Wrong, two courts have ruled in unconsitutional.
In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Wrong, two courts have ruled in unconsitutional.
And yet Ontario has the safest roads in North America, even better than almost all of Europe, Germany included. Only the Netherlands and Sweden are even close. That kind of puts your theory deep into the toilet.
Two lower courts, both at the same level. Their rulings were overturned by the Court of Appeal, in effect nullifying their rulings.
We have good infrastructure and road quality, reasonable speed limits, and in general decent enforcement of laws.
Certainly the safety isn't attributed to HTA172 or roadside suspensions/seizures.
Until that gets overturned making that ruling null and void.
Reasonable speed limits? Not according to shaman who claims that "every credible study says that limiting speeds to the ones we find on Ontario roads cause accidents, not prevent them".
OpenGambit
Banned
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. This is pretty much a dead issue imo.
Why?
They're reasonable but they could be better. I certainly wouldn't oppose a 10-20kmh hike for the 400 series highways. As far as city and municipal roadways I think they're generally good. The odd country highway could probably use a bump up to 100 but those are few and far between.
why is everyone in such a hurry?
Lunch.
Shaman
Well-known member
Let's see... I have already cited some of the studies. Turbodish as usual ignored them, because they don't suit his agenda. They're out there, however.
Virtually nobody in Ontario follows the speed limits, as they're idiotic. Yet we have some of the safest roads. So why do we keep slowing them down and decrying how speed kills when the average speed is 20km/h over the posted limit? It's well understood, I drive past cops every day at 20 over and don't even flinch anymore, because I know they won't even look at me. That's idiocy. But then in comes turbodish with his holier-than-thou proclamations about how speed kills and we ought to slow things down even more, while handing out brutal punishment for breaking the law................... ignoring that nobody follows the law in the first place, because it's lunacy.
You want to see bedlam and deaths on the road, just slow it down another 20km/h where all the drivers will bunch up together. Proximity is the problem, and the studies are pretty clear on that. The speed directly relates to the congestion of a given road... the lower the speed, the more congestion and the more accidents. But go on arguing black is white, it's what you like to do... or more likely, just ignore my post or demand that I spend hours once again citing my sources...
Virtually nobody in Ontario follows the speed limits, as they're idiotic. Yet we have some of the safest roads. So why do we keep slowing them down and decrying how speed kills when the average speed is 20km/h over the posted limit? It's well understood, I drive past cops every day at 20 over and don't even flinch anymore, because I know they won't even look at me. That's idiocy. But then in comes turbodish with his holier-than-thou proclamations about how speed kills and we ought to slow things down even more, while handing out brutal punishment for breaking the law................... ignoring that nobody follows the law in the first place, because it's lunacy.
You want to see bedlam and deaths on the road, just slow it down another 20km/h where all the drivers will bunch up together. Proximity is the problem, and the studies are pretty clear on that. The speed directly relates to the congestion of a given road... the lower the speed, the more congestion and the more accidents. But go on arguing black is white, it's what you like to do... or more likely, just ignore my post or demand that I spend hours once again citing my sources...
Last edited:
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
that cop sounds like he is watching his favorite gay porn
I doubt it will.
The constitutional challenges hinged on HTA172 having 6 months in jail as a potential penalty, and with it being perceived as an absolute liability offence the same as speeding. The Court of Appeal knocked that peg out when they ruled that HTA172 was a strict liability offence that permitted an accused to mount of possible defence of due diligence, and that therefore HTA172 was constitutionally acceptable per those grounds.
The only other possible challenge would hinge on roadside administrative suspension and impound prior to trial, but the provincial right to impose such administrative measures in matters of provincial regulation (transportation as per powers granted to provinces under the British North America Act, aka the Canadian Constitution) was affirmed in back in 1999 in Horsefield v Registrar of Motor Vehicles Ontario http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1999/1999canlii2023/1999canlii2023.pdf
Unless you can think of another avenue in which to attack the constitutionality of HTA172, I think that ship has long since sailed.
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
So a violation of our rights is ok so long as we abide by a government mandated "safe" limit?
And we're not just talking about speed here, have you looked at all aspects of 172? If I fishtail my Jeep (short wheelbase + no weight in the back + torque happy straight 6 engine with plenty of gearing + tires with no siping = very easy to do, especially in the rain) and a cop deems it to be me "stunting" when it's actually me temporarily losing (and quickly regaining) control, there goes my vehicle and license for a week. I know the roads around my area somewhat well so I know where I should be extra light on the gas, but not everybody knows this, and I'm sure there are some very slippery roads of which I am not aware.
The limits are artificial. The de facto limit is ~120 on the 400 series highway. It could be argued that lowering the posted limits to 80 would make the de facto limit 100. Conversly, raising the posted limits to 120 could potentially raise the de facto limit to 140, but that's up to enforcement. Also, I firmly believe that around the 130-140 mark most common people start to get a little uncomfortable in traffic. I don't believe that a 20kmh increase in posted limits on 400 series highways would necessarily result in everyone going 140.
OpenGambit
Banned
I don't really feel like rehashing an entire constitutional law class on this. But there really is no good Charter argument against section 172 in light of the OCA's determination that it is not an absolute liability offence.
Control your vehicle then, or change your tires to ones more suitable for street use, or get a different vehicle that you can control..
And read up on http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1999/1999canlii2023/1999canlii2023.pdf and http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca206/2010onca206.pdf for "rights" issues.
OpenGambit
Banned
This is really unlikely, the law is clearly not meant to apply to that situation. I mean sure you can say a cop can make it up but that would apply to any offence HTA or otherwise.
I'm far from a fan of HTA172 but your argument is relatively lousy. You'd be hard pressed to find a cop who would slap 172 on you for accidentally swinging the back end of your Jeep out in the rain.
The more compelling argument is falsely being tagged by radar. I got falsely slapped with a 39-over years ago and it left me sour. I wasn't even going 10 over the limit but the cop's radar caught the car which was passing me on my left. The guy saw the speed trap and slowed down drastically and fell in behind me. The cop pulled me over instead. Had the guy been doing 50+ I would've unjustly lost my car and licence for a week.
This kinda stuff happens and is the reason we shouldn't allow roadside convictions.
