In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.

[Skydekker]

Forum Sponsor

We're not anti-government, we're pro-liberties.

Maybe you don't value the time and money that went into purchasing your motorcycle or car, but some of us cherish that and don't wish to give our government the power to take it away from us. It's really rather simple. Yes, the answer might be "well just don't go 50 over." Sure, that works today, but perhaps in 10 years another shmuck will come to power and have the brilliant idea of lowering that criteria to 40 over, or perhaps eventually 20 over or 2km/h over. Not only have we given 'them' the power to impound our vehicles and revoke our licences for a week without any due process, they already have the power to seize our vehicles permanently if the courts decide.

If we were all a little less narrow-minded and a little more mindful of the bigger picture, things like HTA172 would never pass. But no, we're too dumb to see it coming until its already too late. Such legislation gets pushed through the media and onto the public as a "public safety" initiative meant to eliminate street racing. A little documentary here and there about organized street races, a few clips from Fast & Furious movies, and presto... Joe Public is on-board. Except after the law is passed folks realize that it had nothing at all to do with street racing and everything to do with catching 'excessive' speeders going 50kmh over the limit. But we already HAD legislation in place to deal with such speeds which resulted in a summons to appear in court and be dealt the appropriate sentence by the justice of the peace. So now in addition to having to go to court for our reaming, we also get to pad the pockets of the police, the tow companies, the impound lots, and the administrative gang in charge of all the beaurocracy in between. Nevermind the fact that you might very well be completely INNOCENT the entire time but won't ever see that money back.

Why do we continually screw ourselves? I just don't get it. Your attitude sucks if all you can come up with is "that should shut the anti-government people up." I'm not anti-anything. I'm just a sensible person.

I agree with many of the things above. However, have one issue to add. I'll take the guy on the 410 this morning who offed himself cratering into the back of a 5-ton truck as an example:

Traffic has been a nightmare in that area with significant costs to business and people. Hence, we should be allowed to sue the rider or driver (in this case the estate) for costs associated to with his decisions and actions.

 

[mmmnaked]

He's dead, so I'm sure he's not concerned about a roadside suspension or vehicle seizure.

 

[油井緋色]

lol lighten up. so... i can't use the "hypothetical neighbour with the gun example", but you can use the "hypothetical power hungry politician example"

well done sir well done.

You don't seem to understand what's wrong when power is given to the wrong people right? No offense to cops, but most cops are stupid as ****. There are two kind of cops:

#1. The ones that truly want to help the world (1%)
#2. The ones that got **** marks in high school, couldn't make it into university, then got a random diploma and went to be a cop (99%)

Next time you get randomly pulled over, ask the cop "wtf is your problem?". They'll make sure to let you know they have to right to do whatever they want, then they'll let you know they can give you a ticket for whatever the **** they want, and you know what? You can't do anything about it. Not in court, not in life, not in anything. This is why I ****ing hate cops so much; if they want to **** you over for so much as walking your dog they WILL **** you over and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[EngineerJoe]

It's also possible to lose your bike permanently in Ontario with forfeiture possible under the Ontario Civil Remedies Act. However, it requires a full hearing in front of a judge, and BC is no different. It will be up to a court to decide if the bikes are permanently seized.

Something tells me the offense has to be fairly serious to warrant a potential seizure of assets under this Act, and even then, the accused is protected by due process. Not so with HTA 172.

We're not anti-government, we're pro-liberties.

Maybe you don't value the time and money that went into purchasing your motorcycle or car, but some of us cherish that and don't wish to give our government the power to take it away from us. It's really rather simple. Yes, the answer might be "well just don't go 50 over." Sure, that works today, but perhaps in 10 years another shmuck will come to power and have the brilliant idea of lowering that criteria to 40 over, or perhaps eventually 20 over or 2km/h over. Not only have we given 'them' the power to impound our vehicles and revoke our licences for a week without any due process, they already have the power to seize our vehicles permanently if the courts decide.

If we were all a little less narrow-minded and a little more mindful of the bigger picture, things like HTA172 would never pass. But no, we're too dumb to see it coming until its already too late. Such legislation gets pushed through the media and onto the public as a "public safety" initiative meant to eliminate street racing. A little documentary here and there about organized street races, a few clips from Fast & Furious movies, and presto... Joe Public is on-board. Except after the law is passed folks realize that it had nothing at all to do with street racing and everything to do with catching 'excessive' speeders going 50kmh over the limit. But we already HAD legislation in place to deal with such speeds which resulted in a summons to appear in court and be dealt the appropriate sentence by the justice of the peace. So now in addition to having to go to court for our reaming, we also get to pad the pockets of the police, the tow companies, the impound lots, and the administrative gang in charge of all the beaurocracy in between. Nevermind the fact that you might very well be completely INNOCENT the entire time but won't ever see that money back.

Why do we continually screw ourselves? I just don't get it. Your attitude sucks if all you can come up with is "that should shut the anti-government people up." I'm not anti-anything. I'm just a sensible person.

I couldn't have said it better myself... I tried but failed.

 

[jc100]

I'm pro liberty too. Difference seems to be that I'm pro liberty for the majority rather than JUST the individual in cases where that is warranted and in the cases decribed above I think it's warranted. Also seems to me that apart from a few people this point of view is pretty widespread. There are times that an individual's rights are totally precious and need protecting, but in cases where they butt up against everyone elses rights and could contravene those that's where you have problems. Sorry to say but I see this is a marker of the selfish society we live in where no one else matters but oneself.

 

[mmmnaked]

We can punish people without stealing their property. Your licence can be revoked, you can face stiff fines, you can even face jailtime. Nothing wrong with any of those. Why do we need even MORE legislation on top of the piles of laws we already have in place to protect our safety?

In what possible scenario will HTA172 protect us anyway? The guy whose car got impounded is getting it back in a week. Ok, so he won't be able to kill someone for the next 7 days... after that it's game on? It's a ridiculous notion. Name me one case where someone was charged with speeding or careless driving and then proceeded to kill or injure somebody immediately after being issued the ticket? These cases (if we can even find a single one) are so laughably rare that the stipulation of HTA172 being for our safety is abhorrently stupid. It's an insult to our intelligence.

 

[EngineerJoe]

I'm pro liberty too. Difference seems to be that I'm pro liberty for the majority rather than JUST the individual in cases where that is warranted and in the cases decribed above I think it's warranted. Also seems to me that apart from a few people this point of view is pretty widespread. There are times that an individual's rights are totally precious and need protecting, but in cases where they butt up against everyone elses rights and could contravene those that's where you have problems. Sorry to say but I see this is a marker of the selfish society we live in where no one else matters but oneself.

This is a PERFECT example of what I mentioned earlier. You're willing to give up some of your rights for "protection" of the masses, but what you're overlooking is that when you sacrifice your rights, you're sacrificing MY rights as well, or to put it differently; If you allow the government to violate my rights right now, you allow them to violate YOUR rights in the future.

I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? .... There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

Again, replace "high chancellor, Adam Sutler" with "Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty" (or any other future premier/party)...

From a legal stand point, the roadside suspension of my license is sufficient to protect society and does not violate my rights. This is how the government should go about it. If my intent is drive regardless of what the law says I can and cannot do, taking my vehicle away from me won't stop me any more than taking my license away.

The Government already has the laws in place to protect the innocent without HTA 172, it's just a matter of enforcing it.

Edit: I knew a couple kids that were caught racing YEARS before HTA 172 was introduced (late 90's). They were ****ed for years.... insurance, fines, court costs, lawyers costs... I don't think either drove a vehicle for at lease 5 years.

 

[overlordjd]

I agree with many of the things above. However, have one issue to add. I'll take the guy on the 410 this morning who offed himself cratering into the back of a 5-ton truck as an example:

Traffic has been a nightmare in that area with significant costs to business and people. Hence, we should be allowed to sue the rider or driver (in this case the estate) for costs associated to with his decisions and actions.

This thread has left the building.

What would you suggest the criteria be for one to be able to sue the motorist for the inconvenience caused by an accident? Once this criteria has been met, who in this case should be allowed to pursue this lawsuit and receive compensation if any? Would this rule only be for Motorcycles?

I was on my way to Scarborough this morning, and rode past the 410 on steels because it was blocked up. I simply chose an alternate, but I was not overly inconvenienced by this detour where despite the fact that someone lost their life I would feel I needed compensation for the inconvenience.

Upon finding out that it was a motorcycle, I was certain that someone would use this recent spate of accidents as a tool to push through some agenda. The amount of serious car accidents I’ve seen since the beginning of this summer is amazing. I can recall a day where there were 4 serious accidents on the QEW from Burlington to Mississauga that resulted in gridlock all involving other vehicles than motorcycles.

Stop watching these small statistics and trying to enrage the mass into enacting even stricter regulations that will more than likely not affect the intended targets of those legislations. It will be the poor sucker who has a V8 or motorcycle overtaking a truck and is caught in that moment going over the speed limit.

There has barely been a case where this street racing law has actually been applied to a street racer, but there are lots of cases where it has gotten a person going 50 over the speed limit which is not hard to attain with today’s vehicles.

Look at the big picture.

 

[skitta]

"Police say they may take steps to punish the reckless riders even more severely".

I sincerly hope so!

 

[2500Express]

I sincerely hope that anyone on here that is defending the HTA172 gets caught in a mixup with a PO'd cop and has their car or bike seized. Try telling everyone that you're innocent and that your case was the only one that resulted in an innocent person getting nailed on a 172.

The guys in that video were not racing. The more power you give to cops means it gives them more licence to **** on people that look at them the wrong way. Slippery slope is what is going on here. I'm ****** at this whole situation, those who think that these "laws" won't affect them and are needed are f**king deluded and are one of the biggest traitors to our country and our Charter of rights.

 

[Griffin]

Put em all to death, no trial! What if a 2 year old baby was crossing the street? These hooligans would have killed them...jesus christ, what is wrong with some people?

And you should probably execute the parents too. They may create more dangerous offenders. Need to keep the streets safe.

 

[Griffin]

This thread has left the building.

What would you suggest the criteria be for one to be able to sue the motorist for the inconvenience caused by an accident? Once this criteria has been met, who in this case should be allowed to pursue this lawsuit and receive compensation if any? Would this rule only be for Motorcycles?

I was on my way to Scarborough this morning, and rode past the 410 on steels because it was blocked up. I simply chose an alternate, but I was not overly inconvenienced by this detour where despite the fact that someone lost their life I would feel I needed compensation for the inconvenience.

Upon finding out that it was a motorcycle, I was certain that someone would use this recent spate of accidents as a tool to push through some agenda. The amount of serious car accidents I’ve seen since the beginning of this summer is amazing. I can recall a day where there were 4 serious accidents on the QEW from Burlington to Mississauga that resulted in gridlock all involving other vehicles than motorcycles.

Stop watching these small statistics and trying to enrage the mass into enacting even stricter regulations that will more than likely not affect the intended targets of those legislations. It will be the poor sucker who has a V8 or motorcycle overtaking a truck and is caught in that moment going over the speed limit.

There has barely been a case where this street racing law has actually been applied to a street racer, but there are lots of cases where it has gotten a person going 50 over the speed limit which is not hard to attain with today’s vehicles.

Look at the big picture.

Stop being reasonable. It is NOT appreciated.

 

[Griffin]

Its not hypothetical when it already happened.

Sigh.

See above - stop making sense.

 

[shoe]

With an attitude like that, we'd all be on the TTC.

You're kind of missing the argument here totally....no one is saying ban speedy vehicles from the road. People are just arguing that those that can't control their vehicles and keep them to reasonable limits should be punished. Or do you disagree with that?

You missed my point about the gov't expropriating property.
The Feds did it to some poor farmers to make a base for JTFII.

Gov't seizing property as a punishment or to set and example? Not good. It opens the door to a lot of potential evils.

 

[Mercaholic]

You're kind of missing the argument here totally....no one is saying ban speedy vehicles from the road. People are just arguing that those that can't control their vehicles and keep them to reasonable limits should be punished. Or do you disagree with that?

I agree. That is why I sold my ZRX1200R as I knew eventually I'd get myself in trouble. PLUS, I'm a cop and that would not look good for me.

 

[shoe]

Amen Brother! I'm against the 172's "roadside justice" as well as that .005 BAC license suspension garbage that Daddy Dalton brought in.

If you're not legally intoxicated between .005 and .008 then why can they suspend licenses?

Even if you win in court, you've already been punished! Where's due process?

Holy crap this thread really took off from last night!

I sincerely hope that anyone on here that is defending the HTA172 gets caught in a mixup with a PO'd cop and has their car or bike seized. Try telling everyone that you're innocent and that your case was the only one that resulted in an innocent person getting nailed on a 172.

The guys in that video were not racing. The more power you give to cops means it gives them more licence to **** on people that look at them the wrong way. Slippery slope is what is going on here. I'm ****** at this whole situation, those who think that these "laws" won't affect them and are needed are f**king deluded and are one of the biggest traitors to our country and our Charter of rights.

 

[Prince]

Turbodish needs to enter the real world. These chopper cops, and the cops on the ground are headed home for a beer or two and some of them will head out on a group ride on their own SS bikes.

There are more cops riding SS in the Brampton/Caledon/Orangeville area than civilians. It's hard to listen to some of the stories of them laugh about seizing bikes and then have them blast past me. I could smoke anyone of them on my Gixx, but even tho I have a "free pass" to speed with them, I don't pass them. I'm smart enough to know my place in a pack.

It's a cash-grab.
It's an easy bust.
It's a high-five bust.
It's an adrenaline bust.
It's "excitement" rush to an adrenaline junkie cop.
It's victimization.
It's discrimination (they see colors on a bike, they're all over you).
It's predatory.
It makes a dull job (traffic cop) exciting.

The 5.0 that carry it out would have a good laugh at Turbos "to the nth degree of the law" posts on here. In fact, they already have. They don't even follow the law to that degree, and they are the law.

Anyone have info on Turbos whereabouts, please PM.

 

[murf]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2008/03/19/speed-limiters.html

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/trucklimits.shtml




Why even allow people to own bikes larger than 600cc?

Daddy Dalton capped the largest vehicles on the roads. If he survives this election, how long before he goes after the smallest?

they allow fast bikes because they are interested in collecting speeding/racing fines, not your safety. Not to many people have been killed by speeding motorcycles.

 

[Baggsy]

Hang on, isn't the control of the throttle in the right hand of the rider, as those who think everyone should run out and buy a super sport as a first bike, are fond of saying?

If a preschooler takes a fork and waves it around at other children, instead of using it to eat, do you take it off him, or do you let him stab himself repeatedly?

Are some of these speeders (200+ kph), not like preschoolers with the fork?

I think the big issue is where the cut off should be for those who can't control themselves, and the police, lawyers, judges, and politicians need to be kept to the same standards.

 

[Prince]

Are some of these speeders (200+ kph), not like preschoolers with the fork?

They could very well be cops themselves.

Forum Sponsor