Who has beat or fought HTA 172(1) Bill 203

[ddusseld]

Gold....

So you covered it well in the end. The BULK of the citizenry of Canada (now you might wanna sit down as this is going to sting....) dont give a rats *** about motorcyclists rights to act like asshats, and the implimentaiton of 172. THey think that people who behave like kids should be treated as such. And have their toys taken away. That is what it boils down to. People hate to see the kind of conduct that this thread started with and like the "play tough" approach to it.

Personally, i believe in being able to defend ones self against their detractors. In all regards. That might also be shocking as most of you rockstars think i walk around with my ankles in my hands. It is the continued waste of time/money that such frivolous cases take up. He did it. Pay the fine. Man up.

But I'll tell ya!!! If i was to choose which cases need to have the best due diligence, and which didn't, I'm pretty sure some kid lane splitting in gridlock on the DVP while everyone else watches, would be pretty low on my list of things to do.

So YOU are the huge minority, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. You are the unhappy minority, and will continue to be marginalized by a system designed to keep MOST people happy.

Why is that so hard for you and the rockstars to understand? That this is a bike message board should somehow change that? And the few, on here, who actually are OK with it are pricks for saying so?

Grow up is all i can think.

[mxs]

It boils down now to the ongoing bickering between "solid gold and rockstars" vs "turbodishes" ...

Fixed ... I agree it becomes boring and waste of time to weed through the same propaganda over and over.

[dankyyz]

Fixed ... I agree it becomes boring and waste of time to weed through the same propaganda over and over.

Glad we finally agree.

[mxs]

Glad we finally agree.

Don't tell me, you will be a great example and stop first.

[82Seca750]

The Charter does not enshrine property rights. The Constitution Act of 1867 gives the provinces complete legislative power over both property regulation and transportation licensing and regulation.

then that is what has to change then

see.....most of us who before 172 could care less about politicians and blue lines figured we actually had a right to our property

172 has opened a huge can of worms....it has gone too far now....so it's time to either scrap the bad law....or fix the loophole

no way no how do you lay your hands on my stuff....or I will lay my hands on yours

[Rob MacLennan]

One of the functions of the law is to protect the minority from what is commonly referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."

[roadtoruin]

what is commonly referred to as "the tyranny of the majority."

"tyranny of the majority" - Isn't that basically what democracy is?

[Rob MacLennan]

"tyranny of the majority" - Isn't that basically what democracy is?

That's what uncontrolled democracy is. We have laws in place to protect minorities. Our legislators are supposed to take a longer view than just what most want; rather considering the good of all in the long run. Rights and privileges shouldn't be curtailed without good reason.

[nakkers]

For all their warts, that is why I do appreciate our neighbours to the south. Their nation was born as a result of government abuse and one of the reasons they hold dearly to their constitutional rights. Including the right to bear arms.

It may seem barbarrian in this day in age but, sometimes I see the government gets a little drunk from their own koolaid and would benefit from a little tea party up here in the north.

Look, I prefer the police serve and protect and let the courts handle justice. I'm not looking for a free pass to speed or wheelie. But, I do have concerns that the police have the power to apply this law at their discression. They will do a good job most of the time. However, it will come at the expense of a few. The ends does not neccessarily justify the means.

Yes, just more drivil........it's just my opinion and felt compelled to share it. Even if it doesn't have any value to the arguement.


I'm done.


Cheers.

[Rob MacLennan]

No drivel in that post. Legislators create the laws. Police enforce the laws. Courts mete out the punishments. Each acts as a control upon the others. That is how the system is designed to work. There are times when the police are given powers to enact a form of control on a subject at the scene, when the danger to the public is palpable, but these situations are (and should be) few and far between.

[jc100]

That's what uncontrolled democracy is. We have laws in place to protect minorities. Our legislators are supposed to take a longer view than just what most want; rather considering the good of all in the long run. Rights and privileges shouldn't be curtailed without good reason.

And in a nutshell you have a minority with one view and a majority with another of what the good reason is in this case.

[Rob MacLennan]

And in a nutshell you have a minority with one view and a majority with another of what the good reason is in this case.

Which is usually the case. That doesn't mean that the majority is right.

[jc100]

Which is usually the case. That doesn't mean that the majority is right.

Yes you're right and I have been avoiding that argument, religion being a good example (to me anyway). But at least the majority here has a valid argument for and it could be argued that the law was put in place expressly for that majority.

[whatever71]

Yes you're right and I have been avoiding that argument, religion being a good example (to me anyway). But at least the majority here has a valid argument for and it could be argued that the law was put in place expressly for that majority.

hahahahaha... you mean majoritiy as in.... OLD PEOPLE!! man, the only reason we have lame speed limit is because grandpa and grandma can't react fast enough nor do they understand the concept of acceleration when they get on highway.

i propose a new HTA law that bans all grannies off from the road and have our highway without speed limit --> that would be NICE

edit: oh forgot to mention the new law should ban women off from driving to HAHAHA

[Rob MacLennan]

Yes you're right and I have been avoiding that argument, religion being a good example (to me anyway). But at least the majority here has a valid argument for and it could be argued that the law was put in place expressly for that majority.

Again, which is usually the case and doesn't make it right.