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

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

But the HTA 172 is not just about speed and thats the problem. If a cop feels like it they can seriously **** up the next few years of your life. That is just plain wrong, I came a ****-hair away from the 172 on monday... it makes me sick that I was at the mercy of some d-bag behind a badge and a gun. They should not have this power and this law should not exist.

They could screw up your life that way even before HTA172. How does having to fight a Criminal Code Dangerous Driving charge sound as an alternative? The cost to defend is much higher because it is a criminal charge, the penalties are much farther-reaching and can carry with you for many more years than anything HTA172 will do, the insurance hit is double that of HTA172 and for more years with most insurance companies, and that criminal record will do wonders for your popularity with employers and US border officials.

By contrast, HTA172 is just a tougher traffic ticket, a relative slap on the wrist compared to dangerous driving, an expensive slap maybe but still just a slap.

In any case, it all comes down to you. Well over 99% of Ontario drivers have managed to avoid being charged with HTA172, and some of them are really pretty bad. What is it that you are doing that puts you at risk of it? You probably already know the answer yourself. Make a choice.

 

[AGAVE]

Or you could be looking more than 100m down the road ahead of you and stop with plenty of room to spare.

Absolutely! This is most important because you never know when the next Tim Hortons is coming up!

***NOTE*** (Harley riders should look 200m ahead because it takes more time to throw the anchor)

 

[Holmes]

They could screw up your life that way even before HTA172. How does having to fight a Criminal Code Dangerous Driving charge sound as an alternative? The cost to defend is much higher because it is a criminal charge, the penalties are much farther-reaching and can carry with you for many more years than anything HTA172 will do, the insurance hit is double that of HTA172 and for more years with most insurance companies, and that criminal record will do wonders for your popularity with employers and US border officials.

By contrast, HTA172 is just a tougher traffic ticket, a relative slap on the wrist compared to dangerous driving, an expensive slap maybe but still just a slap.

In any case, it all comes down to you. Well over 99% of Ontario drivers have managed to avoid being charged with HTA172, and some of them are really pretty bad. What is it that you are doing that puts you at risk of it? You probably already know the answer yourself. Make a choice.

Thats actually what I got, and I am happy about it. The HTA 172 immediately costs you over $1500 before court... assuming you can come up with that money in 7 days to get your vehicle out of impound, if not then it just keeps adding up! The Dangerous Driving charge will not stick (especially in my case, but thats a different discussion). I would take a Dangerous over the HTA 172 any day, at very least a reduction gets you out of the criminal area. A reduction on a HTA 172 still costs you a **** of a lot!

 

[Paul]

They could screw up your life that way even before HTA172. How does having to fight a Criminal Code Dangerous Driving charge sound as an alternative?

I'll take that over a 172....at least with the crinal code...I get my day in court BEFORE being hit with storage fees and insurance increases.

On another note...enough with the insults, name calling, etc. If there can't be a civil discussion, there'd wil be bans.

 

[turbodish]

I'll take that over a 172....at least with the crinal code...I get my day in court BEFORE being hit with storage fees and insurance increases.

There is no insurance increase on a 7-day roadside license suspension.

More than a few hit with a DD have had their vehicles impounded on the spot, often just for a day or two, but some until the charges are dealt with in court. Either way, tow and storage charges apply. Some get driving prohibitions pending trial as a condition of release. Just because it's not automatic doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

There is no insurance increase on a 7-day roadside license suspension.

More than a few hit with a DD have had their vehicles impounded on the spot, often just for a day or two, but some until the charges are dealt with in court. Either way, tow and storage charges apply. Some get driving prohibitions pending trial as a condition of release. Just because it's not automatic doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

it's also the exception not the rule

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Some get driving prohibitions pending trial as a condition of release. Just because it's not automatic doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And who imposes the condition of release? Is it a cop? Is it a plane? Is it one of my dearest kitties (Fluffy, Buffy, Tabby or Spot)? Or is it a judge?

 

[jc100]

I still think people are missing the point...immediate removal of the item that is being used in a demonstrably dangerous or reckless fashion is the priority....the hardship of the individual who owns that item is secondary. I believe this is the real reason why you can't claim your constitutional rights over having your vehicle impounded.

All the other examples listed in the previous pages (be it matches, chainsaws, guns, knives) would have resulted in confiscation of the item before any further harm could happen and I doubt any of you would argue with them. It's common sense, to do otherwise is to invite serious problems.

The debate over what is the limit for this demonstrably dangerous or reckless use is really a separate one altogether. Right now, as it stands you know what happens when you get caught 50 over. It is widespread knowledge, all of you writing on this forum know it and can take steps to avoid it.

 

[turbodish]

And who imposes the condition of release? Is it a cop? Is it a plane? Is it one of my dearest kitties (Fluffy, Buffy, Tabby or Spot)? Or is it a judge?

It could be the cop who determines conditions of release if you're released immediately on your own recognizance. Then you would have to apply to a court to modify the release conditions, and that might take some time. In the meantime, you're not driving and storage charges continue to rack up.

If you're held in custody for a bail hearing, then you're looking at a judge deciding. Mind you, that could also take a bit of time to happen. In the meantime, you're not leaving jail so you're also not driving, and the storage charges continue to rack up while you wait.

 

[overlordjd]

My final words in this thread because the argument has been beaten to death with no change in anyone stance initially taken.
The only reason I would say those riders did the correct thing in stopping is because there was nowhere to go and the chopper was there.

You all know what can happen if you go 50 above while riding so just make a decision that you can live or die with. Either stop or don't.

Go ahead. Flame on:happy3:

Try to be safe out there. We do not need more people to become statistics for Turbo to use in furthering his agenda.

There must be another interesting thread on here

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Right now, as it stands you know what happens when you get caught 50 over.

The same thing as when your tires chirp for a half-second or you make a couple of lane changes in the span of 5 minutes or if a cop determines that you committed a thought-crime and believes that you intended to do something bad. Why only focus on the 50-over part?

It could be the cop who determines conditions of release if you're released immediately on your own recognizance. Then you would have to apply to a court to modify the release conditions, and that might take some time. In the meantime, you're not driving and storage charges continue to rack up.
If you're held in custody for a bail hearing, then you're looking at a judge deciding. Mind you, that could also take a bit of time to happen. In the meantime, you're not leaving jail so you're also not driving, and the storage charges continue to rack up while you wait.

If that's the actual case, it's scary, but I'd like to hear a better explanation from a reputable source and not a paid shill. And how many people were getting nailed with DD? I'll tell you this much.. No amount of turbocooked turbostats is going to convince me that it's anywhere near the number of people who got nailed for "street racing." This law lowered the bar of entry into the criminal world to inclue people who weren't harming or endangering anyone.

 

[jc100]

Either stop or don't.....or don't do whatever it is that gets you pulled over? There....fixed it for ya.

 

[redridernl]

I still think people are missing the point...immediate removal of the item that is being used in a demonstrably dangerous or reckless fashion is the priority....the hardship of the individual who owns that item is secondary. I believe this is the real reason why you can't claim your constitutional rights over having your vehicle impounded.

I don't care what anyone says... 150 kph on the highway doesn't deserve that type of punishment. It takes a little while to get there in/on some vehicles but others can reach that speed from a dead stop in roughly five seconds and be back down to 100 even faster. What's the harm if someone wants to blast by a transport truck in the blink of an eye rather than sit next to it hoping the driver sees you before he decides to change lanes? If you're driving/riding a CBR 125 or a 1989 Hyundai I can see 150 kph being a bit dangerous given the fact that you're pushing the car/bike beyond what it's made for.

 

[redridernl]

That whole lane changing thing is nuts and perfectly illustrates one of the biggest problems with 172. It's up to the cop, right there on the side of the road. They're just people, good and bad, like the rest of us.

 

[Shaman]

Mostly bad.

 

[redridernl]

Mostly bad.

The cops or the rest of us?

 

[EngineerJoe]

They could screw up your life that way even before HTA172. How does having to fight a Criminal Code Dangerous Driving charge sound as an alternative?

As long as it's fought in a court of law in front of a JP and with an officer of the court by my side, I'll take that over HTA 172.

 

[KrazyBones]

I still think people are missing the point...immediate removal of the item that is being used in a demonstrably dangerous or reckless fashion is the priority....the hardship of the individual who owns that item is secondary. I believe this is the real reason why you can't claim your constitutional rights over having your vehicle impounded.

All the other examples listed in the previous pages (be it matches, chainsaws, guns, knives) would have resulted in confiscation of the item before any further harm could happen and I doubt any of you would argue with them. It's common sense, to do otherwise is to invite serious problems.

The debate over what is the limit for this demonstrably dangerous or reckless use is really a separate one altogether. Right now, as it stands you know what happens when you get caught 50 over. It is widespread knowledge, all of you writing on this forum know it and can take steps to avoid it.

So what you are saying is if i get charged with a 50 over speeding ticket or careless driving for doing a wheele.... if my vehicle is not impounded i will right away wheele away from the cop while doing 50 over and keep riding "dangerously"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!

O no, he did a wheele... take his bike away for 7 days cause he will keep doing it all the way home even though we just gave him a ticket. Saying that "immediate removal of the item that is being used in a demonstrably dangerous or reckless fashion is the priority" is the most RETARDED argument for rodeside 172 iv ever heard

Bravo!!!!

 

[Griffin]

There is justification to linking a significant change in outcomes to the timing of a significant shock effect like greatly-toughened legislation. All the other things you speak of may have an effect as well, but those effects would be marginal and accumulate only gradually over time.

With respect to low fatalities following the implementation of tougher traffic laws, you can argue coincidence when it happens in one locale. However, now there are three locals implementing very similarly-toughened laws in vastly different parts of the country at different time intervals, and "coincidentally each has come out showing the drastic lowering of traffic fatalities in the immediate aftermath of their implementation.

Ontario implements in 2007, and fatalities plummet immediately afterwards.
Nova Scotia implements in 2008, and fatalties nose-dive.
BC implements in 2010, and fatalities nose-dive.

That's three for three with respect to aftermath results of a shock to the system. That certainly works in favour of the argument that each province's toughened traffic laws are indeed the prime instigator behind lowered fatality rates in each of those provinces. What other significant shocks happened in each of those provinces (and only in those provinces) at precisely the individual times of tough law implementation in each of those provinces? None that I'm aware of.

To demonstrate causality you need to:

1. State what outcomes 172 is trying to achieve
2. Determine that it is achieving those outcomes
3. Assess the affect of achieving those outcomes

So, let's say that 172 is trying to reduce speeds (I have no idea if that is its purpose because it makes nearly everything illegal so its hard to tell). Are speeds reduced after the implementation of 172? I have no idea. I have no access to empirical evidence that illustrates this. Do you? Let's assume that it is reducing speeds. Is that improving safety? You would need to demonstrate that accidents were caused by speeding (they aren't) and that the affect of reducing speeding reduced accidents (it didn't). But go ahead, show some objective analysis.

I could easily spout that the reduction in traffic fatalities and injuries (should there have been any because that hasn't been illustrated by any studies I've seen) is only related to the improvement in airbags, improved structural integrity of vehicles, removal of older vehicles from roadways, improvements in seatbelt technology, improved response capabilities of first responders resulting in mediation of victim injuries, removal of light standards from close vicinity to roadways, improved weather, worsened weather, price of gas, gravitational affect of the moon, etc. All are equally justified claims without establishing a causal relationship.

Police services have excelled at subjective use of statistics to improve support for their initiatives for many years. "Crime rates are going up, we need more money to combat crime." Or, "crime rates are going down, we need more money to support our programs because they work." Ring a bell? Isn't that what you've been doing claiming in one thread that HTA 172 is making the roads safer while claiming in another thread that motorcycle accidents are up?

 

[FiReSTaRT]

Good ol' turbo... I think he is trying to pull the same kinda turbosales pitch as what Lisa Simpson has been warning us about
[video=youtube;SdBn5G7Y2RA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA[/video]

Forum Sponsor