Which is still a lot more than we have.
|
|
|
Street racing law. I guess it could get worse.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Which is still a lot more than we have.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
the key point here is THREE TIMES!!! You have three strikes to fly straight....we're not afforded that kind of luxury here. And the cops sitting at transitional points (100 to 80) make that everyday speeding into a tow-your-car-away offense. Yes, that commuter was "street racing" home....
It may be a harsher judgement at the end for New Zealanders, but they are given three strikes.
IMHO, the kid who got his car crushed....you have two strikes against you and you are doing burnouts and donuts? yea you obviously need to learn your lesson. I dont remember the number now, but it said there is another 80ish other offenders with second strikes on their licence....how many people here were never afforded another strike, who were never "street racing" by proper terms. I bet you the number is 10x that.
It may be a harsher judgement at the end for New Zealanders, but they are given three strikes.
IMHO, the kid who got his car crushed....you have two strikes against you and you are doing burnouts and donuts? yea you obviously need to learn your lesson. I dont remember the number now, but it said there is another 80ish other offenders with second strikes on their licence....how many people here were never afforded another strike, who were never "street racing" by proper terms. I bet you the number is 10x that.
Consider that upwards of 250 charges, involving Sargent Dennis Mahoney-Bruer of OPP, were under review.
Splash
Well-known member
are you that ignorant that you don't see the difference?
OpenGambit
Banned
Are we reading the same thing because it really doesn't look that much better...
vic_himself
Well-known member
Man that sucks!
The 28-day impounds starts right at strike one in New Zealand. It also covers speeding (exhibitions of speed) over and above simple speeding.
The forfeiture is automatic at strike three in New Zealand. Here it still requires a separate application by the Crown to a civil court, which is separate and apart from any HTA proceedings. How many such applications are you aware of having happened in Ontario in the years since HTA172 came into effect?
Last edited:
Bad case of the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.
Again, where is there any fundamental difference? In both New Zealand and Ontario (and several other Candian provinces as well) a driver loses a car, a driver's license, or both at roadside at the instant of being caught and without first having been convicted in any court proceeding.
A form of sanction is applied simply on being charged and prior to conviction. The only difference lies in the specific details of the breadth and severity of the sanctions. Ontario, wider breadth of sanction, arguably lessor severity of sanction. New Zealand, narrower breadth, but greater severity. Can't you see that?
That's a myth that people insist on spreading but there is no truth in it. There are no insurance repercussions arising from an administrative suspension of less than one year in length. Ontario insurance law specifically disallows it.
What is the level and nature of act necessary, in order to trigger those? Is there recourse, upon a not guilty finding? These would seem to be fundamental differences.
New Zealand? Racing another car, driving excessively fast all by yourself, doing donuts or drifting? Do those triggers sound familiar?
Recourse on being found not guilty? None specifically tied to acquittal in New Zealand law. The recourse available is if you can convince some appeal hearing, whether a police appeal hearing or a court one, that the cop did not have proper grounds on which to charge you, in other words the cop did something egrariously wrong. Were not some of the people charged by Mahoney-Bruer reimbursed for their out-of-pocket costs?
Again though, these are just details. The fundamental issue is when sanctions are applied relative to court proceedings - before or after. The rest is just window dressing.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
If the appeal was successful because the enforcement officer who impounded the vehicle did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the person operating it was committing a street racer offence, you will not be liable to pay the towage or the storage fees.
If the appeal was successful because your vehicle was stolen at the time it was impounded, you will not be liable to pay the storage fee.
If your appeal was successful for any other reason, you will not be liable to pay for the first 3 days of the vehicle's storage."
the 1st one is.. ok the cop was a compete *** and lied... unlikely
2nd.. car stolen... fair
3rd not liable for 3 days.... out of 28? seems worse to me.
It doesn't seem to say anything about being given your money back on acquittal.
Last edited:
This is the thing I'm really wondering about, because according to the way I read what's written in black and white in the Ontario law, they shouldn't - which is completely wrong. If they do get reimbursed, it probably sets some sort of precedent. I don't believe that case has gone to court yet - I wonder if any of his victims has seen a penny yet ...
I've not heard of any of the people Mahoney-Bruer charged being reimbursed, for their impoundments, but there seems to have been a great deal done to keep that one out of the news. Reimbursing them, and in my personal opinion tossing out the whole thing about pre-conviction sanctions as a result, would just be the right thing to do.
My understanding is that the three drivers at the heart of the case against Mahoney-Bruer were reimbursed for their costs.
And the other 247?
Were they charged improperly?
That's a very good question, considering that the results of the OPP's 'review' don't seem to have been released.
|
|
|
|
|