Ok now BC is just getting crazy

Forum Sponsor
Let them try... they might regret it BIG TIME!

Any daddy giving JR. a Lambo or Maserati can certainly afford to hire a damn good lawyer to push it far up their *****.... Who knows, daddy himself may be a lawyer looking for a hobby.
 
Hachi-Roku said:
So?

That's the Daddy/mommy proof?

My first 88 gsxr slingshot was in my brothers name paid in full with cash I gave him
That didn't make it His

I paid/insured my Godsons First car with 100% money he saved working part time jobs while still in high school.
That didn't make it mine
Click to expand...

Ok, both examples are just a few thousand dollars worth of savings that can be achieved with summer/part time jobs as long as you don't spend any money on other useless things. I did the same with my 89 Blazer + insurance at age 17. I worked my arse off all summer long and weekends when school was in again.

These kids though are driving cars well upwards of 100k. At their age they shouldn't have that kind of money to waste on cars/insurance unless it was inherited, stolen or lots of drugs (BC is known for that). Post-secondary education isn't cheap and any savings they have gotten over the summer jobs/part time jobs should be spent on tuition and books.

Don't get me wrong, I was their age once in a 5.0 and I did my fair share of stupid crap on the road and ended up paying for it.
I understand what they were feeling behind the wheel of those cars and how tempting and easy it is to get to those speeds.
I didn't have to fear losing my car though. Maybe for a 7 day impound but at least I would of gotten it back.

You're right, it doesn't actually say anywhere that the parents are the ones that purchased and insure these vehicles, but there's a very high likelyhood that this is the case.
 
TorontoBoy said:
If these kids were convicted of speeding in excess of 100kph over the speed limit, I have no problems with confiscating their vehicles and selling them at auction. No one has the right to drive so recklessly. I also wish they would do this here in Ontario. Take it to the track or go to Germany's Autobahn, but not on Canada's highways.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. You speed, you get caught, you get a ticket. That should be the end of the line. If you've not comfortable driving fast, then don't. Don't try to penalize everyone else with ridiculous consequences. Actual street racing is completely wrong, I agree, but driving fast has little to do with racing.
 
We don't know what evidence the police do and do not have. They might not be able to prove who was doing the driving, but they may be able to prove that some specific cars were involved in the race. If they can prove that the owners were not reasonably responsible with these cars (i.e. let someone drive them that was not trustworthy - someone you can't identify is not trustworthy!), then they are completely able to seize these cars.

E.g. I take my bike and ride up and down the 400 doing 270 kph. Big police chase, but I get away, and then park my bike at home. Shortly thereafter, there's a police officer that knocks on my door asking me, "WTF?". I say, nope, wasn't me, it was this guy I just met at Tim Horton's named "John Smith" that really liked my bike, so I let him ride it. After interrogating all the John Smiths they can find and being unable to conclusively prove which may be responsible, they can seize the bike because I was not responsible with the property in question. Actually I think they can seize the property whether or not they catch the driver. Legal beagles, am I wrong?

Related reading: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01r28_e.htm#BK8 (B.C. has similar legislation, but our version will be more interesting to those here!)
 
Hachi-Roku said:
My first 88 gsxr slingshot was in my brothers name paid in full with cash I gave him
That didn't make it His

I paid/insured my Godsons First car with 100% money he saved working part time jobs while still in high school.
That didn't make it mine
Click to expand...



Reads: "I whole heartedly endorse insurance fraud"

Awesome. Win of the Day.
 
Last edited:
nfq said:
But that's enough for them to try and permanently seize their property??!?

There isn't a head shaking smiley big enough for how much head shaking is happening right now.
Click to expand...

I never said that they should lose their cars, i was simply answering why the fine was $194....
 
I agree with seizing assets of people involved in major crimes as they have now for drugs and I mean drug kingpins not Johnny selling weed on the corner. For anything else, like speeding, please. :rolleyes:
 
The reason I posted it was the implications involved in the government trying to seize your vehicle permanantly when you are given a $194 dollar traffic violation.

None of the people were charged or convicted with street racing.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Reads: "I whole heartedly endorse insurance fraud"

Awesome. Win of the Day.
Click to expand...

insurance fraud?

Baaaaahahahahahahahahaha
how?

So lets see

Back in 88 motorcycle salesmen had,Oh lets call it integrity and one of them at Cycleworld west refused to sell the bike to someone so young.
So Cash got handed over to Older Brother,He pays for bike,We go to MTO and he "Gifts" the bike to me saving having to pay TAX a second time
We drive to State farm on Dundas and i pay the $618 yr full coverage up front
Drive back to MTO get plates
Drive Back to CW west and ride my Brand new Slingshot off the property

Godson
Family aren't entitled to use my Supplier discount at Ford,Honda,Toyota,Chrysler,Mercedes,Bmw or Nissan
let alone a Godson
So we walk into Ford and he picks out the Focus he wants
Paid insured ect ect
Week later we go to MTO and I sell it to him Still saving well under 20%
puts plates on new car that's been sitting parked at my House since we drove it home still with under 20km on the clock

So ya
I can assume you know where you can stick your Insurance Fraud comment
 
Hachi-Roku said:
insurance fraud?

Baaaaahahahahahahahahaha
how?
Click to expand...

What you're describing is not insurance fraud. However, at the time you were riding this GSXR, the bike was in your name - it was legally yours. You can argue that it was legally yours before it was in your name, however it's a shaky position. As they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law. It's not the same as the scenario you were initially painting - the vehicles were acquired only to be transferred to someone else, and weren't driven by that someone else in the interim.
 
hot12 said:
ummm, don't street race?

If you can afford cars like that, I'm guessing you can afford to rent a race track?

I don't feel bad for them, sorry!
Click to expand...

You're right, we don;t need rights.... the government is always fair and never abuses citizens
 
Twoth said:
I'm sorry, I don't agree with you. You speed, you get caught, you get a ticket. That should be the end of the line. If you've not comfortable driving fast, then don't. Don't try to penalize everyone else with ridiculous consequences. Actual street racing is completely wrong, I agree, but driving fast has little to do with racing.
Click to expand...

We have laws that must be followed by everyone, no matter if you disagree or not. If you disagree then change the law or move to another country. Excessive speed of 100kph over the posted speed limit endangers all others on the road. You may be comfortable with speed but you have no legal right to endanger others that are legally using the road. You are heavily penalized because of the high possibility of killing innocent people, and this consequence should be as severe as the illegal action. Take your speeding to a track and do not try to justify a clearly illegal action. I would wholeheartedly approve confiscation of vehicles for speeding +100kph over the posted speed limit. There is a time and place for everything, and public roads are not to be used as a private race track.
 
If you want to punish drivers take their license away. Seizing someones property is the dumbest stalin **** ever
 
KrazyBones said:
You're right, we don;t need rights.... the government is always fair and never abuses citizens
Click to expand...

The rights of the owners are still intact. Any permanent seizure will be under the Civil Forfeiture Act. The government will have to demonstrate reasonable cause to the court as to why the cars should be forfeit, and the owners will have an opportunity to rebut the government and present their case as to why the cars should not be forfeit.

Arguing that government should not have the right to seize property in certain circujmstances is pointless. Government has always had that right. Many people lose "assets" to the government each and every day when they hand over money to pay their latest traffic fine. Is money not also a form of property, an asset?
 
KrazyBones said:
If you want to punish drivers take their license away. Seizing someones property is the dumbest stalin **** ever
Click to expand...

When you impose a fine and demand payment, you are in effect taking away a person's assets of value. Money is an asset of value. A car is alkso an asset of value, just in a different form.
 
turbodish said:
When you impose a fine and demand payment, you are in effect taking away a person's assets of value. Money is an asset of value. A car is alkso an asset of value, just in a different form.
Click to expand...

moot point if the violator doesn't own the vehicle.
 
Chaos said:
moot point if the violator doesn't own the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Not really, given that an owner is legally responsible for the operation of the vehicle regardless of who the driver is at any given time. The HTA has many offences where the owner can be charged for a given offence even if another person was driving, and civil liability for a vehicle's operation has always rested on a vehicle's owner regardless of operator. The seizure in BC (or Ontario) would be done through civil regulatory law, not criminal law.
 
Can I just point out that someone with a lobotomy is probably also "comfortable driving at speed".
 
TwistedKestrel said:
What you're describing is not insurance fraud. However, at the time you were riding this GSXR, the bike was in your name - it was legally yours. You can argue that it was legally yours before it was in your name, however it's a shaky position. As they say, possession is 9/10ths of the law. It's not the same as the scenario you were initially painting - the vehicles were acquired only to be transferred to someone else, and weren't driven by that someone else in the interim.
Click to expand...

The point I was making in the beginning was not to assume because they are young
That the money for the cars came from Daddy/Mommy

That was before I was accused of endorsing Insurance Fraud
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom