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

[KrazyBones]

Forum Sponsor

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]

lol like every other knee jerk reactionary law.

 

[OpenGambit]

Don't you think that some of you are overselling the point? I mean... suggesting that you would rather have a dangerous driving charge over a HTA 172 is completely bonkers to me...


I don't get that at all.

Also, if you even think for one second that a Dangerous driving charge would cost you less than a HTA 172... You are beyond help.

 

[OpenGambit]

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?

This is the stated objective from the Govt


Ontario’s roads are among the safest in North America. Our roads and highways will be even safer through Bill 203, which targets drinking drivers and street racers. This legislation:

• Increases fines for street racers and aggressive drivers, including those who drive 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, to $10,000 and allows police to immediately suspend the driver’s licence and impound the vehicle for seven days;
• Better protects law enforcement in the line of duty by adding new blue flashing lights to police vehicles to increase visibility;
• Creates escalating sanctions for repeat drinking drivers with Blood Alcohol Concentration measuring 0.05 to 0.08 and;
• Allows drivers who are suspended for drinking and driving to get their licences back early if they install an ignition interlock device in their vehicle.

 

[OpenGambit]

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.

Err Bail hearings should be within the next day. in Toronto, its pretty unlikely to have it be longer than that.

 

[turbodish]

Err Bail hearings should be within the next day. in Toronto, its pretty unlikely to have it be longer than that.

Should be, not always. Long weekends can interfere. Heavy docket loads can interfere. Being remanded in custody for whatever reason can interfere with release. Also, let's not forget that "in Toronto" is a very small part of the province. Remote areas have their own special problems.

 

[turbodish]

Don't you think that some of you are overselling the point? I mean... suggesting that you would rather have a dangerous driving charge over a HTA 172 is completely bonkers to me...

I agree. I'd rather have the heavy charge off the table right from the outset rather than gamble that I "might" be able to beat it later. If I bet wrong, well, some moves just can't be taken back.

 

[Metastable]

Anybody have a sore head yet?

As far as fatalities dropping in Ontario:
- 2008 recession
- 2008 one of the wettest summers ever, especially on weekends
- Gas prices started to increase
- There was a downward trend on fatalities anyway

Can you say 172 did anything? I really DO NOT SEE how it could have done squat, when most fatal accidents are people doing less than 50 over anyway.

As far as a vehicle impound..... it is different with a drunk driver, because THEY PHYSICALLY CAN'T OPERATE the vehicle properly.... so yes, the vehicle should be impounded or if there is someone that is sober, than they can drive.

If it is OK to impound a vehicle and the person is not FOUND GUILTY IN COURT of committing a 172 infraction, then ALL MONIES related to towing, storage, licence suspension and extra for hardship of having to go through that should be given back to the individual charged. I don't care if they plead down... if they don't get the full nine yards, they get compensated. Now you can say that even though they plea down, it doesn't mean they were not originally guilty. Well too bad.... either they did it or they didn't. If they court is satisfied they didn't then compensate.

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a JP doing 172 cases... it should be someone who graduated from a LAW SCHOOL. I mean geez, something that has repercussions that can be extremely severe shouldn't be handled by an individual who potentially has no LEGAL education. That's a travesty!

How many JPs actually know the difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability?

 

[Paul]

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.

How much do they charge for storage of these items??

 

[OpenGambit]

Should be, not always. Long weekends can interfere. Heavy docket loads can interfere. Being remanded in custody for whatever reason can interfere with release. Also, let's not forget that "in Toronto" is a very small part of the province. Remote areas have their own special problems.

I figured this was "GTA" motorcycle so I mean I am clearly speaking to the majority? Realistically for any one of us, its within 24 hrs, while your post is not technically wrong, it didn't really give the right information on what to expect from waiting for a bail hearing.

 

[OpenGambit]

Furthermore, it shouldn't be a JP doing 172 cases... it should be someone who graduated from a LAW SCHOOL. I mean geez, something that has repercussions that can be extremely severe shouldn't be handled by an individual who potentially has no education. That's a travesty!

How many JPs actually know the difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability?

If you can figure it out. I would assume they can too. JPs aren't uneducated people, they aren't lawyers but they aren't bums ok.

I will also point out that costs are not part of criminal law. If you really think that an accused should automatically be compensated when being found not guilty, do you also support the idea that a guilty party can be forced to pay the Crown's costs, court fees, police investigation charges? so on?
The sheer amount of coercion at work there would create a huge chilling effect that would undermine the legitimacy of the justice system.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

If you can figure it out. I would assume they can too. JPs aren't uneducated people, they aren't lawyers but they aren't bums ok.

There are no educational requirements to be a JP. You literally could be a bum off the street as long as you know the right people. In one case, I know of a secretary who inherited a retiring JP's job and she sure as hell didn't have her BA/B.Sc./B.Eng/B.Whatever, but who knows, she might have had a Masters in B.On.Your.Knees

 

[Metastable]

If you can figure it out. I would assume they can too. JPs aren't uneducated people, they aren't lawyers but they aren't bums ok.

I will also point out that costs are not part of criminal law. If you really think that an accused should automatically be compensated when being found not guilty, do you also support the idea that a guilty party can be forced to pay the Crown's costs, court fees, police investigation charges? so on?
The sheer amount of coercion at work there would create a huge chilling effect that would undermine the legitimacy of the justice system.

Even though I am not a lawyer, as a part of my profession I had to take a Law Exam at least. That's more than can be said for most JPs.

To clarify, I'm not knocking on the JPs or the way courts do things now. I'm SPECIFICALLY saying that for HTA 172 charges, there should be a judge and if the charge doesn't stick, the individual should be compensated for it. Don't you think that's fair? I'd like to take it a step further... IMO the officer who laid the charged should cover a certain $ figure. Maybe that way they'd think twice about handing out a frivolous 172 charge. But hey, I know that won't happen.... so I say we at least compensate those who should be compensated. I mean if a cop who might be a little ignorant about the law applies (through no malice) an unwarranted 172 charge to you, are you OK with "sucking it up" for the greater good? You probably know that getting those monies back are nearly impossible.... regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Even though I am not a lawyer, as a part of my profession I had to take a Law Exam at least. That's more than can be said by most JPs.

To clarify, I'm not knocking on the JPs or the way courts do things now. I'm saying SPECIFICALLY saying that for HTA 172 charges, there should be a judge and if the charge doesn't stick, the individual should be compensated for it. Don't you think that's fair? I'd like to take it a step further... IMO the officer who laid the charged should cover a certain $ figure. Maybe that way they'd think twice about handing out a frivolous 172 charge. But hey, I know that won't happen.... so I say we at least compensate those who should be compensated. I mean if a cop who might be a little ignorant about the law applies (through no malice) an unwarranted 172 charge to you, are you OK with "sucking it up" for the greater good? You probably know that getting those monies back are nearly impossible.... regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

the only time i've seen the fees and costs reimbursed is mahony-bruer (or how ever you spell his name). I do know of a case where a rider was charged with stunting for standing on pegs, he was directed to the letter in the law section (it really should be a sticky) and his charge was dropped but he was still on the hook for the tow and storage fees due to an over zealous cop (it would have been interesting had that gone to trial and had presented the letter from the minister as evidence...

 

[jc100]

How much do they charge for storage of these items??

Again, incidental. Wouldn't matter if it was a telephone pole, a back hoe, etc etc.....

Krazy..I'm sorry you don't get it. Retarded or not..that's the way it is and the majority seem to be quite happy with it. Like I say, if you don't like it I'm sure there's a country with no harsh penalties for speeding excessively (I mean there must be if this is such a victimless crime right??). Oh wait....maybe there's not. Hmm.......

 

[KrazyBones]

Don't you think that some of you are overselling the point? I mean... suggesting that you would rather have a dangerous driving charge over a HTA 172 is completely bonkers to me...


I don't get that at all.

Also, if you even think for one second that a Dangerous driving charge would cost you less than a HTA 172... You are beyond help.

You are looking at it wrong. 172 =/= dangerous driving/fleeing

as 99% of the time if you know what you are doing you will not be caught

 

[KrazyBones]

If you can figure it out. I would assume they can too. JPs aren't uneducated people, they aren't lawyers but they aren't bums ok.

I will also point out that costs are not part of criminal law. If you really think that an accused should automatically be compensated when being found not guilty, do you also support the idea that a guilty party can be forced to pay the Crown's costs, court fees, police investigation charges? so on?
The sheer amount of coercion at work there would create a huge chilling effect that would undermine the legitimacy of the justice system.

You know that a lot of the JPs have only a HIGHSCHOOL degree right?

 

[KrazyBones]

Again, incidental. Wouldn't matter if it was a telephone pole, a back hoe, etc etc.....

Krazy..I'm sorry you don't get it. Retarded or not..that's the way it is and the majority seem to be quite happy with it. Like I say, if you don't like it I'm sure there's a country with no harsh penalties for speeding excessively (I mean there must be if this is such a victimless crime right??). Oh wait....maybe there's not. Hmm.......

Yes you are happy with it so the majority is happy with it. 99% of the population doesn't care one way or the other. Not until they or their children get their car taken away.

 

[OpenGambit]

You know that a lot of the JPs have only a HIGHSCHOOL degree right?

Are you telling me that JPs can't understand the simple concept that a due diligence defence applies to HTA 172. I don't care what degree they have, you don't need a degree to get that.

No **** that HTA 172 is not dangerous driving, because its nothing even close to dangerous driving in terms of the ability to destroy your life. The people that said that they would rather get charged with dangerous driving than HTA 172 have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[OpenGambit]

Even though I am not a lawyer, as a part of my profession I had to take a Law Exam at least. That's more than can be said for most JPs.

To clarify, I'm not knocking on the JPs or the way courts do things now. I'm SPECIFICALLY saying that for HTA 172 charges, there should be a judge and if the charge doesn't stick, the individual should be compensated for it. Don't you think that's fair? I'd like to take it a step further... IMO the officer who laid the charged should cover a certain $ figure. Maybe that way they'd think twice about handing out a frivolous 172 charge. But hey, I know that won't happen.... so I say we at least compensate those who should be compensated. I mean if a cop who might be a little ignorant about the law applies (through no malice) an unwarranted 172 charge to you, are you OK with "sucking it up" for the greater good? You probably know that getting those monies back are nearly impossible.... regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

You know it wont happen, there is no legal basis to support that. Our cops aren't like commission salesman that get a cut off every conviction but have to give that commission back when the person gets acquitted.

and No, I don't think its fair to compensate people for 172s in particular. in comparision to other charges, 172 is a super light offence, its not even in the criminal code. You might get some support from me for compensation for a charge like... child abuse or sexual assault or murder.. things that have huge penalties and high stigma. the legal system has better things to do than to hand out a few hundred bucks here and there.

 

[Griffin]

This is the stated objective from the Govt


Ontario’s roads are among the safest in North America. Our roads and highways will be even safer through Bill 203, which targets drinking drivers and street racers. This legislation:

• Increases fines for street racers and aggressive drivers, including those who drive 50 km/h or more over the posted speed limit, to $10,000 and allows police to immediately suspend the driver’s licence and impound the vehicle for seven days;
• Better protects law enforcement in the line of duty by adding new blue flashing lights to police vehicles to increase visibility;
• Creates escalating sanctions for repeat drinking drivers with Blood Alcohol Concentration measuring 0.05 to 0.08 and;
• Allows drivers who are suspended for drinking and driving to get their licences back early if they install an ignition interlock device in their vehicle.

Interesting to note that NONE of those objectives is to improve safety on the highways. Just look at the first objective. It is to increase fines. Okay, so they achieved that. They apparantly weren't even trying to reduce speeding, just increase fines. Crazy stuff.

Forum Sponsor