Ontario doubling down on 172.

[Rob MacLennan]

jesus, you hit that spot on.
its a society thing. average person is either too dumb or doesn't have the time to research past headlines and videos these days. They take whatever the media (social media included) throws out there.
Politics now revolves around these kind of optics. Knee jerk reactions to sway the general public.

Which is precisely why politicians do this. The media starts an uproar. The public starts shouting, "Someone must do something!" Politicians pass a law, for something already covered under another law, in order to appear to be "doing something." This brings into effect another thing that I refer to as "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

 

[GreyGhost]

Which is precisely why politicians do this. The media starts an uproar. The public starts shouting, "Someone must do something!" Politicians pass a law, for something already covered under another law, in order to appear to be "doing something." This brings into effect another thing that I refer to as "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

Was it unintended? It opened another easy avenue for graft with portions of the law written explicitly to ensure minimal disincentive to go down that path.

 

[killvino]

Which is precisely why politicians do this. The media starts an uproar. The public starts shouting, "Someone must do something!" Politicians pass a law, for something already covered under another law, in order to appear to be "doing something." This brings into effect another thing that I refer to as "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

exactly. a lot of people blame politicians, but its the public's zombie ignorance that not only enables but encourages it.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Was it unintended? It opened another easy avenue for graft with portions of the law written explicitly to ensure minimal disincentive to go down that path.

I would say that it wasn't intended. There was just no actual consideration given to it, despite people like me raising red flags, because paying attention to the possible fallout didn't fit with the agenda.

 

[ReSTored]

Everyone hates politicians and thinks they're useless. Come election time you hold your nose and vote for the person you think will do the least damage, assuming you vote at all.

Consider the average person's attention span for just about anything. Do people read anything of substance anymore? How credible are people's sources of information?

Focussing just on provincial politics look at the "leaders" of the 3 major parties. Apparently, in a province with 14M citizens, these are the best people we could come up with. God help us all.

Have an issue or concern? Contact your local municipal council member, your MPP or your MP so you can see for yourself just how response and effective they are. Follow up if you don't hear back from them.

Unfortunately, I think we get the politicians we deserve.

 

[nobbie48]

So our truck-hugger anti vax Chit show is still smoldering in Ottawa with media all over the clowns, kissing their arses, over their rights to infect others.

Where the F*** are the ""Rights" people when a guy is punished without a trial and not compensated for many thousands of dollars (Plus reputation) in costs and expenses. A couple of grand for the tow and storage (Hope there wasn't anything valuable in the car). Possibly a couple of weeks off work. The trade off being paying someone to chauffeur you around in their car or a rented one. More expense.

Where is the "Rights of the people" media?

The reason HTA 172 and its cousins exist is that the politicians don't have enough intelligence to come up with a non-Gestapo alternate. Smoke and mirrors.

 

[DownUnder]

So our truck-hugger anti vax Chit show is still smoldering in Ottawa with media all over the clowns, kissing their arses, over their rights to infect others.

Where the F*** are the ""Rights" people when a guy is punished without a trial and not compensated for many thousands of dollars (Plus reputation) in costs and expenses. A couple of grand for the tow and storage (Hope there wasn't anything valuable in the car). Possibly a couple of weeks off work. The trade off being paying someone to chauffeur you around in their car or a rented one. More expense.

Where is the "Rights of the people" media?

The reason HTA 172 and its cousins exist is that the politicians don't have enough intelligence to come up with a non-Gestapo alternate. Smoke and mirrors.

Anyone doing 40km over the limit on public roads deserves everything they get. It's easy, don't be an ass on the roads and you won't get busted. What gives you the right to put other people in danger?

 

[Gary]

Anyone doing 40km over the limit on public roads deserves everything they get. It's easy, don't be an ass on the roads and you won't get busted. What gives you the right to put other people in danger?

Being "charged" by a law enforcement officer and handed a ticket with the "right" to take the matter to court is totally different than being "convicted" by the same officer.
Don't you understand the difference?

 

[GreyGhost]

Anyone doing 40km over the limit on public roads deserves everything they get. It's easy, don't be an ass on the roads and you won't get busted. What gives you the right to put other people in danger?

Also they can hand it out at any time for almost any reason. A cop can say you made too many lane changes and you are punished. It is not just excessive speeding (and if you want to focus on speeding, many speed zones are excessively low for revenue generation, the safe speed and 85th percentile speed grossly exceed the posted speed limit).

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Anyone doing 40km over the limit on public roads deserves everything they get. It's easy, don't be an ass on the roads and you won't get busted. What gives you the right to put other people in danger?

The "stunt driving" speed differential has been reduced, while speed limits are simultaneously also being reduced. The punishment comes before a conviction. We have already had at least one situation in which an officer was falsifying such charges, though he skated on being convicted of it, and it potentially had an effect on dozens of drivers.

 

[ReSTored]

The financial penalties are very severe, in particular pre conviction.

If you're caught doing 275 - 300 on the 403 you're toast these are ludicrous speeds on public roads. If you caught doing 155 on the 407 where all traffic is moving at 125 - 135 it's just not the same thing IMHO. Yet, initially, the consequences are the same.

I'd be curious to know how many charges/seizures there are annually and what percentage end in a conviction for the same charge, a negotiated settlement for a charge that would not have resulted in a vehicle seizure and outright acquittals? The people who negotiated a settlement might be PO'd and, certainly, the people who had charges dropped or were found not guilty would be very PO'd as the legislation does not allow compensation for financial losses.

Incidentally, for the people caught doing 275 - 300 on the 403 about 12 - 18 months ago (I think) anybody know what became of these cases? Were they found guilty, What fines were assessed?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The financial penalties are very severe, in particular pre conviction.

If you're caught doing 275 - 300 on the 403 you're toast these are ludicrous speeds on public roads. If you caught doing 155 on the 407 where all traffic is moving at 125 - 135 it's just not the same thing IMHO. Yet, initially, the consequences are the same.

I'd be curious to know how many charges/seizures there are annually and what percentage end in a conviction for the same charge, a negotiated settlement for a charge that would not have resulted in a vehicle seizure and outright acquittals? The people who negotiated a settlement might be PO'd and, certainly, the people who had charges dropped or were found not guilty would be very PO'd as the legislation does not allow compensation for financial losses.

Incidentally, for the people caught doing 275 - 300 on the 403 about 12 - 18 months ago (I think) anybody know what became of these cases? Were they found guilty, What fines were assessed?

If you have a name that you would like to check, then you might be able to find the status of the case in the database at CanLII.org . Here's an example:

2009 ONCJ 153 (CanLII) | R. v. Aftab | CanLII

Access all information related to judgment R. v. Aftab, 2009 ONCJ 153 (CanLII) on CanLII.

www.canlii.org

However, given the timeframe that you've listed, it's unlikely that the cases have even gone to court yet.

 

[nobbie48]

The "stunt driving" speed differential has been reduced, while speed limits are simultaneously also being reduced. The punishment comes before a conviction. We have already had at least one situation in which an officer was falsifying such charges, though he skated on being convicted of it, and it potentially had an effect on dozens of drivers.

A number of years ago I had my first ambulance ride for a pulmonary embolism, ending up hospital and needing a CT scan in the wee hours of the morning. It was urgent enough that they brought in an "On Call" techie do do the job.

Similarly, if the officer deems a driver's actions are so dangerous that people are in imminent risk of dying, bring in an "On Call" judge to determine, roadside, the validity of the charge.

Punish as hard as they want after trial.

The present system treats the violation of the right to judgement before punishment as "We're all equal." Wrong!

Moneybags driver can rent a replacement MD or BMW, hire a chauffeur and resume his board meetings. Car rental and a flunky company employee, all on the company's dime and legal defense on the company's dime costs him nothing.

A tradesman with his work van seized is out of work, loses two weeks pay, may lose a customer permanently, and pays over a grand in tow and storage fees. legal costs extra. He is found not guilty but can't give his kid the first years tuition for university.

Also I disagree with the set speed limit threshold. Forty over on a four hundred series highway is IMO not in itself all that big of a deal. Forty over (60 K) past a playground in High Park (Limit 20 K) is high risk. I would prefer a percent over limit of possibly 40-50%. 140 K to 150 K on the 401, 28 K-30 K in High Park. That would require people to do primary school math so may not work.

 

[GreyGhost]

A number of years ago I had my first ambulance ride for a pulmonary embolism, ending up hospital and needing a CT scan in the wee hours of the morning. It was urgent enough that they brought in an "On Call" techie do do the job.

Similarly, if the officer deems a driver's actions are so dangerous that people are in imminent risk of dying, bring in an "On Call" judge to determine, roadside, the validity of the charge.

Punish as hard as they want after trial.

The present system treats the violation of the right to judgement before punishment as "We're all equal." Wrong!

Moneybags driver can rent a replacement MD or BMW, hire a chauffeur and resume his board meetings. Car rental and a flunky company employee, all on the company's dime and legal defense on the company's dime costs him nothing.

A tradesman with his work van seized is out of work, loses two weeks pay, may lose a customer permanently, and pays over a grand in tow and storage fees. legal costs extra. He is found not guilty but can't give his kid the first years tuition for university.

Also I disagree with the set speed limit threshold. Forty over on a four hundred series highway is IMO not in itself all that big of a deal. Forty over (60 K) past a playground in High Park (Limit 20 K) is high risk. I would prefer a percent over limit of possibly 40-50%. 140 K to 150 K on the 401, 28 K-30 K in High Park. That would require people to do primary school math so may not work.

It's not 40 over on a 400 series. They assumed (probably correctly) that percentage math was too hard for people (including cops). Where speed limit is 70 km/h or less (technically written as less than 80km/h however there are no speed limits between 70 and 79), it's 40 over. Where speed limit is 80 km/h or more, it's 50 over.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

A number of years ago I had my first ambulance ride for a pulmonary embolism, ending up hospital and needing a CT scan in the wee hours of the morning. It was urgent enough that they brought in an "On Call" techie do do the job.

Similarly, if the officer deems a driver's actions are so dangerous that people are in imminent risk of dying, bring in an "On Call" judge to determine, roadside, the validity of the charge.

Punish as hard as they want after trial.

The present system treats the violation of the right to judgement before punishment as "We're all equal." Wrong!

Moneybags driver can rent a replacement MD or BMW, hire a chauffeur and resume his board meetings. Car rental and a flunky company employee, all on the company's dime and legal defense on the company's dime costs him nothing.

A tradesman with his work van seized is out of work, loses two weeks pay, may lose a customer permanently, and pays over a grand in tow and storage fees. legal costs extra. He is found not guilty but can't give his kid the first years tuition for university.

Also I disagree with the set speed limit threshold. Forty over on a four hundred series highway is IMO not in itself all that big of a deal. Forty over (60 K) past a playground in High Park (Limit 20 K) is high risk. I would prefer a percent over limit of possibly 40-50%. 140 K to 150 K on the 401, 28 K-30 K in High Park. That would require people to do primary school math so may not work.

I recently read a sentiment that I can't help but agree with: "If an offence is only punished by a fine then it's not an offence, but something that requires a fee to perform." Treating all offenders "equally" is not treating all offenders "equitably."

If politicians want to have these sorts of instant punishment laws on the books, then they need to follow the US model of taking the offenders directly to court, as you stated. Do we want tho follow the American example in the legal system? No, because ours is orders of magnitude more effective than is theirs. Similarly, we don't need/want this false "law and order" narrative driving our laws.

 

[DownUnder]

Also I disagree with the set speed limit threshold. Forty over on a four hundred series highway is IMO not in itself all that big of a deal. Forty over (60 K) past a playground in High Park (Limit 20 K) is high risk. I would prefer a percent over limit of possibly 40-50%. 140 K to 150 K on the 401, 28 K-30 K in High Park. That would

Why does anyone need to do math.... the speed limits are clear as day. Point your speedo needle at the number that corresponds with the sign and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The speed limits are assigned scientifically, are you all anti science?

Everyone in this thread complaining about being punnished before a conviction... really? Unless you can prove the officers equipment is faulty or that he lied (almost impossible) how exactly would you get off the charge, other then some ******** loophole not intended to let criminals off.

Zero responsibility taken by people in Canada for their own actions. Like an entire country of spoiled brats. I've been here well over a decade... guess how many times I've been pulled over... Zero. If you got pulled over and charged , you most likely deserved it imo.

 

[nobbie48]

I recently read a sentiment that I can't help but agree with: "If an offence is only punished by a fine then it's not an offence, but something that requires a fee to perform." Treating all offenders "equally" is not treating all offenders "equitably."

If politicians want to have these sorts of instant punishment laws on the books, then they need to follow the US model of taking the offenders directly to court, as you stated. Do we want tho follow the American example in the legal system? No, because ours is orders of magnitude more effective than is theirs. Similarly, we don't need/want this false "law and order" narrative driving our laws.

There are many aspects to the American system that don't work for me, the double edged sword. Many judicial positions in the USA are elected while ours are appointed. Officials get re-elected on track records, conviction rates, punishment severity. I like the concept of elected judges and prosecutors because they better reflect the mood of the people but there is a problem. Few people have the time or psychological knowledge to look at the long term results of every case. Standards are mixed. The half drunk truckers that danced on the tomb of the unknown soldier can still vote.

People, all too often, are simplistic, only reading the headlines. People think brutal prisons beat the bad out a person. They don't. They beat it further in.

The victim wants the punishment to change the past. All the judicial system can do is to try to change the future.

 

[GreyGhost]

Why does anyone need to do math.... the speed limits are clear as day. Point your speedo needle at the number that corresponds with the sign and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The speed limits are assigned scientifically, are you all anti science?

Everyone in this thread complaining about being punnished before a conviction... really? Unless you can prove the officers equipment is faulty or that he lied (almost impossible) how exactly would you get off the charge, other then some ******** loophole not intended to let criminals off.

Zero responsibility taken by people in Canada for their own actions. Like an entire country of spoiled brats. I've been here well over a decade... guess how many times I've been pulled over... Zero. If you got pulled over and charged , you most likely deserved it imo.

There have been documented cases of cops straight up lying and getting towing kickbacks (Mahoney-brewer and others). You wouldn't feel the same way if you were one of their chosen targets that incurred large financial penalties with no recourse.

 

[DownUnder]

There have been documented cases of cops straight up lying and getting towing kickbacks (Mahoney-brewer and others). You wouldn't feel the same way if you were one of their chosen targets that incurred large financial penalties with no recourse.

Easy. Mandatory body cams for all officers.

 

[GreyGhost]

Easy. Mandatory body cams for all officers.

I'm ok with that. I still say punishment should come after conviction in court. As it is right now, you have punishment before convictiom, no evidence required other than the cops word and no recourse if the charge was not sustained. It would make sense that if they didn't get a conviction, they should return your costs plus some for your wasted time (double, triple?). That would incentivize police to lay the charge when appropriate and supported instead of handing them out like candy to juice a press release.