10 other ways to get a street racing or stunt driving ticket | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

10 other ways to get a street racing or stunt driving ticket

I stated that I disagree with the concept of the "roadside justice" and the reasoning behind the creation of this law. I was merely pointing out that the other poster implied that he had lost a "freedom" Aside from the roadside seizure, (which I believe at some point will be over turned, just no lawyer has yet come up with the appropriate argument and the right justice, to have it tossed). There is no conviction registered until after an accused has been given their opportunity to challenge the charge. Therefore the presumption of innocence still remains intact. It is merely the roadside seizure and licence suspension which are considered unfair. Although those same two conditions, (albeit not a 7 day impound), with an impaired driving charge.

I guess they could have asked the feds to make this particular act a criminal code offence, (which given the current gov'ts stance on "justice matters" would have likely been seriously considered.

I dislike this section of the HTA, but until it is changed it is what it is. I am not concerned about it as I can't imagine myself ever giving an officer the opportunity to exercise the option of using it. Are there a VERY small percentage of officers who will abuse it? certainly, but if this law didn't exist there are plenty of other sections they can abuse. Those officers are thankfully in a tiny minority.

Rob MacLennan said:
The 'freedom' that is lost, is the freedom of being innocent until proved guilty, in a court of law. If the behaviour rises to the level of criminality then the police can charge the driver, criminally, and take him into custody. If not, it's then a matter for a court.



You're missing the point. It was her right to argue that point, in a court of law. HTA 172 created Criminal Code level repercussions, from Provincial Offences Act charges. The concept of "defence of due diligence" MUST be provided, in cases in which imprisonment is a possible penalty. This case cemented that concept.
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
I stated that I disagree with the concept of the "roadside justice" and the reasoning behind the creation of this law. I was merely pointing out that the other poster implied that he had lost a "freedom" Aside from the roadside seizure, (which I believe at some point will be over turned, just no lawyer has yet come up with the appropriate argument and the right justice, to have it tossed). There is no conviction registered until after an accused has been given their opportunity to challenge the charge. Therefore the presumption of innocence still remains intact. It is merely the roadside seizure and licence suspension which are considered unfair. Although those same two conditions, (albeit not a 7 day impound), with an impaired driving charge.

I guess they could have asked the feds to make this particular act a criminal code offence, (which given the current gov'ts stance on "justice matters" would have likely been seriously considered.

I dislike this section of the HTA, but until it is changed it is what it is. I am not concerned about it as I can't imagine myself ever giving an officer the opportunity to exercise the option of using it. Are there a VERY small percentage of officers who will abuse it? certainly, but if this law didn't exist there are plenty of other sections they can abuse. Those officers are thankfully in a tiny minority.
Click to expand...

The usual argument made is, "We have immediate roadside punishments for impaired driving, so it's OK for 'racing' too." Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the courts have not found the obvious argument that while an impaired driver is still impaired after stopping, a speeder is no longer speeding, particularly persuasive. The impairment argument was the primary reason why it was deemed reasonable to abrogate a person's Charter Right against 'unreasonable search and seizure.' This is not applicable in the case of 'racing' or 'stunt driving.' For this reason I have my doubts that this law will ever be repealed, as logic does not seem to apply in this case.

There were pre existing charges under the Criminal Code, that applied to many of the charges now linked with HTA 172. They wanted something "easy" so it because a Provincial Offences Act, strict liability offence, with immediate ramifications. The problem is that "easy" and the law are frequently at odds, where the rights of the citizenry are involved. As a nation, we recognize that the public good sometimes outweighs personal liberty, but we have very specific criteria as to when that is the case. This law doesn't pass that test, based on previous law, and yet is permitted to stand.

Creating a law that is ripe for abuse, then praying that it isn't, is bad law making. We have the case of Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, for example, who was unfortunately not convicted but received a rather scathing speech from the bench, in summary. The abuse was predicted, before the law came into effect. It occurred, after the law was brought into effect. This sort of thing brings the administration of law, as a whole, into disrepute.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The usual argument made is, "We have immediate roadside punishments for impaired driving, so it's OK for 'racing' too." Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the courts have not found the obvious argument that while an impaired driver is still impaired after stopping, a speeder is no longer speeding, particularly persuasive. The impairment argument was the primary reason why it was deemed reasonable to abrogate a person's Charter Right against 'unreasonable search and seizure.' This is not applicable in the case of 'racing' or 'stunt driving.' For this reason I have my doubts that this law will ever be repealed, as logic does not seem to apply in this case.

There were pre existing charges under the Criminal Code, that applied to many of the charges now linked with HTA 172. They wanted something "easy" so it because a Provincial Offences Act, strict liability offence, with immediate ramifications. The problem is that "easy" and the law are frequently at odds, where the rights of the citizenry are involved. As a nation, we recognize that the public good sometimes outweighs personal liberty, but we have very specific criteria as to when that is the case. This law doesn't pass that test, based on previous law, and yet is permitted to stand.

Creating a law that is ripe for abuse, then praying that it isn't, is bad law making. We have the case of Dennis Mahoney-Bruer, for example, who was unfortunately not convicted but received a rather scathing speech from the bench, in summary. The abuse was predicted, before the law came into effect. It occurred, after the law was brought into effect. This sort of thing brings the administration of law, as a whole, into disrepute.
Click to expand...


Well said. +1
 
Rob MacLennan said:
The usual argument made is, "We have immediate roadside punishments for impaired driving, so it's OK for 'racing' too."
Click to expand...


Impaired is a fact that can be proven even roadside. Hta172 is a cops opinion and if they're having a bad day you're ******. Huge difference. A cop should never be the judge. 172 should land you a summons and you can go explain or be screwed in court, not the side of the 401.
 
Snobike Mike said:
I see you're one of those that stands at the front of the line of people wanting to give up their rights and freedoms.........

If you want to give up your freedoms, be my guest. But please let me keep mine. Thanks!
Click to expand...

what freedom did i give up?

i still ride my motorcycle the way i want...
 
Roomie said:
Impaired is a fact that can be proven even roadside. Hta172 is a cops opinion and if they're having a bad day you're ****ed. Huge difference. A cop should never be the judge. 172 should land you a summons and you can go explain or be screwed in court, not the side of the 401.
Click to expand...

Though I largely agree with you, evidence and proof are not quite congruent terms. Evidence can be examined and, with fair frequency, be called into question. Despite this fact there is a very real benefit to society in taking an impaired driver off the road, at the point he is charged. Demonstrably so, which is why the abrogation of Charter Rights is seen as a reasonable compromise where public safety is involved. Sure, that's a bit of a pointy-headed legalese statement but it's the very thing that in my mind makes impoundments for impaired operation reasonable, under the law, but impoundments for HTA 172 not.
 
Snobike Mike said:
This one:



Just because you may not have yet experienced that, it doesn't mean said right isn't gone.
Click to expand...

I still don't fear the law. I have no reason to get pulled over, or wasn't I clear on that...and there's a multitude of reasons why they won't search you.

Be a dick, be treated like a dick...I'm sure this has been covered a million times on every vehicle forum on the internet...

:)
 
Snobike Mike said:
This one:
a person's Charter Right against 'unreasonable search and seizure
Click to expand...
Just because you may not have yet experienced that, it doesn't mean said right isn't gone.
Click to expand...

You don't get to define what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. The Courts do. The seizure parts of this law have survived Constitutional challenges.
 
griff2 said:
You don't get to define what constitutes unreasonable search and seizure. The Courts do. The seizure parts of this law have survived Constitutional challenges.
Click to expand...

Which is truly unfortunate, as it extends past previous criteria that were considered acceptable. Slow erosion.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
#1 is wrong. It's if you make a right turn before or immediately after the lights both ways go green, if there are vehicles that want to go straight through in the direction opposite you. Happens to me at least once a month and I have yet to see a cop catch someone for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I actually see school buses do this all the time in my area full of children. Worst part is they can't even complete the turn so now the rest of traffic has to sit and wait for the driver to sort it out. Then again I see TTC and school buses run red lights all the time, too.

Rob MacLennan said:
#4 could more easily be described as brake checking someone.
Click to expand...
Except it also covers "slowing down". Wording seems bad.

Rob MacLennan said:
#10 needs to be better described in law, because the intent is to stop people from weaving in traffic.
Click to expand...
Honestly I have no problem with weaving as long as you're not dangerously close to other vehicles and use your signals.
 
The wording of almost every section of ONT REG 455/07 is bad.

The problem with weaving is that it means someone who has been careful to look for a safe time to change lanes may well find a vehicle there, when they make their move. By definition it involves making quick lane changes, and that makes signals virtually worthless.
 
Exactly when I was rear ended by the sport on my bike on the 401 last Jun he was weaving and thought oh there is an open space I can rip around this car in front of me. According to driver following me as soon as he entered my lane at high speed he knew he was pooched and just target fixated and hit my bike square in the back.

Rob MacLennan said:
The wording of almost every section of ONT REG 455/07 is bad.

The problem with weaving is that it means someone who has been careful to look for a safe time to change lanes may well find a vehicle there, when they make their move. By definition it involves making quick lane changes, and that makes signals virtually worthless.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom