More bill 203 stupidity

[ddusseld]

I was simply trying to point out that in my little scenario that breaking the law and being safe might go hand in hand. The relevancy to the subject has to do with the application of the law not the letter of the law. You keep harping on the fact he broke the law. Yes, I know this. This is not what I'm attempting to discuss. I'm very impressed that you take responsibility for your actions. An admirable trait. I'm also glad you know all the rules. Another admirable trait. I'm glad that your world is so defined. Mine is not. I see that not all laws are correct. I see that not all charged are guilty.

I'm not sure how I use the time I save is relevant to what we are discussing.. Oh yeah, my gaming system of choice is the PS3.

Yes, going over 80 would be speeding. What is the argument here? Are you asking what I would do? How is that relevent to what the old guy did? We are not talking about what MAY happen, we are talking about what DID happen. If I was speeding while passing and got caught, then I would accept the outcome of my actions. I would not call the media to cry about how unfair the system is, nor would I post online how I was being persecuted for my actions. I know the rules, I take full responsibility for my actions. Too bad so many others do not.
BTW, just how much time do you save by passing the other car that is going 77 in an 80? At the end of the day what do you do with all that time you saved up? I hope you are using it to further the advancement of humanity or something really important and not just using it to play Wii.

[FiReSTaRT]

We'd be breaking the letter of this particular piece of legislation by standing up on the pegs to loosen our leg muscles during a long ride. While the law wasn't written to bring that to pass and in the legislators' mind, we should not be charged for doing that, a cop could easily nail a rider if he's running low on his "performance expectations" near the end of the month.

[menglor]

A point a few people seem to be missing is,

he was doing 130 when he was caught, in a 80 zone.

and his defense is that the truck was puttering along.

I dont know what puttering along, but if he has to hit 130 to pass someone, that truck is doing more then puttering.


I dont like the law, but I dont like this guys attitude that he "isnt this kind of person"

[eastcoast_gsx]

He apparently did not pass safely according to the law did he?

So all laws are 100% correct in spirit and application?

Godamn safety idiots everywhere....

Sorry, but this punishment does not fit the infraction.

Here is a bigger example of this type of mentality....

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/bre...utrageous.html

[Snobike Mike]

A point a few people seem to be missing is,

he was doing 130 when he was caught, in a 80 zone.

and his defense is that the truck was puttering along.

I dont know what puttering along, but if he has to hit 130 to pass someone, that truck is doing more then puttering.

The speed at which he passes provides no evidence as to how fast the truck was going. He could have a fast car, he could have started passing well behind the truck, he could have accelerated well past the truck before going back into his lane, the cop could have rounded up his speed, or simply and arbitrarily stated it was "exactly" 130.

[V-Tom]

I know that in York region by and large if you are doing less than 100 kph on a highway marked 80 then you will not get a ticket. In effect, 99 is the unofficial limit. I have talked with many York Region officers and they have told me that as well.

I know the letter of the law is that 80 kph is the limit, yet we have the scenerio that 99 is the real world limit. Can it be succesfully argued in court that since 99 is the defacto limit [in York region] then going 130 would only be 31 over rather than 50 over?

..Tom

[Snobike Mike]

I know that in York region by and large if you are doing less than 100 kph on a highway marked 80 then you will not get a ticket. In effect, 99 is the unofficial limit. I have talked with many York Region officers and they have told me that as well.

I know the letter of the law is that 80 kph is the limit, yet we have the scenerio that 99 is the real world limit. Can it be succesfully argued in court that since 99 is the defacto limit [in York region] then going 130 would only be 31 over rather than 50 over?

..Tom

I've heard that argument on several occasions and the typical answer is that the law states "x" as the speed limit so if you're caught, that is the basis for the charge.

[eastcoast_gsx]

If I was speeding while passing and got caught, then I would accept the outcome of my actions. I would not call the media to cry about how unfair the system is, nor would I post online how I was being persecuted for my actions. I know the rules, I take full responsibility for my actions. Too bad so many others do not.

Maybe if the outcome of accepting the responsibility was not so bloody outrageous then we would not be hearing about it either. There is no way you can convince me that this is fair punishment.

I have seen a bit on blueline regarding some officers attitudes towards the elderly (usually the stubborn and grumpy ones) as they will not usually kiss *** with yes sir no sir, as they probably have the "now you listen to me sonny" attitude (as they should a little).

We all know its, not about the infraction, the speeding or the punishment. It all comes down to the "Attitude Test" as MANY MANY cops are quick to point out.

[AdRath]

We all know its, not about the infraction, the speeding or the punishment. It all comes down to the "Attitude Test" as MANY MANY cops are quick to point out.

And thus is the problem with officer/joe public relations. Cops enforce the law based on feeling or attitude not the law. I would actually love to see every officer ticket exactly what the law states. You pass a car well thats a ticket. You go 1k over well that is a ticket also. Then and only then will you see the public lash out at how rediculous some laws are and how silly it is that the speed limit isn't the speed limit enforced (if 120 and up is what police ticket people for on a 400 highway then that should be the speed limit. The other reason Joe public and police have issues is that the law is enforced in a lottery format. Even though 50 other cars did the exact same thing you lost the ticket lottery and now have to pay unjustified insurance increases. If the law was enforced and applied to everyone equally then people wouldn't take it out on the officer but the people who make the laws. But shouldn't is ring an alarm if the answer to that method of enforcement is that it can't be done because then officers would be pulling over 80% of the population. If 80% of the population does something then maybe its time to re-examine the law. No laws should make 80% of a population a criminal.

[leedufour]

And thus is the problem with officer/joe public relations. Cops enforce the law based on feeling or attitude not the law. I would actually love to see every officer ticket exactly what the law states. You pass a car well thats a ticket. You go 1k over well that is a ticket also. Then and only then will you see the public lash out at how rediculous some laws are and how silly it is that the speed limit isn't the speed limit enforced (if 120 and up is what police ticket people for on a 400 highway then that should be the speed limit. The other reason Joe public and police have issues is that the law is enforced in a lottery format. Even though 50 other cars did the exact same thing you lost the ticket lottery and now have to pay unjustified insurance increases. If the law was enforced and applied to everyone equally then people wouldn't take it out on the officer but the people who make the laws. But shouldn't is ring an alarm if the answer to that method of enforcement is that it can't be done because then officers would be pulling over 80% of the population. If 80% of the population does something then maybe its time to re-examine the law. No laws should make 80% of a population a criminal.

I read this somewhere...
Guy gets pulled over for speeding. All the cars were doing about the same speed and he told the cop this. He asked why he got pulled over and not all the other cars.
The cop asked him if he ever went fishing.
Guy said yes.
Cop asked him if he ever caught all the fish.
I found this somewhat interesting.

[AdRath]

I read this somewhere...
Guy gets pulled over for speeding. All the cars were doing about the same speed and he told the cop this. He asked why he got pulled over and not all the other cars.
The cop asked him if he ever went fishing.
Guy said yes.
Cop asked him if he ever caught all the fish.
I found this somewhat interesting.

My response would have been to ask if the officer was a Fish and Game officer... when he says no I'd ask him why he is comparing police work to fishing. lol

[Katatonic]

Another big issue is the inconsistancies. If you are driving 95-100km/h in an 80km/h zone, some cops will ticket and others won't.

Which cop are you going to pass today?

It's a gamble, and if you play the game, eventually you will lose.
Remember, the house always wins.

[82Seca750]

He apparently did not pass safely according to the law did he?
He did not do everything right. If he did, we would not be discussing this. The law has always been that you cannot speed to pass. Even when this guy got his license it was that way. He got caught doing something he should not have done, and by his own words, he was in a hurry.
And why do people insist on using the "was this stunting" crap? Was he not going at least 50 over the limit? Does it not say you can't do that?
You do know that by signing your license you are actually agreeing to abide by all the rules don't you? It does not say you only have to abide by the ones you agree with. The old guy rolled the dice and lost. Better luck next time.

you know what......when you go through what it takes to reach the ripe old age of 76......and consider the contribution you've made over your lifetime......I wonder how or if your conviction may change

IMO.....the last thing this old dude deserves over a traffic infraction.....is brutality.....but that's what he got

very nice way to treat those who've spent 5+ decades contributing....you would think he might just deserve a tad of respect

who knows....maybe Officer Road Safety just created a bitter old man who'll spend the next decade ranting about the Police State we live in now.....before he finally gets planted....real nice stuff

to think of the kinda stuff this old dude has seen and done before that cop was likely even a sperm count

it's farkin embarrassing

[Rob MacLennan]

He apparently did not pass safely according to the law did he?
He did not do everything right. If he did, we would not be discussing this. The law has always been that you cannot speed to pass. Even when this guy got his license it was that way. He got caught doing something he should not have done, and by his own words, he was in a hurry.
And why do people insist on using the "was this stunting" crap? Was he not going at least 50 over the limit? Does it not say you can't do that?
You do know that by signing your license you are actually agreeing to abide by all the rules don't you? It does not say you only have to abide by the ones you agree with. The old guy rolled the dice and lost. Better luck next time.

What was his speed after completing the pass? Was he slowing down? No one seems to know because all that matters is that he did that horrible 50 Kmh over the limit while completing a pass in safety.

For years people have been taught to accelerate to as high a speed that is safe and practical, in order to complete a pass in safety. It's tough to go against all of that now, after it has been ingrained in us so completely. I've been told BY POLICE that this is the safest method to use when passing on a 2 lane road.

[Rob MacLennan]

I hate this new law but.....

"This legislation was not for the likes of me. I don't drive like that. It's just a case that the truck was pooping along and I passed to get away from him," said Harding."

Then who is it for? The laws apply (well in theory) to EVERYONE. Obviously he DOES drive like that.
What does he consider "pooping along"? 100 in an 80?

This law was pushed through as a means of curtailing all of the young guns out there who are street racing. This is how it was sold. This is why it passed with such little fanfare. This is why it is WRONG.

[82Seca750]

I just sent this email to the fellow who wrote that article

gonna put my money where my mouth is....I'll let ya know how it turns out

Hi Kenneth,

I read your story today about the elderly man getting charged under Bill 203. And I would like to offer to donate the money he will be charged in towing and impound fees, so he doesn't have to pay them.

I'll make my views on the legislation short and sweet. The law is brutality under the guise of road safety. The punishment in many cases (of which I believe this is one) does not fit the crime.

I've been quite vocal with our lawmakers and police enforcement about what I feel is unfair about this new legislation. And your story highlights why this legislation was not well thought out. But so far, my complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

The elderly man and his wife as you've indicated live on an old age pension, and could quite easily be crippled by the impound and towing fees alone....so I would like to pay them on their behalf.

I am a car enthusiast......and the enthusiasts' community for the most part has been against Bill 203 from it's inception because of it's blatant brutality with no recourse for the accused in terms of car seizure, towing and impound fees.

I live in Toronto, but if you could find your way to contact the elderly gentleman and make my offer for me, I would appreciate it.

I would gladly make out a bankdraft for the amount and have it transferred.

My contact info in the office is below.....but I can be reached via this email address 7 days a week.

Regards


Tim Chisholm

[djltoronto]

I just sent this email to the fellow who wrote that article

gonna put my money where my mouth is....I'll let ya know how it turns out

Hi Kenneth,

I read your story today about the elderly man getting charged under Bill 203. And I would like to offer to donate the money he will be charged in towing and impound fees, so he doesn't have to pay them.

I'll make my views on the legislation short and sweet. The law is brutality under the guise of road safety. The punishment in many cases (of which I believe this is one) does not fit the crime.

I've been quite vocal with our lawmakers and police enforcement about what I feel is unfair about this new legislation. And your story highlights why this legislation was not well thought out. But so far, my complaints have fallen on deaf ears.

The elderly man and his wife as you've indicated live on an old age pension, and could quite easily be crippled by the impound and towing fees alone....so I would like to pay them on their behalf.

I am a car enthusiast......and the enthusiasts' community for the most part has been against Bill 203 from it's inception because of it's blatant brutality with no recourse for the accused in terms of car seizure, towing and impound fees.

I live in Toronto, but if you could find your way to contact the elderly gentleman and make my offer for me, I would appreciate it.

I would gladly make out a bankdraft for the amount and have it transferred.

My contact info in the office is below.....but I can be reached via this email address 7 days a week.

Regards


Tim Chisholm

Respect!
Your a bigger man than I.
I would gladly donate $5 - $10, but to offer to pay it outright!

OR did I misread that?

EITHER WAY. Hopefully this will get the coverage it deserves!

[82Seca750]

OR did I misread that?

you didn't misread it.....I'm very tired of fackin around with this BS legislation.....the lawmakers were warned that it would be abused....and IMO.....giving an old couple a life-altering bill with no recourse under legislation camouflaged to resolve a problem but is supposed to target 0.12% of the trouble on the road....and punish them over passing a freakin truck is an embarrassment

I can't afford a front page ad in the newpaper......but I can afford to pay his impound and tow

PS.....don't say a word to my wife......

[menglor]

paying his bill will not solve the real problem.

granted its going to help the couple, but it will do absolutely nothing to change the law.

And while I believe the law itself is wrong, driving 130 on a 80kph road is still speeding. And while I feel for the guy because its going to hurt his life because of his situation. If it was me caught doing the same, would you be as willing to pay my bill? I couldnt afford the same situation.

[Streetk1ng]

you didn't misread it.....I'm very tired of fackin around with this BS legislation.....the lawmakers were warned that it would be abused....and IMO.....giving an old couple a life-altering bill with no recourse under legislation camouflaged to resolve a problem but is supposed to target 0.12% of the trouble on the road....and punish them over passing a freakin truck is an embarrassment

I can't afford a front page ad in the newpaper......but I can afford to pay his impound and tow

PS.....don't say a word to my wife......

Your wife will find out when media comes knocking on your door with the old man looking for his cheque lol But seriously, with deeds like this the media can shed some light onto the injustices of bill 203.