Did you friend not go to court to recover is fees?
|
|
|
New Stunting Penalties + E-Bike regulations incoming(?)
- Thread starter MaksTO
- Start date
Priller
Well-known member
No, though I'm not 100% certain as to why. My vague memory is they would have had to sue the VPD directly, who were going to fight it tooth and nail to avoid setting a precedent as well as opening a can of worms about other convictions being tossed. He was already in for close to $30k, and it would've taken a lot more than that in a legal system already protective of the police. I seem to recall his lawyer was reluctant to go down that path...
Boggle.
stunting - wheelie, stoppie, sliding, standing on pegs, etc.
50km/ over - self explanatory
same HTA violation, same charges.
uh yeah, get a good lawyer, this will bury your driving record.
Is riding while standing on the pegs considered a stunting charge???? Jesus... I constantly do that in traffic to see ahead.... F***!!!!!
I stand when I cross the rails to save my bum from beating
justride
Well-known member
75% don't get convicted? On what legal grounds?
Most plead down. They get a conviction but not a 172 conviction so the roadside lynching was unjustified. Let's be honest, most crown attorneys in traffic court are marginal. Many parts of 172 are much harder to prove in court than a straight reading from a laser. There's a reason they double ticket for speeding and 172 when they lay it. They know the odds of 172 sticking in court are bad.
Exactly. IIRC there was an opinion letter from a JP that said standing on the pegs is not considered stunting but that doesnt mean the cop at the side of the road doesnt feel differently and he is judge, jury and executioner.
Priller
Well-known member
To be fair, to my buddy, the whole thing was boggle. He's about as straightlaced as it gets, works in insurance (group, not vehicle), and plays by the rules across the board. Queens grad, wears executive glasses and has a haircut that's high and tight. This was a first experience where the system had entirely failed him, and he wasn't going to go down without a fight.
I do think there's a cozy business in traffic court between prosecutors, cops and the various folks who make a living on the defense side, whether lawyers, paralegals, or ex-cops. Getting too litigious might upset that friendly balance, so I could see a lawyer deciding it makes more sense long-term to stay friendly with the prosecuting side so they can continue to negotiate pleas quickly, easily and efficiently...
I would have (almost) no problem with this except for the fact that the speed limits on 400 series highways are too slow. If the average speed is 130, which many days it is, then by doing 150 you've only deviated traffic by 20km/h. If driving 100, you're deviating by 30km/h AND holding everyone up behind you.
If you want to fix the highways, put minimum and maximum speeds based on lane location. Right lane: min 90 max 110, middle lane: min 110, max 130, left lane: min 130, max 150. And unless you're a professional driver, no towing anything outside of the right lane. I don't care if you're towing your track bike behind your Porsche.
Finally, they do it wrong. Aside from cops being the judge and jury on a roadside suspension with no financial recourse for anything when you prove your innocence, which is just spectacularly wrong. Instead of suspensions, you should be forced to drive a ministry appointed vehicle as punishment for a period of time. This vehicle will have no passenger seats, seat belts, air bags, traction control or abs. It will have a big metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. You want to street race or drive drunk in this car, it'll give Darwinism a helping hand.
If you want to fix the highways, put minimum and maximum speeds based on lane location. Right lane: min 90 max 110, middle lane: min 110, max 130, left lane: min 130, max 150. And unless you're a professional driver, no towing anything outside of the right lane. I don't care if you're towing your track bike behind your Porsche.
Finally, they do it wrong. Aside from cops being the judge and jury on a roadside suspension with no financial recourse for anything when you prove your innocence, which is just spectacularly wrong. Instead of suspensions, you should be forced to drive a ministry appointed vehicle as punishment for a period of time. This vehicle will have no passenger seats, seat belts, air bags, traction control or abs. It will have a big metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel. You want to street race or drive drunk in this car, it'll give Darwinism a helping hand.
As I started this paragraph, I thought you were going to have them riding around in a pink jeep renegade with a mildly offensive graphics package and then it went completely off the rails.
1 to 3 year suspension for a first time conviction of doing speeds that are legal in many parts of the world...
When your found not-guilty of HTA-172, you should be fully refunded and compensated for work, lost income etc and it should come out of the police pension fund.
With the sheer amount of cameras everywhere... on cruisers, bodycams etc any stunt driving charge must be confirmed by camera on the side of the road. People can be financially crippled by one of these charges.. Nobody should have the power to convict anyone on the side of the road, especially when its been shown that officers have colluded with their parasite tow truck and impound friends.
Start giving people 1 to 3 year suspensions for failing to merge properly, hogging the left lane and blowing through red lights. These are all as or more dangerous than doing 150 on the 407.
The province is more concerned with speeding or taking legal guns away from registered owners than it is the major gun and gang problem we have.
When your found not-guilty of HTA-172, you should be fully refunded and compensated for work, lost income etc and it should come out of the police pension fund.
With the sheer amount of cameras everywhere... on cruisers, bodycams etc any stunt driving charge must be confirmed by camera on the side of the road. People can be financially crippled by one of these charges.. Nobody should have the power to convict anyone on the side of the road, especially when its been shown that officers have colluded with their parasite tow truck and impound friends.
Start giving people 1 to 3 year suspensions for failing to merge properly, hogging the left lane and blowing through red lights. These are all as or more dangerous than doing 150 on the 407.
The province is more concerned with speeding or taking legal guns away from registered owners than it is the major gun and gang problem we have.
This is a perceived thing, not a reality thing. If you're in the proper lane there's little chance of holding anyone up (for as long as it takes them to change lanes and go around you) for the entire stretch of the 401 from Windsor to Quebec.
Now, if you're in the middle or left hand lanes doing 100, then sure, you're a menace. Plugging along in the right hand lane doing 100? You're not "holding everyone up" at all. Heck, every truck in this province is electronically governed to 105kph max and somehow we all manage. Whenever we're towing I always set the cruise at ~100kph as well (as do many other vehicles, contrary to popular belief) and somehow we all manage.
The "I need to go faster so that I'm not holding up traffic!" is all manifested in peoples heads, nothing more. It's also a convenient excuse for people to be speeding, and it's also self feeding causing average traffic speeds to climb - "I'm holding up traffic at 120" then becomes "I'm holding up traffic" at 140 as speeds inevitably creep up.
I have noticed a significant number of heavy trucks doing more than that in the last little while.
I know that in my car, 107 km/h indicated is 105 km/h actual, which is what the trucks are supposed to be doing. Most do ... but a fair number are doing more than that nowadays.
I'm guessing enforcement of this has slackened.
There will always be a certain segment of the population who think the rules don't apply to them. In the GTA the aggregate and sea-can hauler segment are amongst the worst offenders - the aggregate sector being no surprise since they're often paid by the load, so speed matters, and they know all the ways to bypass the scales (or just potentially never go near one) and are basically running scott free until they hit a random inspection somewhere one day, which are extremely rare. And yes, with sometimes slack enforcement, it's a slippery slope. This is why I constantly harp about new laws being useless without enforcement, just recently in an e-bike thread here for that matter.
That said, getting caught results in a big kick in the nards, so it's a big risk.
Since E-Logs went into mandatory effect here a few months ago speeding is becoming exponentially riskier as well since all these things are logged. The clock is ticking for those who think they can ignore speed limits or hours of service.
Another thing to keep in mind is grades. I hear it all the time that "a truck was passing me when I was doing 120!" but they fail to notice they're on a downgrade. When you weigh 80,000 to 140,000 pounds, even the slightest grade that many car drivers might not even perceive or notice can push a truck well over 105kph.
Just to clarify as the crap-ass media has reported it both ways, with 80 km/h speed limit or higher, 50 over gets the charge. At less than 80 km/h speed limit, 40 over catches the ticket. Some media are saying 40 over 80 is eligible (which could make passing on a windy road a prick).
matt220
Well-known member
Needless change to the already draconian 172 laws with our artificially low speed limits. I wonder how long it will take for those in power to pat themselves on the back speaking to the media with some econoboxes and maybe a lambo they impounded on display calling it a win for road safety. All that while they quietly avoid talking about any increase in people choosing to take their chances with getting away because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
What's the punishment for texting while driving again? Isn't texting while driving 6 times more dangerous than drunk driving according to the NHTSA? Where are the new texting penalties? There's a whole lot of DUI checkpoints and speed traps, where are all the cops setting up cellphone traps? I'd much rather be on the road with everyone speeding while laser focused on driving than on the road with everyone going the speed limit while on their phone.
What's the punishment for texting while driving again? Isn't texting while driving 6 times more dangerous than drunk driving according to the NHTSA? Where are the new texting penalties? There's a whole lot of DUI checkpoints and speed traps, where are all the cops setting up cellphone traps? I'd much rather be on the road with everyone speeding while laser focused on driving than on the road with everyone going the speed limit while on their phone.
|
|
|
|
|