G
gullyfourmyle
Guest
First of all to answer Pete E's statement about the motorcycle helmets - That law exists because a friend of mine; Ian Walters, was killed in a gruesome motorcycle accident at Jane St. and Sheppard Ave. back in the late sixties, early seventies if memory serves me correctly. His father went on a crusade that was taken seriously by governments all over the world.
Motorcyclists objected vehemently. One friend of mine received eight helmet infraction tickets along with further charges due to several police chases through backyards all on the same day.
The reality is that even today, there has still not been a helmet invented that would have saved Ian. But his death did highlight the need for helmets - not just on motorcycles but plenty of other sports too. There are lots of statictics to support the validity of the legislation.
By contrast, the street racing legislation has no statistics to support the legislation and the speeding offences also don't have the statistics to support them. It turns out that speeding is only a minor issue when the total motor vehicle accident picture is looked at and street racing is a microscopic fraction of that.
Street racing and speeding tickets are about collecting revenue, not saving lives. If the legislation were intended to save lives, it would have been written completely differently.
As mentioned earlier, the legislation was passed on a fraudulent basis. As far as I know, only seven members of the legislature voted against it. One of those was apparently Howard Hampton - showing once again that he is one of the few public figures that uses his head for something useful besides holding up a hat - thinking.
As for putting a piece together to bring the media to us, I've initiated that with a retired OPP officer who is now a paralegal. We are going to produce a YouTube documentary on the subject.
The hiccup at the moment is getting the rest of the information out of the Ministry of Transport. They don't want to cough up.
On another note, those of you who bought my book and have read it know that I make a connection between nutrition and motor vehicle accidents. That information although theory, is agreed to by the Police and the Chief coroner's office. Last night I came across information in the form of meticulously recorded industrial data that will confirm my theory to the nth degree.
Part of that theory is that coffee and/or sugar consumption holds the unofficial title of the number one killer in vehicular and industrial accidents - not alcohol.
That is not a finding that most people want to even think about. But since most people eat dangerous simple sugar diets instead of healthy complex sugar diets, most people are at risk as their pancreas deteriorates over time. This is not rocket science and any doctor will tell you that when you abuse your pancreas with the typical western diet, sooner or later, you are going to pay a horriblie price one way or another.
You start with intermittent hypo or hyper glycemia. That escalates to diabetes. It's all explained in my book. This physiological downside of the typical diet is not something anyone but me has ever talked about in terms of accidents but there are no doctors who disagree with me despite the so far unpublished data.
It turns out that large companies keep records of when accidents happen. They also have records of what their employees eat to a compelling degree because of in-house vending machines that sell nothing but nutritionally injurious foods.
The records indicate that accidents happen shortly before breaks and lunch - in other words; when blood sugar is low.
Those of you who work for large companies and have access to these records can check the data for yourselves. You may even want to look at it in terms of improving your company's health and safety records since every accident shows up on the profit and loss statement. Correcting nutritional intake costs nothing by comparison with the impact of even minor accidents.
The provincial government has never given a single thought to the fact that accidents could be related to nutrition. Poor nutrition translates into drowsiness, inattention and driver distraction - especially eating and drinking while driving - and usually all the wrong stuff.
Pete E's position is easy to understand and I've come across it a lot - especially at vintage car shows. These people have been conditioned to believe that the government always acts for our best interest and that the laws are made to protect us from ourselves. That has never been the main intent of Canadian legislation. Canadian legislation has, from the outset been all about facilitating business. Public safety is a front that justifies the doing of business. Scrutiny of the actual legislation, any legislation, reveals the truth of that.
Here in Pickering we have the Seaton Land Deal. My research has shown conclusively that deal was conducted by the Ontario government on a faudulent basis. I've had it investigated by the RCMP. The investigation was shut down without explanation. You have to have a pretty compelling argument before the RCMP will take on a case of this nature. The amount of money involved all told amounts to 20 Billion dollars. There is a huge public safety factor involved that will see 100% of the eastern GTA population intentionally chemically injured beyond the prevailing levels at the time. I explained that in detail to the then Environment Minister, Larel Broten, Housing Minister John Gerettsen and Premier McGuinty via a book I wrote titled Land Grab in North Pickering. That was followed up with letters to the Minister. The science is beyone dispute and the Criminal Code offences are as well. But the "Honourable" Minister steered clear of any reference to either in her responses.
Anyone who has read my book, Abuse of Power know how detailed my work is. The Seaton Land work was at least of the same calibre. The Seaton Land issue is for me an on-going situation. It's similar to the street racing thing in that the media doesn't want to go there either. When I ran for Mayor of Pickering and started talking about the fraud, the media blacked out my campaign right across the GTA and thereby tampered with it. When I went to the police, they invented new meanings key words in the Ontario Election Act and refuse to investigate on that basis. It's all documented.
So for anyone to tell me that I should unquestioningly obey the law, well, experience and research have shown that doing so is not necessarily in anyone's best interest. If you have concerns, it's always best to check. Frequently, what you thought was the law is something entirely different. That is the case with Pete E. He thinks the law says something but the language does not mean what he thinks it does.
People who think like Pete E are the people most commonly charged under Section 172. That is a fact.
And as for the law, the street racing legislation was not enacted properly as required by Section 33.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the law is not really the law. It is without effect and in its language overreaches in that it creates other problems that have as much or greater negative impact on society than the benefits the law was supposed to confer. That contravenes the constitution in a number of important ways, some of which can not be made public yet.
So Pete E, I do understand where you are coming from but your basis for making your comments are totally irrelevant - something like complaining about nitrous in funny cars on a motorcycle forum.
If you really want to understand what's going on, buy the book.
The speed limit is a seperate issue. All speed limits are set to enusure the clumsiest, most ungainly vehicles on the road can do so in a safe manner even when conditions are not optimal. They are not set with cars or motorcycles in mind. Consequently, any competent driver of a car, light truck or motorcycle should be more than capable of travelling much faster than the posted speed limit on all but the sharpest corners.
As for the comment about whether or not I or anyone else is smarter than the legislators - the reality is that legislators don't pass an IQ test to get elected. They pass a popularity contest called an election. You don't have to be intellectually gifted to achieve that.
The Hansard of the 3rd Reading of the street racing legislation shows for all time that the sitting members of the Ontario legislature are endowed with average intelligence that is tempered with an acute persecution complex. The street racing legislation was a knee jerk circus with none of the participants learning anything of value from the exercise. They started with misconceptions and finished with those same misconceptions. Lots of effort went into understanding the issue but no effort was expended in analysing the data that the govenment already had at its disposal to ferret out the truth. Instead, they relied on apparently doctored information supplied by the OPP - none of which stands up to critical public scrutiny.
In addition, there were several other avenues of research that could and should have been identified and included in the final work that were not identified at all because the members of the standing committee charged with doing the work of writing the legislation didn't know enough about the subject matter to ask the right questions. It was exactly like asking a caveman to write a thesis about the internet. At the end of it neither the caveman nor the legislators could have the faintest idea of what they had just done.
As for tickets - I have none and my insurance is very low. While I do have reasons for my investigations, they as I've noted before are related to another book I wrote - 'The Rebel Machine Identity - the evolution of a car nut'.
I started my investigation as an armchair exercise. It grew out of proportion as I found evidence of government criminal code offences and grew from there. If you had done the research yourself, you might be writing this instead of me.
Motorcyclists objected vehemently. One friend of mine received eight helmet infraction tickets along with further charges due to several police chases through backyards all on the same day.
The reality is that even today, there has still not been a helmet invented that would have saved Ian. But his death did highlight the need for helmets - not just on motorcycles but plenty of other sports too. There are lots of statictics to support the validity of the legislation.
By contrast, the street racing legislation has no statistics to support the legislation and the speeding offences also don't have the statistics to support them. It turns out that speeding is only a minor issue when the total motor vehicle accident picture is looked at and street racing is a microscopic fraction of that.
Street racing and speeding tickets are about collecting revenue, not saving lives. If the legislation were intended to save lives, it would have been written completely differently.
As mentioned earlier, the legislation was passed on a fraudulent basis. As far as I know, only seven members of the legislature voted against it. One of those was apparently Howard Hampton - showing once again that he is one of the few public figures that uses his head for something useful besides holding up a hat - thinking.
As for putting a piece together to bring the media to us, I've initiated that with a retired OPP officer who is now a paralegal. We are going to produce a YouTube documentary on the subject.
The hiccup at the moment is getting the rest of the information out of the Ministry of Transport. They don't want to cough up.
On another note, those of you who bought my book and have read it know that I make a connection between nutrition and motor vehicle accidents. That information although theory, is agreed to by the Police and the Chief coroner's office. Last night I came across information in the form of meticulously recorded industrial data that will confirm my theory to the nth degree.
Part of that theory is that coffee and/or sugar consumption holds the unofficial title of the number one killer in vehicular and industrial accidents - not alcohol.
That is not a finding that most people want to even think about. But since most people eat dangerous simple sugar diets instead of healthy complex sugar diets, most people are at risk as their pancreas deteriorates over time. This is not rocket science and any doctor will tell you that when you abuse your pancreas with the typical western diet, sooner or later, you are going to pay a horriblie price one way or another.
You start with intermittent hypo or hyper glycemia. That escalates to diabetes. It's all explained in my book. This physiological downside of the typical diet is not something anyone but me has ever talked about in terms of accidents but there are no doctors who disagree with me despite the so far unpublished data.
It turns out that large companies keep records of when accidents happen. They also have records of what their employees eat to a compelling degree because of in-house vending machines that sell nothing but nutritionally injurious foods.
The records indicate that accidents happen shortly before breaks and lunch - in other words; when blood sugar is low.
Those of you who work for large companies and have access to these records can check the data for yourselves. You may even want to look at it in terms of improving your company's health and safety records since every accident shows up on the profit and loss statement. Correcting nutritional intake costs nothing by comparison with the impact of even minor accidents.
The provincial government has never given a single thought to the fact that accidents could be related to nutrition. Poor nutrition translates into drowsiness, inattention and driver distraction - especially eating and drinking while driving - and usually all the wrong stuff.
Pete E's position is easy to understand and I've come across it a lot - especially at vintage car shows. These people have been conditioned to believe that the government always acts for our best interest and that the laws are made to protect us from ourselves. That has never been the main intent of Canadian legislation. Canadian legislation has, from the outset been all about facilitating business. Public safety is a front that justifies the doing of business. Scrutiny of the actual legislation, any legislation, reveals the truth of that.
Here in Pickering we have the Seaton Land Deal. My research has shown conclusively that deal was conducted by the Ontario government on a faudulent basis. I've had it investigated by the RCMP. The investigation was shut down without explanation. You have to have a pretty compelling argument before the RCMP will take on a case of this nature. The amount of money involved all told amounts to 20 Billion dollars. There is a huge public safety factor involved that will see 100% of the eastern GTA population intentionally chemically injured beyond the prevailing levels at the time. I explained that in detail to the then Environment Minister, Larel Broten, Housing Minister John Gerettsen and Premier McGuinty via a book I wrote titled Land Grab in North Pickering. That was followed up with letters to the Minister. The science is beyone dispute and the Criminal Code offences are as well. But the "Honourable" Minister steered clear of any reference to either in her responses.
Anyone who has read my book, Abuse of Power know how detailed my work is. The Seaton Land work was at least of the same calibre. The Seaton Land issue is for me an on-going situation. It's similar to the street racing thing in that the media doesn't want to go there either. When I ran for Mayor of Pickering and started talking about the fraud, the media blacked out my campaign right across the GTA and thereby tampered with it. When I went to the police, they invented new meanings key words in the Ontario Election Act and refuse to investigate on that basis. It's all documented.
So for anyone to tell me that I should unquestioningly obey the law, well, experience and research have shown that doing so is not necessarily in anyone's best interest. If you have concerns, it's always best to check. Frequently, what you thought was the law is something entirely different. That is the case with Pete E. He thinks the law says something but the language does not mean what he thinks it does.
People who think like Pete E are the people most commonly charged under Section 172. That is a fact.
And as for the law, the street racing legislation was not enacted properly as required by Section 33.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the law is not really the law. It is without effect and in its language overreaches in that it creates other problems that have as much or greater negative impact on society than the benefits the law was supposed to confer. That contravenes the constitution in a number of important ways, some of which can not be made public yet.
So Pete E, I do understand where you are coming from but your basis for making your comments are totally irrelevant - something like complaining about nitrous in funny cars on a motorcycle forum.
If you really want to understand what's going on, buy the book.
The speed limit is a seperate issue. All speed limits are set to enusure the clumsiest, most ungainly vehicles on the road can do so in a safe manner even when conditions are not optimal. They are not set with cars or motorcycles in mind. Consequently, any competent driver of a car, light truck or motorcycle should be more than capable of travelling much faster than the posted speed limit on all but the sharpest corners.
As for the comment about whether or not I or anyone else is smarter than the legislators - the reality is that legislators don't pass an IQ test to get elected. They pass a popularity contest called an election. You don't have to be intellectually gifted to achieve that.
The Hansard of the 3rd Reading of the street racing legislation shows for all time that the sitting members of the Ontario legislature are endowed with average intelligence that is tempered with an acute persecution complex. The street racing legislation was a knee jerk circus with none of the participants learning anything of value from the exercise. They started with misconceptions and finished with those same misconceptions. Lots of effort went into understanding the issue but no effort was expended in analysing the data that the govenment already had at its disposal to ferret out the truth. Instead, they relied on apparently doctored information supplied by the OPP - none of which stands up to critical public scrutiny.
In addition, there were several other avenues of research that could and should have been identified and included in the final work that were not identified at all because the members of the standing committee charged with doing the work of writing the legislation didn't know enough about the subject matter to ask the right questions. It was exactly like asking a caveman to write a thesis about the internet. At the end of it neither the caveman nor the legislators could have the faintest idea of what they had just done.
As for tickets - I have none and my insurance is very low. While I do have reasons for my investigations, they as I've noted before are related to another book I wrote - 'The Rebel Machine Identity - the evolution of a car nut'.
I started my investigation as an armchair exercise. It grew out of proportion as I found evidence of government criminal code offences and grew from there. If you had done the research yourself, you might be writing this instead of me.
Plus his track bike is one of SMALL displacement... so I'll tell you..... he doesn't really care about straight line speed.
