A few questions for Jim Bradley - and an opinion or 2

[82Seca750]

Got another canned response in the mail Friday for a letter I wrote about Fantino's quest to ticket those who ended up in a ditch by themselves....this time, Jim Bradley (Minister of Trans.) felt the need to reply. And in his reply, he noted the "difference" the new street racing legislation has made on our roads

so I replied.....

Mr. Bradley,

I'm responding to the letter you sent me because you made reference to street racing legislation "making a difference", and making our roads safer. And I want to challenge you to provide me with the statistics that prove these claims. Real numbers please, not poll results. As well, I want to express my opinion about the legislation, how it came about, and what it's done. And I can guarantee you that I speak for 10's of thousands of Ontario citizens with this opinion.

Back when Bill 203 was in the proposal stage, the Gov't (with the help of the media) painted the picture of this huge "street racing" problem. The people they implied were cause for the legislation were the young testosterone induced meatheads who would go head-to-head on the street and endanger everyone around them.

We all know the type of person that was described, and with the exception of the enthusiast community who questioned this legislation from day 1....the general public nodded in unison that these people should get punished severely for their actions.

Problem is, real stats showed that these types of people were not really a huge problem, an almost non-existent 0.12% of the tragic consequences on the road over the last decade were a result of "street racing".

But nobody told the masses that.....nope.....and a couple of juicy stories being taken way out of their context instead just fueled the venom. I'd really like to know when Queen's Park found out about Rob Manchester's BAC level, while they simultaneously sold his death as a street racing incident and tastelessly paraded his orphan daughter in front of the media.

Funny irony.....out of the 3500 charged so far under your new legislation, I've only read about 4 people who've actually behaved in the way these "street racers" do, that inspired the legislation......the 1 Darwin who raced the undercover cop near Windsor (and I still believe the cop egged on the kid) and 3 teenaged kids in Stratford recently who were racing 3-wide on a residential street

hmmm.....0.12% of 3500 = 4

The public were lied too Mr.Bradley.


For what it's worth, I have an MP3 of the CBC radio interview that the undercover cop from the Windsor area gave the next day, after racing the kid. If you would like to listen to it, I'd be more than happy to email it to you. And you can make your own judgment on what I feel is seriously questionable behavior on behalf of the officer.....and this behavior seems to be promoted and applauded under you new legislation.

I'd like to see a break-down of the 3500+ charged and convicted. How many were caught in clunky transition zones and were simply having a lapse in judgment versus the conscious act of driving aggressively over a static limit? I'd also like to see how many have been arrested for "stunting" versus "speeding". This legislation was called "street racing" legislation, so how many were actually street racing using the proper context of the term.....not the manipulated version that the Gov't has decided to make up on our behalf.

In my opinion, your new legislation has done some very negative things to the people of this province:

1) You've minimized our civil right to due process by allowing severe financial penalties to be levied roadside with no recourse to get these funds back after our day in court. You've effectively made us guilty before proven innocent. This is backwards. The costs involved in paying for a one-week impound and tow reportedly range from $600 - $1400 depending on the area. In many court cases, I've heard that the Crown immediately offers the accused a lowered charge of 49-over, a $300 fine and 3 points. So the roadside penalty levied by an officer, is effectively much more harsh that what the court decides. This is not the way our justice system is supposed to work. And please don't use the "administrative" lingo assessed to the impound and tow bills.....they are penalties of guilt before your day in court. It is that simple, regardless of what legal wrangling has taken place to implement this act, the reality is you've taken our right to justice and turned it on it's ear.

2) You've penalized people who have nothing to do with the actual offense by impounding the car for a week. I've read many accounts where the parents have lost their car because their child was charged. One account where a car-jockey was charged in a customer's new Aston Martin and the customer was penalized when his car was taken for a week. How can you promote a law which frequently penalizes people who've done nothing wrong? Again, this is not justice, you're making victims out of innocent people with this legislation.

3) Your written descriptions in the law which attempt to clarify what constitutes "stunting" have been so deliberate in "legal-speak", that they can be taken way out of their intended context, and could easily be used to charge someone who is simply driving along doing nothing wrong. You've tried to describe "drifting" but if taken out of context, anyone who mistakenly spins their tires will be charged. The attempt to describe "blocking" could be taken out of it's context and used against anyone who tries to maintain their lane position versus another car. Why was this detail even needed when careless driving, dangerous driving etc, are already part of the HTA? And please don't defend terms that "could" be taken out of their intended context....the Gov't already took the term "street racing" way out if it's intended context.

4) With these severe roadside penalties and no recourse, you've left way too much power with the discretion of an officer. This legislation has heightened the already strained relationship between the public and law enforcement. I seriously question the thinking here. Are there not enough "cop-haters" already with the real criminal element in this province? Why would the Gov't allow a roadside cop the power to levy such harsh financial penalties to citizens who are otherwise good law-abiding taxpayers? I will guarantee that everyone of the 3500 people charged so far, along with their immediate family and friends will have a very negative view of law enforcement as a result of this. If you want proof, I could put you into contact with the elderly man from the Ottawa area who was charged while simply passing a truck in an 80kph zone. I've been corresponding with his daughter (a middle aged wife and mother) and suffice to say, she was not impressed with the cop. Further proof of the public getting fed-up with certain Officer behavior was evident when the TSN Motoring host was ticketed for flashing his lights...a made up charge because the cop was angry.....these scenarios don't escape the public. And with the online communities in this technological day and age, many of us have surfed through the various Officer forums, and the comments and admitted behavior being described, I tend to think some of these 50-over claims may have been rounded up. The new power has definitely gone to some of their heads. Thankfully, there's only a few officers out there that would write a ticket to their own grandmother, but the problem does exist and it's very serious. And selective enforcement is also noted many times when the person pulled over carries a badge and is waved by with nothing more than a nod and smile. There is definitely an "us versus them" mentality growing with this legislation, and unfortunately for this Gov't, it's the otherwise law-abiding taxpayer who are getting frustrated, and the population of the law-abiding taxpayer is very large. The term "Police State" is one that I see being used more and more, and this is a massive problem that needs to be corrected.

5) The simple justification of a one week car seizure for the majority of those currently charged under this legislation is really stretching the limits of common sense and fairness. The seizure is sold as a public safety measure, while it could be easily argued that it is just a brutal and vicious act by our Gov't and Law Enforcement......the equivalent of killing a fly with a sledge-hammer. The seizure is apparently justified in comparison with the scenario of similar action during a DUI. This is honestly laughable. People who've consumed alcohol past the 0.8 level have technically impaired their judgment and will not have an acceptable BAC until a set number of hours has passed, they are technically incapable of properly maneuvering their vehicle. So how can this be compared with a sober driver stopping for an officer roadside? The second a sober driver has pulled over to face an alleged charge, then there is no longer a safety issue is there? Of the 3500+ that have been charged so far, how many drivers do you honestly believe would be a danger to the public after they drive away contemplating a day in court, a huge fine and many demerit points? And please don't give me a canned answer.

6) During the process of proposing Bill 203, the elected officials in the current Gov't blatantly profiled and discriminated the enthusiast community. Michael Bryant's behavior was disgusting. His threats to seize and crush modified cars, and imply that the behavior of these vehicle owners was that of a criminal was very misleading and totally irresponsible. While I'm not sure if profiling and discriminating are actions which warrant criminal charges, they sure warrant some moral questioning. How an (now former) Attorney General can stand there and make such allegations in front of the media and go unpunished is unbelievable. This pandering to the public who are unfamiliar with the enthusiasts' hobby was despicable. This was the type of behavior which sold the public on Bill 203, and all of you in elected office should be ashamed of yourselves.

The public were lied too Mr.Bradley......those in the enthusiast community were calling out these lies during the proposal process to no avail......and we were right on the money.....this legislation is a CASH GRAB. This is not about road safety.....it's about money.

When the Gov't and Law Enforcement tell the law-abiding public that they are going to implement legislation to stop a problem that's actually non-existent but still for the greater good anyway, and paint the picture of that specific offender....while they simultaneously levy punishment on the same public that were nodding in agreement when the legislation was being proposed......then you have a serious problem.....and it sure as hell isn't street racing.

I encourage you to stop counting the revenue stream of millions that this legislation has created, and take a step back and have a real good think about the attitudes and opinions of the otherwise law-abiding taxpaying public that this legislation has inspired. Because the more people you charge, the more the haste will grow. This legislation is ripe with flaws, and they should be addressed and revised.

And don't be surprised when you find certain car owners running their own personal surveillance cameras during operation as a way to defend themselves against allegations of "stunting". When you have legislation that's based on profiling and discrimination, there will be a large portion of the enthusiasts' community that will feel the need to have footage to defend themselves against an over-zealous traffic cop trying to crawl his way up the promotional ladder. This is a result of your legislation.....there is no trust anymore. Real nice province this Ontario is. And with recent examples, most specifically the tasering death at the Vancouver Airport, we've all seen how the Police can escalate a situation, choreograph a total down-played defense strategy in the media the next day, suppress video evidence, and then run for cover when the video is finally released.

I look forward to your response. You've inherited a real mess courtesy of your predecessor.

And for what it's worth, I'm not some kid. I'm a 41 year old married homeowner. Over the past 2 decades I've not even had one driving infraction, and I've paid more than my fair share in taxes. To think my hard-earned money has gone towards implementing this type of legislation is incredibly frustrating.

Regards

Tim Chisholm

[mat2312]

Awesome letter my friend, I think you've captured the spirit of all who oppose this law.


I suggest you forward this to as many news agencies, enthusiast magazines, Silverman helps ;p and whatever else you can think of. "

Everyone should forward this to their M.P.P.

[woobie]

Very nice thoughtful response. I'd be interested in reading any reply you get.

[Rob MacLennan]

Very nicely worded. I hope that it gets more than a perfunctory PFO form letter, by way of response.

[Flywheel]

I think you've effectively managed to encapsulate months of Bill 203 forum posting. The only improvement I could think of would be to cite your sources of information, even if the Minister is reluctant to do so himself.

[Snobike Mike]

Great letter.

For item 5 you may want to also quote the charge regarding that OPP officer who got charged but didn't get a suspension since it was a few weeks prior.

This relates to the fact that the person charged "is an immediate threat to public safety" even though you are already stopped at the side of the road which makes you no less likely to be a threat than after your suspension and impound.

Good luck!

[AFJ]

The Ontario government is supposed to issue an annual statistical report on road accidents. The latest one posted on the Ministry of Transportation web site is the one for 2004.

Most road safety groups like the Canadian Dept of Transport and the American Highway Traffic Safety Administration have long ago issued the 2005 data and have now issued information on the accidents in 2006.

I understand that the Ontario 2005 report was ready to be released in June, 2007 but that it showed some increase in traffic deaths, including motorcyclist fatalities. And the Ontario govt. got worried and held the report back. (This was before Bradley was put in as Transport Minister) Speculation has it that the "street-racing" legislation is mostly an attempt by the government to be seen to be "tough on bad driving and the traffic fatality problem".

Meanwhile, the 2006 information published by the Canadian govt. shows that nationally motorcycling fatalities were down from 2005. Some OPP data for the roads they patrol showed the same trend.

AFJ

[82Seca750]

Great letter.

For item 5 you may want to also quote the charge regarding that OPP officer who got charged but didn't get a suspension since it was a few weeks prior.

This relates to the fact that the person charged "is an immediate threat to public safety" even though you are already stopped at the side of the road which makes you no less likely to be a threat than after your suspension and impound.

Good luck!

yeah....I didn't know how to work that gem in. The fact that an on-duty officer got zinged with street racing charges is just so whacked in theory anyway that it plain boggles my mind. Don't know what the deal is there....has that cop got a real bad record?.....is it just a PR stunt at the expense of that officer?......that whole scenario is just dumb, he was on duty....I thought speeding to a possible emergency was part of the job.

it kinda walks that fine line......if I'm subject to these brutal charges, then so should a cop I guess....but an on-duty cop???......dunno....maybe it falls into the public/cop relationship thing....if I'm gonna get bent over a desk for chirping my tires, then screw the cop when it's his turn, on-duty or not......although, if I've got some looney-tune swinging a bat at my head, I want that cop to get to the scene as fast as that car will go...no??

while it seems pretty counter-productive to hog-tie these guys trying to do their job.....what we've seen with this 203 crap sure as heck doesn't promote any leniency from the public when we've got a cop red-handed

dumb law, real dumb

[Rob MacLennan]

I don't recall if the type of incident he was responding to was mentioned, but that could be what is at issue. Police are allowed to break certain traffic laws WHEN REQUIRED. If he was on his way to check out some vandalism, or something else after the fact, then there was no need to get there at high speed.

[82Seca750]

I don't recall if the type of incident he was responding to was mentioned, but that could be what is at issue. Police are allowed to break certain traffic laws WHEN REQUIRED. If he was on his way to check out some vandalism, or something else after the fact, then there was no need to get there at high speed.

I don't recall either, and you're probably right

but...contrary to popular opinion (and incorrect opinion) I actually feel sorry for that cop

pretty tough job being a cop I'd think....and buddy comes around a corner one night and whammo...horse meat for eveyone....and he gets charged for racing???

shaking my head

but as I said....if Gov't and Law Enforcement in general want to promote seriously flawed legislation and collective bend the law-abiding pubilc over, and then a copper gets dinged under that legislation.....we're all gonna applaud and relish the occasion, and we're gonna want to send that poor cop up the river

sad stuff

[camber]

Bravo!

I'll be writing a letter soon as well. I've contacted the head of E.R.A.S.E. and requested we speak about street racing statisitics. Should be an interesting conversation.

[82Seca750]

I've contacted the head of E.R.A.S.E. and requested we speak about street racing statisitics. Should be an interesting conversation.

nice strategy

please do ask why the programme is still active

since the new street racing legislation is apparently making such a difference already, you'd have to think our tax dollars wouldn't be needed to fund a completely redundant programme now would you????

[baked]

+1 great letter thank you.

[djltoronto]

Great letter. I would LOVE to hear the response when available.

[obr44]

Well done.

Thanks Tim

[Red1]

+1 to your letter. Please post the response when/if you get it.

[Scudzo_2]

If you're throwing statistic into it, think it through.

You claim to represent 10's of thousands. Lets, for convenience, say it's 50,000 people. Ontario's population is roughly 11,400,00. So you represent only 0.4% of the population? No politician cares about 0.4% of the population.

[Rob MacLennan]

If you're throwing statistic into it, think it through.

You claim to represent 10's of thousands. Lets, for convenience, say it's 50,000 people. Ontario's population is roughly 11,400,00. So you represent only 0.4% of the population? No politician cares about 0.4% of the population.

They do when that minority of voters is vocal and gets press coverage.

[djltoronto]

If you're throwing statistic into it, think it through.

You claim to represent 10's of thousands. Lets, for convenience, say it's 50,000 people. Ontario's population is roughly 11,400,00. So you represent only 0.4% of the population? No politician cares about 0.4% of the population.

They cared about the 0.12% of the tragic collisions on the roads, so much that they came up with Bill 203

0.4% is 3.33 times greater than 0.12%. Why wouldn't he care?

[ManoWar]

Thank you so much for taking your time to write this. Could you please let me know if i can republish your letter minus the name?