1:06.*** set by Audi 2007. In comparison, Jordan Szoke qualified at 1:22.*** this year in Superbike. Ever been around Mosport? Wanna guess what it would take to get bike times down 16 seconds? Hint: 2 more wheels.

[Rob MacLennan]

You can control a motorcycle alot better than you can control a car. Its lighter and slows down faster. It manuevers better than a car. You can take turns alot faster on a bike than in a car.


Maybe the average driver can control a car better due to SKILL. But you take a really good car driver and a really good bike rider and you'll notice the bike is easier to control/maneuver.

Try performing an evasion manoeuvre under heavy braking with both, then get back to us when you're out of the hospital.

Mid-corner speeds can be far higher with a car than with a bike, for the simple reason that the car can push more Gs before being in the weeds. The Mosport comparison has already been made, so I don't need to make it.

For some reason I've got Tommy Shaw singing track 2 from "The Grand Illusion" in the back of my head.

[AdRath]

Have you ever been on a motorcycle? Have you ever driven a car? How can you actually ask this question?

I think where most people get confused on this is that they ride very high performace bikes with great suspension and a solid engine but drive cars with budget soft suspension and a little 2.0l 4cyl family sedan. I can see based on experience how you might think that bikes are easier to ride fast than a car. But given a high performance bike and a high performance bike you are right there is no contest.

[Llama]

... But given a high performance bike and a high performance bike you are right there is no contest.

lol

[DUPPY]

Do manufacturers test and record stopping distances for bikes?

[skip]

compare apples to apples....relativly speeking. don't compare an R6 to a clapped out k-car. good cars, with good rubber can pull more g's in conners then bikes can. they have bigger contact patches and have more rubber on the ground relative to thier weight then a bike.

what bikes are is cheap preformance. its relativly inexpensive to get a high preformance bike, where as a high preformance car is much more expensive is all.

[Rob MacLennan]

Do manufacturers test and record stopping distances for bikes?

Check some of the online magazines and, especially, the print Brit mags. Many of them do zero - to - 60 - to - zero tests.