HTA 172 is still unconstitutional -- anyone had issues with standing on pegs? | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

HTA 172 is still unconstitutional -- anyone had issues with standing on pegs?

Neil_V said:
So, the city, all on its own, decided they didn't want traffic on that road and lowered the limit? Or, more likely a few residents complained and now everyone else must adhere to please a few self-righteous whiners....

Your last paragraph shows your usual contempt; moreover, the argument is fundamentally flawed.
Click to expand...

The municipality has every right to do so. Speed limits, speed humps, turn restrictions, and even entry barriers according to time of day are all legitimate tools used by municipalities to shape traffic patterns and encourage or outright direct the majority of traffic away from local roads and onto more appropriate arterial routes.

Yes, I do have contempt for the self-entitled who have no regard for those who live in the areas they pass through, and I'm not alone in that contempt.
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
The municipality has every right to do so. Speed limits, speed humps, turn restrictions, and even entry barriers according to time of day are all legitimate tools used by municipalities to do so.

Yes, I do have contempt for the self-entitled who have no regard for those who live in the areas they pass through, and I'm not alone in that contempt.
Click to expand...

Alone, no; but minority... we're not talking about traffic calming near a park; school; shopping centre, but a long straight country road. It's about balance dude; and much like the cyclist who want more and more every passing year, the sensible portions of your position is lost on most when you fail to apply reason. There will be push back. See raging debate over insurance for bikes.. It has it's roots in a contempt filled minority group pushing their will on the majority... soon enough, they'll pay for that. It only takes one ambitious politician...

Also, do you fail to see the self entitlement of your own in the last line? Seriously...
 
Last edited:
Neil_V said:
Alone, no; but minority... we're not talking about traffic calming near a park; school; shopping centre, but a long straight country road. It's about balance dude; and much like the cyclist who want more and more every passing year, the sensible portions of your position is lost on most when you fail to apply reason. There will be push back. See raging debate over insurance for bikes.. It has it's roots in a contempt filled minority group pushing their will on the majority... soon enough, they'll pay for that. It only takes one ambitious politician...
Click to expand...

Pushback? Let me know when the disgruntled malcontents, who are the really minority despite your suggestion otherwise, reach critical mass so I can get popcorn and a ringside chair.
 
griff2 said:
Pushback? Let me know when the disgruntled malcontents, who are the really minority despite your suggestion otherwise, reach critical mass so I can get popcorn and a ringside chair.
Click to expand...

I go back to my previous example of the entire ward in north Hamilton being lowered to 30kph.. it won't last outside of area's where it's actually warranted; ie near parks and schools... there is plenty of talk about weather or not it was the right thing to do in the first place, and the fact that no one adheres to this artificially low limit is proof my "suggestion" holds true. Disgruntled malcontents? Surely you mean the people that drive this non-sense (that's you)
 
Personal attack round 3?

Sure @griff2 and I are like oil and water; but what you do get from griff is articulate responses with actual content to digest before you reply. Our polarized opinions, and the resulting discourse is actually constructive in the end. You know?
 
Neil Please stop posting coherent articulate posts it is hurting my head....lol

@yodude. It is good to see that you support the police but to do so blindly is fool hardy. Do they do a tough job, without much support or thanks? Sure but then they also are compensated VERY well. Was it nice when someone occasionally shook my hand, and thanked me for the work I did, sure it was. BUT with responsibility also comes accountability. I tend to see issues form both sides, but I also am critical of poor policing, as should everyone. Neil and I also often tend to have very diverse opinions of issues, but we keep our discourse civil, and on point.

Neil_V said:
Personal attack round 3?

Sure @griff2 and I are like oil and water; but what you do get from griff is articulate responses with actual content to digest before you reply. Our polarized opinions, and the resulting discourse is actually constructive in the end. You know?
Click to expand...
 
Neil_V said:
Personal attack round 3?

Sure @griff2 and I are like oil and water; but what you do get from griff is articulate responses with actual content to digest before you reply. Our polarized opinions, and the resulting discourse is actually constructive in the end. You know?
Click to expand...
sez you, big deal,

but heh, i'm just grasshopper here, i must be confused about the thread topic

"anyone had issues with standing on pegs?"
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
You may want to step back from the personal attacks. You're on the precipice of a ban.
Click to expand...

my apologies, i'd suggest that 'personal attack' is not clear cut on this site, i have not pursued any formally, that i suggest are blatant, if not beyond.. to others,

eitherway, i will stand down, diff strokes for diff folks
 
Last edited:
yodude said:
my apologies, i'd suggest that 'personal attack' is not clear cut on this site, i have not pursued any formally, that i suggest are blatant, if not beyond.. to others,

eitherway, i will stand down, diff strokes for diff folks
Click to expand...

Personal attacks can easily be interpreted as insults, which are clearly barred on this site. Please keep that in mind, when posting.
 
I do wish people would say what they mean.
Section 172 is unconstitutional.
Please show me where in the Constitution Act or more specifically in the Charter of Rights that you have a right to ride on the pegs.
I'll save you time. It doesn't say that.
What you really meant to say is that you have an objection to this section based upon your own sense of right and wrong, morality or immorality or whatever.
I was fighting a parking tag in court one night.
Another person was fighting one as well. His defence was that the tag violated his right to free assembly as he was visiting a friend at the time.
After he finished laughing, the Justice gave him the bad news.
He had that right, his car didn't.
 
statsman said:
I do wish people would say what they mean.
Section 172 is unconstitutional.
Please show me where in the Constitution Act or more specifically in the Charter of Rights that you have a right to ride on the pegs.
I'll save you time. It doesn't say that.
What you really meant to say is that you have an objection to this section based upon your own sense of right and wrong, morality or immorality or whatever.
I was fighting a parking tag in court one night.
Another person was fighting one as well. His defence was that the tag violated his right to free assembly as he was visiting a friend at the time.
After he finished laughing, the Justice gave him the bad news.
He had that right, his car didn't.
Click to expand...
Pay attention. 172 is unconstitutional because your car is impounded, license suspended and this all costs a small fortune, BEFORE a conviction in court. If you're found not guilty in court, all penalties still stand.
It has nothing to do with the "right" to stand on your pegs.

Sent from my Le Pan TC802A using Tapatalk
 
Iceman said:
Pay attention. 172 is unconstitutional because your car is impounded, license suspended and this all costs a small fortune, BEFORE a conviction in court. If you're found not guilty in court, all penalties still stand.
It has nothing to do with the "right" to stand on your pegs.

Sent from my Le Pan TC802A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagrees. http://www.trafficticketparalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/R-v-Rahan-2010-ONCA-02061.pdf

The Supreme Court of Canada also disagrees. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15550/index.do

[44] Administrative regimes do not attract s. 11 protections: Martineau, at paras. 22-23. “This Court has often cautioned against the direct application of criminal justice standards in the administrative law area”: Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, at para. 88.

[45] Nor are the consequences truly penal. While a 90-day suspension is a meaningful consequence for a licensing violation, and the approximately $4,000 in possible costs and penalties are significant, they are not sufficient to engage the fair-trial rights embodied by s. 11 ― rights that, after all, are some of the most fundamental in our legal system. I note that financial penalties considerably more severe than those at issue here have been found to not constitute true penal consequences: see, e.g., Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONCA 208, 110 O.R. (3d) 492; Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corp., 2011 FCA 176, 333 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Lavallee v. Alberta Securities Commission, 2010 ABCA 48, 474 A.R. 295.

[46] Whether such penalties amount to penal consequences must of course be assessed relative to the conduct in question and the regulatory objective. The driving prohibition relates directly to the regulatory terms and conditions under which a person may be licensed to drive. Vehicle impoundment is directly related to the removal of drivers from the road, and drivers may apply to the Superintendent for review, including on compassionate and economic hardship grounds: MVA, ss. 262 and 263. The fine is capped at $500: Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, B.C. Reg. 26/58, s. 43.09. The remaining costs are tied to the various remedial programs, including installation of an ignition interlock device, and are incidental to the scheme’s objective of getting drivers and vehicles off the road. Such costs can hardly be considered to be penal, particularly when viewed in light of the public interest in removing a drunk driver from a roadway once detected.

[47] In summary, the ARP scheme does not create an “offence” within the meaning of s. 11 of the Charter . Thus, the protections of s. 11 are not engaged in this case.
Click to expand...



 
griff2 said:
The Ontario Court of Appeal disagrees. http://www.trafficticketparalegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/R-v-Rahan-2010-ONCA-02061.pdf

The Supreme Court of Canada also disagrees. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15550/index.do
Click to expand...

This is an unfortunate eroding of our rights, under The Charter. "Administrative suspensions" are being used to apply immediate, extra-judicial penalties upon people who have not been convicted of any crime. Seizure of property is not "administrative." If penalties under HTA 172 were not meant to be simply punitive then another driver, or even a tow truck, would be able to take the vehicle to the owner's home. From where I sit the seizure of property makes HTA 172 contrary to The Charter and I hold out hope that a higher court will eventually find it to be so.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
This is an unfortunate eroding of our rights, under The Charter. "Administrative suspensions" are being used to apply immediate, extra-judicial penalties upon people who have not been convicted of any crime. Seizure of property is not "administrative." If penalties under HTA 172 were not meant to be simply punitive then another driver, or even a tow truck, would be able to take the vehicle to the owner's home. From where I sit the seizure of property makes HTA 172 contrary to The Charter and I hold out hope that a higher court will eventually find it to be so.
Click to expand...

The SCC is the highest court there is. Para 46 of the SCC decision refers directly to vehicle impoundment as being part of the regulatory environment, and any further challenge to HTA172 will inevitably refer to and likely be bound by the SCC decision.
 
Unfortunately, the justice system and the legal system are filled with rich people who have a lawyer on speed dial and who think $10,000 is pocket change.
 
griff2 said:
The SCC is the highest court there is. Para 46 of the SCC decision refers directly to vehicle impoundment as being part of the regulatory environment, and any further challenge to HTA172 will inevitably refer to and likely be bound by the SCC decision.
Click to expand...

Which, as I stated, is a very unfortunate situation that robs us of our rights under The Charter. Calling it "administrative", but still being at the behest of the government and the police, makes it a government imposed penalty. Such should not be imposed without due process, except in very specific cases.

I have argued this point many times: If you stop an impaired driver then allowing him to be behind the wheel again would be unconscionable because he is no less impaired, by virtue of the stop. The same cannot be said about someone who was presumed to be travelling at 50 Kmh over the limit, nor someone who has been accused of brake-checking another driver.

Also as previously stated, I hope that our judicial system comes to its senses on this matter.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Which, as I stated, is a very unfortunate situation that robs us of our rights under The Charter. Calling it "administrative", but still being at the behest of the government and the police, makes it a government imposed penalty. Such should not be imposed without due process, except in very specific cases.

I have argued this point many times: If you stop an impaired driver then allowing him to be behind the wheel again would be unconscionable because he is no less impaired, by virtue of the stop. The same cannot be said about someone who was presumed to be travelling at 50 Kmh over the limit, nor someone who has been accused of brake-checking another driver.

Also as previously stated, I hope that our judicial system comes to its senses on this matter.
Click to expand...


Note to oneself - do not travel at 50+ over the limit or brake-check other traffic. Neither should be particularly difficult assuming reasonable maturity and self-discipline.
 
griff2 said:
Note to oneself - do not travel at 50+ over the limit or brake-check other traffic. Neither should be particularly difficult assuming reasonable maturity and self-discipline.
Click to expand...

This is not and never has been about the "freedom" to do such things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom