10 other ways to get a street racing or stunt driving ticket

[happycrappy]

Yep.

The sheep don't realize just how nefarious this law is (don't forget about officer discretion that makes them so powerful under this law)

What's even more disturbing is how the sheep just take it and as such this law is still on the books.

The erosion of our freedoms is happening right before our eyes and people just don't care.

Kinda hard to accept any argument against this law when considering the overwhelming silence when looking for the people fighting to have made the pre-existing laws stick, and not be plead-down daily in traffic court. This law is a direct result of that broken process. But hey, nobody on this forum is guilty of the "f the police, fight every charge" crowd....

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Kinda hard to accept any argument against this law when considering the overwhelming silence when looking for the people fighting to have made the pre-existing laws stick, and not be plead-down daily in traffic court. This law is a direct result of that broken process. But hey, nobody on this forum is guilty of the "f the police, fight every charge" crowd....

This law is the result of nothing but political opportunism and "governance by sound bite."

 

[Apollo95]

Yep.

The sheep don't realize just how nefarious this law is (don't forget about officer discretion that makes them so powerful under this law)

What's even more disturbing is how the sheep just take it and as such this law is still on the books.

The erosion of our freedoms is happening right before our eyes and people just don't care.

+1.

 

[happycrappy]

This law is the result of nothing but political opportunism and "governance by sound bite."

Sure it is, but the root cause remains the same - high profile incidents from the tard sector of the driving public, followed by an impotent court system, and voila, you get the big political hammer brought down. Can't help but think about testing bikes for noise infractions; take the dummies out of the equation, and the privileged neighborhoods and there is no problem at all. Half the laws out there exist because some twat pushed the envelope.

 

[Roomie]

The only opportunity the government cares about is making money. People were outraged so here comes this law. People are outraged by insurance rates here. You don't see them doing **** about that. Any law that's decided right there on the side of the road is ridiculous. I get it if you're caught doing outrageous speeds maybe issuing you a summons to court and a 24 hour impound but some cop playing judge at 2 am is based and unfair regardless of right or wrong actions by the accused.

 

[hedo2002]

172 was primarily borne out of the incident here in Richmond Hill where two young guys were racing on Yonge St, and hit a car with a couple who had been out celebrating their wedding anniversary. They were both killed the young driver survived the other car if memory serves me correctly fled, but was later caught.

The couple left behind a couple of young kids, without parents. This outraged the community so the local MPP, (Frank Klees), seized the opportunity, to get 172 brought in. It is a badly written law, (but then again most sections in the HTA are). Although it was reported, no one really picked up on the fact that the husband was impaired from the wine he had consumed at the celebration. Was that a contributing factor? Likely was a big part of it, but the media and the opportunistic media played down the impaired driver and played up the street racing angle.

There are/were already sections of the HTA and the CC of C to deal with all portions of 172. Unfortunately Happy is also right we got this law because the system was seen as being too lenient on the offenders so the politicians stepped in to "correct" this rather than go to the crown and the judiciary and demand they did their jobs and enforced the current laws.

 

[nfq]

172 was primarily borne out of the incident here in Richmond Hill where two young guys were racing on Yonge St, and hit a car with a couple who had been out celebrating their wedding anniversary. They were both killed the young driver survived the other car if memory serves me correctly fled, but was later caught.

The couple left behind a couple of young kids, without parents. This outraged the community so the local MPP, (Frank Klees), seized the opportunity, to get 172 brought in. It is a badly written law, (but then again most sections in the HTA are). Although it was reported, no one really picked up on the fact that the husband was impaired from the wine he had consumed at the celebration. Was that a contributing factor? Likely was a big part of it, but the media and the opportunistic media played down the impaired driver and played up the street racing angle.

There are/were already sections of the HTA and the CC of C to deal with all portions of 172. Unfortunately Happy is also right we got this law because the system was seen as being too lenient on the offenders so the politicians stepped in to "correct" this rather than go to the crown and the judiciary and demand they did their jobs and enforced the current laws.

Well said.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

172 was primarily borne out of the incident here in Richmond Hill where two young guys were racing on Yonge St, and hit a car with a couple who had been out celebrating their wedding anniversary. They were both killed the young driver survived the other car if memory serves me correctly fled, but was later caught.

The couple left behind a couple of young kids, without parents. This outraged the community so the local MPP, (Frank Klees), seized the opportunity, to get 172 brought in. It is a badly written law, (but then again most sections in the HTA are). Although it was reported, no one really picked up on the fact that the husband was impaired from the wine he had consumed at the celebration. Was that a contributing factor? Likely was a big part of it, but the media and the opportunistic media played down the impaired driver and played up the street racing angle.

There are/were already sections of the HTA and the CC of C to deal with all portions of 172. Unfortunately Happy is also right we got this law because the system was seen as being too lenient on the offenders so the politicians stepped in to "correct" this rather than go to the crown and the judiciary and demand they did their jobs and enforced the current laws.

There was also the incident involving two Mercedes racing on Mount Pleasant, in which a cab driver was killed. These were the two primary incidents that sparked the media fuelled outrage, that eventually resulted in the political opportunism of HTA 172.

In fact in both cases the drivers were charged with "dangerous operation causing death" under the Criminal Code. In the latter case the two drivers were convicted and sentenced to 12 months house arrest. In the former case one driver receive 2 years probation, an 18 month driving ban, a $2000.00 fine, and 100 hours of community service while the other was given a two years less a day conditional house arrest sentence with 3 additional years probation, a total of 200 hours community service, and a 5 year driving ban. Clearly the sentences didn't fit the crimes, but they fit the guidelines for first criminal offences.

 

[Icbones]

Well said.

The Manchesters had been out celebrating their 17th wedding anniversary at the time of the accident. The judge noted that Rob Manchester's blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit at the time of the accident. It was drunk driving that killed the Manchesters not street racing. There was so many lies and exaggerations regarding the speeds involved everyone that voted for this law should be fired. The real joke is that Michael Byrant was filmed talking about the how the cars of street racers will be crushed yet he himself killed a bicyclist and gets away without the inconvenience of a trial.

 

[JFD]

Am i the only one that doesn't feel threatened by this at all?

Mostly cuz i don't drive/ride like a dick....i would likely be ****** if i drove/rode on the edge of the law and would want the loopholes closed to protect my lawbreaking ***.

but thats' just me.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Am i the only one that doesn't feel threatened by this at all?

Mostly cuz i don't drive/ride like a dick....i would likely be ****** if i drove/rode on the edge of the law and would want the loopholes closed to protect my lawbreaking ***.

but thats' just me.

Just wait until you're in a 80 zone behind someone doing 70 and pull out to pass, then have the other driver be a dick and speed up to block you. One of the few successful challenges to HTA 172 involved just such a case in which a grandmother in a minivan, on Highway 7 around Madoc, was blocked from passing by a transport.

 

[griff2]

Am i the only one that doesn't feel threatened by this at all?

Mostly cuz i don't drive/ride like a dick....i would likely be ****** if i drove/rode on the edge of the law and would want the loopholes closed to protect my lawbreaking ***.

but thats' just me.

Nope, you're not the only one who does not feel threatened by this at all.

 

[happycrappy]

Just wait until you're in a 80 zone behind someone doing 70 and pull out to pass, then have the other driver be a dick and speed up to block you. One of the few successful challenges to HTA 172 involved just such a case in which a grandmother in a minivan, on Highway 7 around Madoc, was blocked from passing by a transport.

What an absolutely stupid anecdote. "Grandma in a minivan" does absolutely nothing to mitigate the speed component of the charge. You don't HAVE to pass anyone, but you DO have to have a grip on the speed you're doing. If you have such little space to pass that requires you hammer down to 50 k over the limit, then you're an idiot, plain and simple. So no, I don't feel threatened by this law.....

 

[Rob MacLennan]

What an absolutely stupid anecdote. "Grandma in a minivan" does absolutely nothing to mitigate the speed component of the charge. You don't HAVE to pass anyone, but you DO have to have a grip on the speed you're doing. If you have such little space to pass that requires you hammer down to 50 k over the limit, then you're an idiot, plain and simple. So no, I don't feel threatened by this law.....

When you're either going to hit the side of a transport, hit the cars behind it, or hit the oncoming traffic because some jackass is speeding up to stop you from passing then yes, you have to speed. Look up the case. It's the one that caused all of us to be permitted a "defence of due diligence" where the 50+ Kmh over the limit portion of HTA 172 is concerned.

 

[griff2]

Just wait until you're in a 80 zone behind someone doing 70 and pull out to pass, then have the other driver be a dick and speed up to block you. One of the few successful challenges to HTA 172 involved just such a case in which a grandmother in a minivan, on Highway 7 around Madoc, was blocked from passing by a transport.

Was she really blocked from passing or was that just an excuse? Just how fast can a tractor-trailer combo accelerate?

On April 29, 2008, the respondent was driving westbound on Highway 7, a two-lane highway. The speed limit was 80 kph. The respondent drove up behind a large tractor-trailer that was moving at about 90 kph. The respondent pulled out to pass the truck and while in the eastbound lane was recorded on radar travelling at 131 kph. She testified that as she attempted to pass the tractor-trailer, it seemed longer than it had when she pulled out into the passing lane. The respondent also testified that the truck seemed to pick up speed as she attempted to pass it. The respondent indicated that she became afraid, and sped up to get around the truck and back into the westbound lane.
​

Why wouldn't she just back off and slide back in behind the tractor-trailer or any other thing that might real or imagined "block" her from passing?

I'm sure more than a few people here have had the same happen where they had to abort a passing maneuver when the unexpected occurred.

 

[trebororr]

HTA 172 is a bad law for so many reasons: firstly the road-side vehicle seizure and road-side license suspension (administrative) circumvent the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Secondly the penalty for the activity is usually not in line with the activity. Travelling at 50 km/hr or more in a 40 km/hr residential zone is potentially very dangerous and must be dealt with severely but in other zones the same activity may not be as dangerous thereby not deserving the severe penalties which are given out.

HTA 172 was enacted to deal with road safety, but in reality drivers which are not charged with HTA 172 or Driving Under the Influence of Drugs/Alcohol collide with others at much more significant levels and it is these individuals which are causing the carnage on Ontario roads and yet their punishments are often inconsequential or sometime don't face any punishment at all.

 

[Ash]

50 over sounds reckless, but the average cruising speed on that area of highway 7 is around 100kph (the limit is 80). For a couple of years I was making weekly trips back and forth to Ottawa, and I frequently cruised through speed traps doing 110 where the cops didn't even bat an eye at me.

That particular section is (or at least was) one of the only good passing areas for 20 or 30 minutes in either direction, and since it is just one lane each way you really do want to make your pass quickly.

130 in an 80 does sound outrageous, but the limit on that road really should be 90 or 100, and the general lack of enforcement of the actual limit is an implicit endorsement of the de-facto limit. Its just when they do enforce the limit you will get really burned.

Things may be different on the enforcement front in that area now. I certainly don't do 50 over anymore

 

[Snobike Mike]

Am i the only one that doesn't feel threatened by this at all?

Mostly cuz i don't drive/ride like a dick....i would likely be ****** if i drove/rode on the edge of the law and would want the loopholes closed to protect my lawbreaking ***.

but thats' just me.

I see you're one of those that stands at the front of the line of people wanting to give up their rights and freedoms.........

If you want to give up your freedoms, be my guest. But please let me keep mine. Thanks!

 

[hedo2002]

Not arguing I also disagree with the roadside justice aspect of this law and the reasoning behind creating this law.

But you have lost what? The "freedom" to drive like a jackass at 50 Km/h over the limit? I would prefer that yes the authorities take your "freedom" away in such cases. After all it should be my "freedom and right" to not have to share the road with someone exercising their "freedom" in this manner. If one feels the need to exercize their "freedom" then I prefer they do so at a track or other such suitable facility.

I see you're one of those that stands at the front of the line of people wanting to give up their rights and freedoms.........

If you want to give up your freedoms, be my guest. But please let me keep mine. Thanks!

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Not arguing I also disagree with the roadside justice aspect of this law and the reasoning behind creating this law.

But you have lost what? The "freedom" to drive like a jackass at 50 Km/h over the limit? I would prefer that yes the authorities take your "freedom" away in such cases. After all it should be my "freedom and right" to not have to share the road with someone exercising their "freedom" in this manner. If one feels the need to exercize their "freedom" then I prefer they do so at a track or other such suitable facility.

The 'freedom' that is lost, is the freedom of being innocent until proved guilty, in a court of law. If the behaviour rises to the level of criminality then the police can charge the driver, criminally, and take him into custody. If not, it's then a matter for a court.

Was she really blocked from passing or was that just an excuse? Just how fast can a tractor-trailer combo accelerate?

On April 29, 2008, the respondent was driving westbound on Highway 7, a two-lane highway. The speed limit was 80 kph. The respondent drove up behind a large tractor-trailer that was moving at about 90 kph. The respondent pulled out to pass the truck and while in the eastbound lane was recorded on radar travelling at 131 kph. She testified that as she attempted to pass the tractor-trailer, it seemed longer than it had when she pulled out into the passing lane. The respondent also testified that the truck seemed to pick up speed as she attempted to pass it. The respondent indicated that she became afraid, and sped up to get around the truck and back into the westbound lane.
​

Why wouldn't she just back off and slide back in behind the tractor-trailer or any other thing that might real or imagined "block" her from passing?

I'm sure more than a few people here have had the same happen where they had to abort a passing maneuver when the unexpected occurred.

You're missing the point. It was her right to argue that point, in a court of law. HTA 172 created Criminal Code level repercussions, from Provincial Offences Act charges. The concept of "defence of due diligence" MUST be provided, in cases in which imprisonment is a possible penalty. This case cemented that concept.