Ontario doubling down on 172. | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ontario doubling down on 172.

DownUnder said:
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.
Click to expand...
STUNTING ISN'T JUST SPEEDING. Yes, I'm yelling.

Out-accelerating another vehicle is a HTA charge.

So the light turns red and you pull ahead of the other vehicle. It is a judgement call by the cop whether it was stunting or not. If neither driver pulls ahead of the other then one or both can get charged with obstructing the flow of traffic.

Driving not while in the driver's seat is a charge.

My Motorcycle Handbook, Pre HTA 172, said to stand on the pegs while going over a bump to better accommodate the situation. Now that's an HTA 172 charge based on the mood of the cop. Try shaking off a leg cramp while not shifting a bit in the seat.

I would consider, after an intelligent debate, the charge / suspension for speeding where there is documented radar and video evidence of the offence, not unlike blowing over the limit on a calibrated breathalyzer. The difference there being a drunk can't immediately change his / her ability to drive carefully while the prospect of a massive fine or jail time would have sober drivers tucking in their tails.

Except for the DUI part I still consider the whole concept the thin edge of the wedge.

Also, in any offense, why is there a mandatory seizing of the vehicle? Why is the vehicle part of the issue?

Have another driver come and pick up the vehicle and take it to the owner's home or other safe place.

1) It eliminates the kick back potential. FWIW a buddy stores his RV in a farm field for a dollar or two a day. An impound lot isn't much more than a fenced field but is $100 a day.

Just think. I could park an extra car in my driveway and pocket $100 a day, $200 if they were compacts. Who do I "encourage" to make that happen?

2) It allows a court to determine the cost of the punishment

3) It avoids multiple punishment when the household only has one car. Dad drops mom off at work from their remote residence and both are out of work for two weeks. Maybe the kids can't get to school.
 
DownUnder said:
Easy. Mandatory body cams for all officers.
Click to expand...
Not so easy when the current in-vogue mandates are to use more funds for more bodies, not for more oversight. Police unions fight against this sort of thing tooth-and-nail. And it isn't as simple as buying a bunch of cameras, either. You need a regimen of dumping the data at end of shift, that's secure. You need secure storage. You need secure backups. you need the tech manpower to perform these tasks and maintain the equipment.

Even where mandated, they work around them. In one case, in the US, the only reason why several officers were caught framing someone for drug sales was because they didn't know about the 30 second recording buffer, which ended up catching them planting the drugs on camera. Makes you wonder how many got away with that sort of thing.
 
DownUnder said:
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.
Click to expand...
We believe in a justice system. Not the word of a human that may make a judgement error.
Do you even ride a motorcycle?
 
gsxr guy said:
We believe in a justice system. Not the word of a human that may make a judgement error.
Do you even ride a motorcycle?
Click to expand...
Victims all too often say we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Going back to my earlier comments and how Canada is more progressive in punishment than regimes that believe in brutality I ask again why a vehicle is impounded. All it does it beat up the owner of the vehicle and that might not be the driver.

They've stopped the vehicle and have the driver detained and subject to punishment. Impounding the vehicle is pure revenge.
 
nobbie48 said:
Victims all too often say we have a legal system, not a justice system.

Going back to my earlier comments and how Canada is more progressive in punishment than regimes that believe in brutality I ask again why a vehicle is impounded. All it does it beat up the owner of the vehicle and that might not be the driver.

They've stopped the vehicle and have the driver detained and subject to punishment. Impounding the vehicle is pure revenge.
Click to expand...
I've said it many times before. When you stop someone for impaired driving, they're still impaired after the stop. When you stop someone for stunt driving, they're no longer stunt driving.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I've said it many times before. When you stop someone for impaired driving, they're still impaired after the stop. When you stop someone for stunt driving, they're no longer stunt driving.
Click to expand...
A DUI is a special case as you point out but I would like opinions on an analogy, apples to apples or not?

Case 1) An officer sees a punk grab an old ladies purse and run. He gives chase and the baggy panted punk is caught, identified, detained and charged. Notes are made. The woman arrives and retrieves her purse. The legal system then takes over.

Case 2) An officer sees a punk make really stupid driving move, gives chase and the driver stops, is detained and identified and charged. Notes are made. The legal system then takes over.

In case 1 what would happen to the officer if, because of the nature of the event, he gave the punk a few punches to the head as immediate punishment?

In case 2 what would happen to the officer if, because of the nature of the event, he impounded the punks car as immediate punishment?

What's the difference?

Similarly, if a civilian sees someone stealing his / her bicycle the civilian has certain rights to stop the theft (Considering the risk) and retrieving their property. If the thief assaults the owner the owner can defend themselves but if the thief isn't violent and the owner decides to "Teach the thief a lesson" the courts will be harder on the owner than the thief.

To me, the tow and impound is just a variation of a punch in the face.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the cop's feeling when he walks up to the offending car and is told by the punk "My dad's a lawyer and he'll ream you in court."

The cop has to understand that justice sometimes works slowly.

He will get paid for the time he is getting reamed. The people that count will understand that the cop did his best and the punk got off on a technicality. The lawyer is pro bono for his son.

The lawyer will lose at least a half day of billable time defending junior. If he is intelligent, for the sake of his son, he will invoke his own three strikes law for defending the kid. "Sorry junior, number four is on your tab."

The thousands the lawyer loses in billing is thousands the kid won't inherit down the road. With that dream home that he wants, he is short a few grand with bidding.

Darwin's theory is often thought of as instant death when more often than not it is demise from a long term string of bad judgments and failures to adapt.
 
nobbie48 said:
A DUI is a special case as you point out but I would like opinions on an analogy, apples to apples or not?

Case 1) An officer sees a punk grab an old ladies purse and run. He gives chase and the baggy panted punk is caught, identified, detained and charged. Notes are made. The woman arrives and retrieves her purse. The legal system then takes over.

Case 2) An officer sees a punk make really stupid driving move, gives chase and the driver stops, is detained and identified and charged. Notes are made. The legal system then takes over.

In case 1 what would happen to the officer if, because of the nature of the event, he gave the punk a few punches to the head as immediate punishment?

In case 2 what would happen to the officer if, because of the nature of the event, he impounded the punks car as immediate punishment?

What's the difference?

Similarly, if a civilian sees someone stealing his / her bicycle the civilian has certain rights to stop the theft (Considering the risk) and retrieving their property. If the thief assaults the owner the owner can defend themselves but if the thief isn't violent and the owner decides to "Teach the thief a lesson" the courts will be harder on the owner than the thief.

To me, the tow and impound is just a variation of a punch in the face.
Click to expand...
All that I can give you on that, is the party line. The (legal) difference is that the first is an assault, while the second is a civil (not legal) penalty. The suspension is carried out by the Ministry of Transportation, not the court system.

Now my take. The first is a punitive measure and assault, which is not legal for even a cop to do. There are various charges that could be applied to an officer who decided to "tune up" a suspect. In the bad ol' days that sort of thing was fairly routine and instead of being charged, said kid would go home with some bruises. Look up the Metro Toronto Police Hold-up Squad (now defunct).

With respect to the claim of "civil penalty" by government, regarding seizures/suspensions, if police asked a citizen to act on their behalf in order to obtain evidence that police couldn't obtain legally, that citizen can be said to be an agent of police. As such the evidence is still obtained illegally and not admissible (obviously if this can be proved). To me, the Ministry is acting as an agent of law enforcement and their actions should be unconstitutional, on their very face.
 
More riders fleeing leads to the police complaining, about their inability to "safeguard the public" from these hoodlums, which leads to the liberal media filing countless stories of fleeing suspects. Which in turn prompts the liberal government to invoke new laws and regulations which are ill conceived and poorly written. leading to more riders fleeing and so the circle perpetuates itself, until a "state of emergency" is declared and ALL bikes are subjected to "routine and required" inspections to ensure compliance...lol
 
hedo2002 said:
More riders fleeing leads to the police complaining, about their inability to "safeguard the public" from these hoodlums, which leads to the liberal media filing countless stories of fleeing suspects. Which in turn prompts the liberal government to invoke new laws and regulations which are ill conceived and poorly written. leading to more riders fleeing and so the circle perpetuates itself, until a "state of emergency" is declared and ALL bikes are subjected to "routine and required" inspections to ensure compliance...lol
Click to expand...
What does liberal have to do with it? The last increase in HTA stupidity was Douggie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom