Fighting HTA172 - Next Steps

[82Seca750]

alright.....

here's the proposal, and here's what you need to do

FYI...please feel free to post this on all the sites you frequent....like the petition

contact your MPP via telephone.....with summer break at Queen's Park, your MPP will be working from the local office in your riding....set up a face-to-face meeting with them

you will get 15 minutes

DO NOT go in and complain about the law....you announce that you are there to identify the problem with the law, and that you want to present a solution to that problem

expect a few moments of backlash by the MPP defending the current law, and trying to tugg your strings with "what if it was your wife/mother/daughter getting killed"....feel free to dig in your heels and respond by suggesting that you'd love to punch the idiotic driver who killed your loved one right in the throat.....you're not there to go soft on idiots.....quite the contrary....but not at the expense of everyone's rights

many of these MPPs are lawyers....so they understand better than most that this law is violating rights.....if everyone is/was cool with it....no problem.....but everyone is NOT cool with it.....so now you have a problem

these MPPs for the most part are good people.....they respond to common sense

here's the list with all the contact info

http://www.ontariotenants.ca/government/mpp.phtml

here's the proposal.....print it up and take it with you....or simply have the face-to-face meeting and follow up with the proposal in an email


__________________________________________________ ____________________

The purpose of this document is to describe both the problem in HTA172 and present a solution to this problem.

The problem:

The 7-day vehicle seizure and license suspension penalty levied roadside by a Police Officer, with no recourse for the accused regardless of the Judge's court ruling is unjust as it violates our Charter Right to Due Process. This is not the process of justice that either you or I have prospered within over our lifetimes, and it sets a very new and disturbing precedent. With a non-conviction rate of 70%, and Charter Challenges now being presented, HTA172 is becoming an inevitable legal and public nightmare.

The upfront license suspensions are registered immediately and therefore drastically affects insurance premiums simultaneously. But if you are found not-guilty of the charge in court, you have no recourse with regard to getting your premiums lowered. So you have again been found guilty before stepping into a courtroom.

I'm not sure how or when this "trend" of upfront property seizure started, but it is incredibly disturbing. I take very good care of my property, and I highly doubt that comparable care would be provided for my property under the scenario of that property being instantly seized roadside under allegations that I've yet to step foot in a courtroom to defend. Law Enforcement are employed by the taxpayers to "serve and protect", not to be the "impartial judge and jury", and that's not the case with the current state of this law. This is not the democracy that Canada is known for and proudly defends abroad.


The solution:

Remove the upfront roadside penalties, and replace them with even harsher and targeted penalties upon conviction. I propose to add "optional community service" penalties upon conviction, along with the current fines as well as optional license suspension penalties. The Government cannot appear to be going "soft" on penalizing "street racers", so when removing the upfront penalties, the potential penalties upon conviction would need to be strengthened.


The addition of "community service" penalties, would be used to send an appropriate message, to those that deserve that message. I'll provide a few scenarios:

• For the 17 year old kid who figures driving at 200kph in his father's powerful sedan with a car load of friends was a bright idea, we can teach him a very strong lesson. Upon conviction, on top of a large fine and potential license suspension, the kid is given 40 hours of community service, sweeping up accident scenes with the Fire Dept. So much for his 2 week summer vacation at the cottage. I'm confident that exposing a young man to the after-effects of high speed collisions with all of the twisted metal would provide a very productive lesson and would likely change his outlook on proper driving behavior. Instead we are seizing the father's car upfront, penalizing an innocent person, and creating a tremendous amount of anger for an entire family. We need to put the focus on the individual, not the vehicle.
• For the 50 year old high-paid executive who doesn't care about steep fines as he drives his $400,000 exotic supercar at insane speeds, where the maximum fine barely rivals his monthly insurance premium, we can teach him a lesson that money can't buy his way out of. Upon conviction, on top of a large fine and potential license suspension, the man is given 40 hours of community service sweeping floors in a Rehabilitation Facility where broken people are trying to mend due to the driving behavior of people such as him. Imagine when this man sees a young injured girl the same age as his own daughter, trying to recover from some else's irresponsible behavior. A very productive lesson that money cannot buy, versus a fine that likely wouldn't make him blink.
• For the 38 year old Mother having a brain-lapse in her minivan as she coasts downhill on an 80kph backroad, hits 100kph and drives right into a 50kph zone that's a popular fishing hole for the OPP, the potential fines alone upon conviction have taught a strong lesson immediately. If the woman shows remorse in the courtroom, she'll likely receive a lowered penalty. But if she shows no remorse, hand her a broom and introduce her to the local Fire Dept. for a week.
• For the student who rides a cheap motorcycle, and thought pulling a wheelie on the 400 was cool, but cries poor to the Judge because he has no savings, and makes very little money. No problem. Hand him a broom, he'll have another part-time job for the next 3 months.

For the "true" street racers that the media continuously shows video clips of, whenever they are referring to HTA172. Those incredibly irresponsible individuals who choose to organize and race head-to-head on our public roads at insane speeds, with no regard for anyone's safety. For those individuals, we have a recently amended CCC charge of "Dangerous Driving while Street Racing". The maximum penalty upon conviction involves that individual spending a significant portion of his or her life in a jail cell. No need to seize their cars either, because they won't be driving them where they are going.

I appreciate your help on this issue. It's quite evident that I am far from opposed to punishing those who deserve it. We just have to do it properly, and without encroaching on everyone's Civil Rights in the process.

[LiNK666]

will do it this week and post response.

[Snobike Mike]

Sorry it's me again, a little bit of a squeaky wheel.

While I will continue to applaud you on your efforts, I have to question primarily the scenarios you pose with regards to how penalties should be awarded. I agree with everything you've written up until the "solution" part. I think the key here is to tighten up the law to target what the true english definition of street racing is all about.

Some comments:

1. Under the "old" perfectly good law, the penalties awarded would fit such a "crime". This poorly written law as it stands now is just a wasted law. I know you want to give them something for modifying the law to remove the charter infringement, but we have to be careful since we know any re-writes will be poorly written just like 172 already is. Having said that, Of all of your scenarios, this one is a least "close" to what this law should be targeting.

2. I simply don't agree with penalties based on how much somebody is worth, or how much they earn. First off, it's hard to assess that. Also, why should somebody who works harder and therefore makes more dough (any pays more taxes) be punished more for doing the SAME crime. Unfortunatley life ain't fair and those that have more money can pay for higher priced lawyers, etc. Such is life. If you try applying this logic to other types of crimes, those with low incomes should be punished less for any crime such as drug related crimes or whatever because statistically it is often low income people who get involved in drugs.

Furthermore, All things being equal, you end up penalizing those that are older more since in general they should be worth more than young people. Assuming the reason this law was posed original was logical, to get people conducting a contest of speed in public streets, we need to refocus our government back to that issue, not the dragnet it is now for everybody who drives 20 kph over the moving average of around 130 on our safest highways. Street racing would "generally" be conducted by younger people, and yet you want to penalize a 50 year old for going 50 over more than a 20 year old for actually street racing??

Many of the arguments made against this law on this forum include all kinds of contrarian statistics about how street racing is really such a small portion of any deaths, etc etc. So now going 50 over means somebody has to sweep the floors of a hospital ward for those that didn't wear their seatbelts, drunk driving, etc? Seems to me using that logic we'd be better off fighting for a law that awarded penalties for no seatbelt to clean up seatbelt related deaths or drunks for DUI related accidents. There simply aren't enough high speed related deaths (without mitigating circumstances such as impaired) to warrant people cleaning up after accidents (and remember, if you believe Wooley, speed related deaths are down 40%)

3. So as long as I can fake remorse, I can get out of jail free? This seems a little illogical. The scenario described is exactly why this law is so stupid. You can have a brain fart and get your car impounded by sneaky police. The penalty should fit the crime. It simply isn't moms in minivans having brain farts in transition zones causing carnage. If it was, there would be no need to change this law as there would be all kinds of Caravans piled up in transition zones around Ontario. Doing 40 hours of community service because I can't "act" remorseful on command in front of a JP because of a brain fart seems a little silly. Why not charge them under the old law?

4. Why not have stiff fines just like the old rich guy? Seems to me if you can CURE the problem in the youth of today, they'd never do it when their old and rich!

In your final paragraph, let's make sure the penalty for street racing and NOT causing bodily harm is not MORE than drug or violence related offences. Going 200 on the highway with no traffic and subsequently slowing down is different than going 150 and having an accident.

Many have complained about increased street presence on the roads with all kinds of real criminal code crimes going unchecked. It has already become a world where conducting your life in a "normal" fashion holds more penalties for infractions than criminals involved in drugs, violence, etc.

Anyways, keep it up. Just be sure your solutions don't leave opportunity for us all to get more screwed than we already are. It might be worthwhile to use the known misapplication scenarios as reasons to change, such as garbage trucks getting impounded, and on-duty police cars, etc.

[jarekn]

And what is your definition of race? Just cause two guys decide to do 250 km/h on the 400 at 3am with no cars around it doesn't mean they are racing... Both of them could just enjoy riding at high speeds...

And if you tell me that this should result in jail time why would they want to pull over? We all know that most of people would run in that case - and that in fact will be much more dangerous then their initial act...

[Snobike Mike]

And if you tell me that this should result in jail time why would they want to pull over? We all know that most of people would run in that case - and that in fact will be much more dangerous then their initial act...

I agree. With many of the people whom I've spoken too, they at least consider the option now. Not to say they ever will run, but even with the current situation, to many are considering it. I know I have. Not that I would, but given a certain situation if I was toast anyways, there isn't really much to lose.

Especially if there is no accident, how does jail time fit the "crime"? It would be different if somebody got hurt or killed. Of course there are already laws for that too.

[82Seca750]

I agree. With many of the people whom I've spoken too, they at least consider the option now. Not to say they ever will run, but even with the current situation, to many are considering it. I know I have. Not that I would, but given a certain situation if I was toast anyways, there isn't really much to lose.

Especially if there is no accident, how does jail time fit the "crime"? It would be different if somebody got hurt or killed. Of course there are already laws for that too.

do you think I made up the CCC charge of "Dangerous Driving while Street Racing"???.....it's been on the books since last summer

[GeländeStraße]

And what is your definition of race? Just cause two guys decide to do 250 km/h on the 400 at 3am with no cars around it doesn't mean they are racing... Both of them could just enjoy riding at high speeds...

And if you tell me that this should result in jail time why would they want to pull over? We all know that most of people would run in that case - and that in fact will be much more dangerous then their initial act...

Exactly. This is why, in my mind, we should get rid of the street racing charges altogether and just have a multi-step dangerous driving charge based on speed over the limit.

[Agent13]

Yet another problem with 172.
The local parts shop who I deal with is having a meeting today to discuss whether to keep the performance parts section of the business up & going. High gas prices have played a role in this too, but guys will always mod their rides regardless of fuel costs. 203/172 has put a real damper on engine/exhaust mods and the shop just isn't selling the number of parts required to keep that part of the business going.
Wonder how many jobs this relates to ?
As soon as Ontario can get all the big bad SUV's/Trucks, Sports cars & bikes off the road, we will all be safer and have good green jobs, holding down park benches as yet another manufacturing/retail sector goes away. Wonder if any of this was ever put into the equation?
It's too bad, these guys are good supporters of local cruise nights & car shows which are used for charity fundraising, yet another overlooked aspect of the bike/car hobby, how much enthusiasts put back into the community.
I'll be spending my money this weekend in the U.S., at least enthusiasts are still welcome there, and it's about a $15 M weekend draw for Syracuse.
Ar least Toronto will get some extra revenue from the car crowd as it impliments a $60.00 annual surcharge on top of your license fees.
Just what would gov't do without the motoring public to fleece pockets and tell us it's all in the name of safety/environment while they get more of our after tax cash ?

[82Seca750]

Sorry it's me again, a little bit of a squeaky wheel.

While I will continue to applaud you on your efforts, I have to question primarily the scenarios you pose with regards to how penalties should be awarded. I agree with everything you've written up until the "solution" part. I think the key here is to tighten up the law to target what the true english definition of street racing is all about.

and I'll keep harping that this law is going nowhere anytime soon....there is NO WAY the long list of Politicians are gonna back-pedal on what they sold the public.....so the priority is to get rid of the rights violation.....if a copper wants to mistakingly charge you under this "revised" legislation, you will now have your day in court, unlike the current law

Some comments:

1. Under the "old" perfectly good law, the penalties awarded would fit such a "crime". This poorly written law as it stands now is just a wasted law. I know you want to give them something for modifying the law to remove the charter infringement, but we have to be careful since we know any re-writes will be poorly written just like 172 already is. Having said that, Of all of your scenarios, this one is a least "close" to what this law should be targeting.

this law doesn't target kids driving their parent's cars like maniacs? and it hasn't seized countless #s of cars that the drivers didn't own? sorry, two of the headliners since Sept 07 were driving daddy's car....the scenario is very relevant

2. I simply don't agree with penalties based on how much somebody is worth, or how much they earn. First off, it's hard to assess that. Also, why should somebody who works harder and therefore makes more dough (any pays more taxes) be punished more for doing the SAME crime. Unfortunatley life ain't fair and those that have more money can pay for higher priced lawyers, etc. Such is life. If you try applying this logic to other types of crimes, those with low incomes should be punished less for any crime such as drug related crimes or whatever because statistically it is often low income people who get involved in drugs.

if you sentence a rich guy and a poor guy to 40 hours of community service each....who got penalized based on what they're worth? nobody that's who....they have to give up their time as a penalty, kind of like that thing called Jail

Furthermore, All things being equal, you end up penalizing those that are older more since in general they should be worth more than young people.

?????.....no money changes hands with community service....not sure how you're reading this

Assuming the reason this law was posed original was logical, to get people conducting a contest of speed in public streets, we need to refocus our government back to that issue, not the dragnet it is now for everybody who drives 20 kph over the moving average of around 130 on our safest highways. Street racing would "generally" be conducted by younger people, and yet you want to penalize a 50 year old for going 50 over more than a 20 year old for actually street racing??

"optional penalties"........OPTIONAL!!!!!!......dude, there's a 70% non-conviction rate.....don't do anything that'll get you into the 30% conviction rate and you won't be sweeping up anything

Many of the arguments made against this law on this forum include all kinds of contrarian statistics about how street racing is really such a small portion of any deaths, etc etc. So now going 50 over means somebody has to sweep the floors of a hospital ward for those that didn't wear their seatbelts, drunk driving, etc? Seems to me using that logic we'd be better off fighting for a law that awarded penalties for no seatbelt to clean up seatbelt related deaths or drunks for DUI related accidents. There simply aren't enough high speed related deaths (without mitigating circumstances such as impaired) to warrant people cleaning up after accidents (and remember, if you believe Wooley, speed related deaths are down 40%)

fine.....I'll tell my MPP to scrap my idea....and we can all still get our property yanked roadside and our licenses suspended, you can pick up your car in a week to the tune of $1500, and I hope you like your $1000 annual insurance premium increase???

3. So as long as I can fake remorse, I can get out of jail free? This seems a little illogical. The scenario described is exactly why this law is so stupid. You can have a brain fart and get your car impounded by sneaky police. The penalty should fit the crime. It simply isn't moms in minivans having brain farts in transition zones causing carnage. If it was, there would be no need to change this law as there would be all kinds of Caravans piled up in transition zones around Ontario. Doing 40 hours of community service because I can't "act" remorseful on command in front of a JP because of a brain fart seems a little silly. Why not charge them under the old law?

the scenario of the driver having a brainfart into a transition zone had to be mentioned....it likely represents a large # of the 70% of non-convictions.......if you would like to debate acting capabilities, call you MPP, I'm sure they have it down to an art

4. Why not have stiff fines just like the old rich guy? Seems to me if you can CURE the problem in the youth of today, they'd never do it when their old and rich!

WTF are you harping on old/rich/young/poor...community service penalties LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD....just like upfront vehicle seizure.....but one doesn't violate your rights

In your final paragraph, let's make sure the penalty for street racing and NOT causing bodily harm is not MORE than drug or violence related offences. Going 200 on the highway with no traffic and subsequently slowing down is different than going 150 and having an accident.

hmmm.....go ask good old "Cut King" Nusrat what he got for getting that truck driver killed

Many have complained about increased street presence on the roads with all kinds of real criminal code crimes going unchecked. It has already become a world where conducting your life in a "normal" fashion holds more penalties for infractions than criminals involved in drugs, violence, etc.

OK.....go into your MPPs office with the above rant....tell me how far you get

Anyways, keep it up. Just be sure your solutions don't leave opportunity for us all to get more screwed than we already are. It might be worthwhile to use the known misapplication scenarios as reasons to change, such as garbage trucks getting impounded, and on-duty police cars, etc.

IMO the known misapplication applies to every single one of the 5000+ charged......they all got their cars seized and licenses suspended.....and apparently justice was eventually served in a courtroom where 70% were either let go with nothing, or the charges were lowered.....do the math

if you behave like a complete maniac on the road, you deserve to pay the damn Piper....but don't be getting my rights torched in the process thanks

I'm not afraid of facing alleged charges if the back-end penalties are steep, cause I don't do stupid things on the road.....I am however very worried about being raped roadside under the current law for simply driving a nice machine

[camber]

DO NOT go in and complain about the law....you announce that you are there to identify the problem with the law, and that you want to present a solution to that problem

expect a few moments of backlash by the MPP defending the current law, and trying to tugg your strings with "what if it was your wife/mother/daughter getting killed"....feel free to dig in your heels and respond by suggesting that you'd love to punch the idiotic driver who killed your loved one right in the throat.....you're not there to go soft on idiots.....quite the contrary....but not at the expense of everyone's rights

many of these MPPs are lawyers....so they understand better than most that this law is violating rights.....if everyone is/was cool with it....no problem.....but everyone is NOT cool with it.....so now you have a problem

If your MPP is an NDP or conservative. It's probably a good idea to remind them of what their upper brass said a couple weeks ago about the topic at Queen's Park. That should quikcly derail any irrational, "save the children" arguments.

[GambleVII]

if its unconstitutional would it be possible to file for a class action lawsuit toward the city for an un-just law by those that were affected by the law?

[Rob MacLennan]

if its unconstitutional would it be possible to file for a class action lawsuit toward the city for an un-just law by those that were affected by the law?

In order to challenge a law, you need to have "standing." That essentially means that you have to have been directly effected (ie. charged) by it.

[GambleVII]

In order to challenge a law, you need to have "standing." That essentially means that you have to have been directly effected (ie. charged) by it.

Would the people charged be able to create a case toward the city for going against their rights.

Or would them being charged for it kind of make it redundent, Sure you can get a ticket and have it thrown out or not count but you still have the impound fee's to associate with the hassle.

[Rob MacLennan]

Would the people charged be able to create a case toward the city for going against their rights.

Or would them being charged for it kind of make it redundent, Sure you can get a ticket and have it thrown out or not count but you still have the impound fee's to associate with the hassle.

The ideal situation would likely be a class action suit by all of those people who were charged under HTA172, but weren't convicted, against the government and police organizations involved for breach of their Charter rights. If won, then the damages awarded would go to offset the towing/impoundment that never should have occurred.

[eastcoast_gsx]

Another SAD day for the rights of Canadians....

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/642303

Note the "Record Keeping" side bar....