In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
So take away the "pre-schooler's" license and hand them a summons to appear in court before they can get it back. Fines, jail time, and community service can all be given AFTER due process.
Like I said above, the courts had more then adequate means of SEVERELY punishing 200km/h individuals without HTA 172.
I would suggest the criteria to be whether or not charges were laid. Obviously this would not be only for motorcyclists. My original post was only a couple of sentences, and with some decent reading comprehension skills, it would be pretty clear that was the case.
Those who can show quantifyable losses can sue for compensation. I would also clearly put this in place of the current law which allows for roadside seizures etc without a day in court. It is in line with the taking power away from government and placing it with the people. However, I would agree with a provision which would allow Emergency Services to recoup their costs.
I don't agree with the concept, posted earlier, that these motorcyclist aren't harming any body else and only kill themselves. They are harming others and costing society and business loads of money and time. Why not hold them (or their estate) accountable for that?
Some of the "logic" in the past for road side suspensions was to protect the public safety. If for example someone blows higher than .08 they are drunk. If you let them get right back in the car well they are still drunk... One core problem with HTA172 is there is no real proof that after pulling over a speeder they will immediately start speeding again (most likely the opposite will happen). So are they an immediate threat to public safety right after they are pulled over???
I would have no problem with the law IF instead of a roadside suspension the suspension and vehicle seizure took place after the court date (if they no longer have a vehicle make it a $5000 fine). Now many on here will say that the majority of the cops are corrupt--I disagree. But if you hand the duty of judge and jury to one person there is no doubt there will be abuse, let the court decide.
As far as what these riders were doing, dangerous yes but at the same time I see people weaving through traffic at much lower speeds that are a bigger threat to public safety but the police seem to have little interest in enforcement. Does not make the actions of these riders right or wrong, just saying there is far worst things happening on the road.
I would have no problem with the law IF instead of a roadside suspension the suspension and vehicle seizure took place after the court date (if they no longer have a vehicle make it a $5000 fine). Now many on here will say that the majority of the cops are corrupt--I disagree. But if you hand the duty of judge and jury to one person there is no doubt there will be abuse, let the court decide.
As far as what these riders were doing, dangerous yes but at the same time I see people weaving through traffic at much lower speeds that are a bigger threat to public safety but the police seem to have little interest in enforcement. Does not make the actions of these riders right or wrong, just saying there is far worst things happening on the road.
so if john doe goes chilling at the mall with a samurai sword. when cops come to check it out, should the sword be confiscated? or just let him be with the sword? there's no real proof that he will start slicing people.
someone gets busted to drug possession. do the drugs get confiscated on the spot? or should cops let the druggie keep it until after the court hearing? there's no real proof that the druggie will smoke it all.
i could go on but you get the point.
Stop with the common sense...there's no place for it in this forum. As for Mr Prince.....how many moons can you see from your planet?
This argument is so stupid i'm not even going to explain to you why it's so stupid.
Drugs (not prescription) are themselves illegal so not a valid point. Sword is a weapon, and that is the only intended purpose of the device (although may not be the reason the person has it), again quite different. A car or a motorcycle is a form of transportation that is not normally illegal (unless stolen or unlicensed etc.) nor is it designed as a weapon. Although it may be design to be fast that is not the sole purpose.
Your two points are just like 0.08%. There is no valid reason to be wielding a sword in a mall, so there is a good threat to public safety. Drugs are intended to be used or sold, both an illegal act (and depending on who you ask a threat to public safety, but either way illegal). If the guy is pulled over and has machine guns mounted on their vehicle, confiscate it. If the vehicle is illegal (stolen or not licensed) confiscate it... In both cases on the spot.
just cuz you can counter it doesn't make it stupid. on the contrary it makes you look stupid
there's also no valid reason to go 200kph on public roads. it looks like a threat to public safety as well. drugs are illegal. so is speeding. so it is a valid point. it's funny how you are saying what's illegal without recognizing that speeding is also illegal.
so if you get caught going too fast. why should the cop let you go? you have already shown that you dont care about the law and think you are more important. the cop has no reason to trust you and let you go.
Last edited:
Chainsaws could be used for murderous rampages, why not go confiscate all chainsaws being used by local lanscape companies?
Knives can be used to stab people, why not go confiscate all pocket knives?
Belts can be used to strangle people, why not go confiscate belts from everyone?
Golf clubs can be used to assault people, why not go confiscate all golf clubs?
Your examples of drugs and a samurai sword are both idiotic. Drugs themselves are illegal, its not the smoking or use of them that gets them confiscated. Posessing a vehile is not illegal. A samurai sword is a weapon that can realistically only be used for one thing, the same would apply for guns, crossbows, etc. There are laws in place to control how such things are handled. A vehicle is not a weapon even though it can inflict serious injury if misused. Further, drugs and weapons are confiscated because they are considered evidence. Your finger prints on the dope or on the sword prove you were in posession of illegal things. A confiscated vehicle can't be used to prove anything.
Last edited:
Setting fires is illegal (arson) should we take away everyone's matches and lighters? Hitting people is illegal (assault), should we take away everyone's hands?
Is the sword being used or is it just in the scabbard? makes a huge difference. Having a sword is not illegal (though concealing it would be), there's one on my living room wall. Having illicit drugs is entirely different those, I don't have hung on my living room wall as they are out right illegal.
Speeding may be illegal, but there were already punishments in place before the HTA172 came along, and with your analogy just breaking the law is justification for seizure. What happened to letting the punishment fit the crime?
The punishment does fit the crime. Want lesser punishment? Confine your speeding to lesser rates of speeding illegality.
Road side punishment is also against the charter... But many have gone through this with you already, and no the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Shaman
Well-known member
Who says what speeding is? Nervous Nellies like turbodish, that don't like a breeze that moves fast enough to flare up your skirt? Should we all be limited to the speeds that the least capable drivers amongst us can drive... or the least capable vehicles can achieve?
You love to focus on the minutae while ignoring the bigger issues. "It's because I say so" is the turbodish argument. Forget that every credible study says that limiting speeds to the ones we find on Ontario roads cause accidents, not prevent them.
You love to focus on the minutae while ignoring the bigger issues. "It's because I say so" is the turbodish argument. Forget that every credible study says that limiting speeds to the ones we find on Ontario roads cause accidents, not prevent them.
What is it with you and these ridiculous analogies to weapons and drugs?? The two have nothing to do with eachother. When your drugs get seized, you don't get them back after 7 days. When you're threatening someone with a firearm or knife and they get confiscated, you don't get them back after a week. Those are both criminal matters which have an entirely different set of circumstances and legislation covering them. Using those analogies makes you sound completely ignorant.
I've already stated this earlier and I'm sure you couldn't come up with a counterpoint so you didn't bother responding: the HTA172 doesn't make us any safer in the sense that the person posing a supposed threat to the public will get his vehicle back after 7 days. So we're safe for 7 days (supposedly), but afterwards that person is free to get back on the road to hurt someone? Furthermore, you'd have to find cases where a driver/rider got a speeding ticket, and then immediately afterwards went on to kill or hurt somebody on the same day. THAT is the only way that HTA172 could possibly be about safety, and we both know that it's a long shot in the dark for that kind of situation to happen.
Last edited:
What an absolutely daft post. Why not apply this for parking tickets, and going 15 over the speed limit as well.
The courts would disagree with you, and the courts have ruled on the constitutionality issues.
Roadside punishment is against common sense and the foundations of justice. It's unfortunate that the issue hasn't been raised in front of a decent judge. The courts erred.
