Street racing?

Here is a good article by Jim Kenzie..

http://wheels.ca/Columnists/article/248098

And every Tom, Dick and Harry will take his words for gospel as well....

jmckenzie wrote:

We build highways that are capable of these speeds. We have cars that are capable of these speeds. There is considerable doubt we have drivers that are capable of these speeds, but until or unless you choose to do something about that

Highways and vehicle capable of those speeds = yes

Drivers capable = few a far between....There are very few that have any driver training past the original driving school. Then to think we have people on the road like on "Canada's Worst Driver".

Vehicles Safety = NO, the vehicles have yet to develop a standard to withstand an impact over 130km/hr. That is the "fatality line"

Whether it be the "racing law" OR "gas prices" I have seen a significant reduction in vehicle speeds. It makes for a more relaxing drive, saves environment from emissions, I have went to less crashes this year (slower speed, more reaction time to take evasive action) and "knock on wood" no fatalities yet this year!!

Could also be our office now has 7 per shift, with probably 3-5 always on the road for 60km of the 401, making our area slower!

It's funny that the government or insurance agencies don't test drivers . The 'Bear is right, few if any civilian drivers have ever participated in skid schools or evasive avoidance courses. However, like the 'Bear with speed estimates it can only take time. I find with myself I'm more apt to let my mind wander if I'm bored, read stop and go traffic, or tired. When traffic is flowing along I'm; #1-happy to get home in a reasonable amount of time and #2-know I have to pay attention due to the speed I'm travelling at, read regular flow of the 400 series highways. I don't advocate weaving through traffic for a 4-5 minute gain nor do I feel the need to tailgate. However, I would like to see the slow, read speed limit, drivers in the right lane as opposed to the left. The signs are up but not "ENFORCED" Mr. Bear. Could we maybe focus on getting everyone, speeders and slowpokes included, to drive in a similar fashon as opposed to focusing on speed, speed, speed.

Yet another great article "King Kenzie"! Surely, we're related somehow, LOL.

I could really identify with his account of nudging up the speed just to qualify as "a racer", LOL. I don't know why I now get a cheap thrill out of touching on 130kph on some loney back road, or read "152" for a split second on the 401, for no other reason than to satisfy that urge to defy Fantino.

I 'spose I'll end up "on the hook" one of these days though, playing this risky game Mr. Fantino has created. At least I'll be in good company though (cops, tow-truck drivers, doctors, etc.). I'm actually AMAZED 5,000 people have been nailed BEFORE ME!

Reminder: 30 years of daily driving... No at-fault accidents. Never underestimate "natural ability" (not to be confused with "over-confidence"). I've spent quality time with some of this countries WORST drivers. Some are really nice people, but totally lack any natural "feel" for an automobile.

In the meantime, many high-quality drivers are now labelled "racers". 5,000+ racing charges to date! Let me tell you what racing REALLY is... When I was 18, the local A&W was the meeting spot after the drive-in let out. Here the match-ups would be laid out... this guy challenging that guy... you get the idea. Then off to the "Amulree Road" a couple miles outside of town, where actual lines were painted on the road marking the 1/4 mile. Many cars were capable of lifting the front wheels off the line. Some had slicks and wheelie bars. Some were even supercharged with big 671 blowers sticking out the hood. The racing would last about an hour or two before the OPP would finally show up and flick there lights on to clear the street. I no of know charges ever being laid.

I'm not trying to justify our actions from "the old days". I'm just illustrating why some of us older drivers get such a laugh at the modern definition of RACING.

You two

Reflections: I have already confirmed that the sign of "slow traffic keep right" is not enforceable in itself in another forum. And unfortunately for people that ask....someone was issued an offence for unnecessary slow driving that was somewhere on Hwy 69 about 8yrs ago...and the JP threw it out....stating the maximum speed is 90km/hr they were under so no offence was committed...even with 30plus vehicles backlogged behind....so thank the courts!! or the gov't for the poor wording.....I have to tend to agree with the poor wording....it should acutally state going "X" km below the speed limit is too slow.

Bookm: The charge is not racing.....so please do not confusing the section of what people are being charged with. There is still the actual racing section, but that is not what people are being charged with.

Drivers are being charged with: "Stunt Driving,: -excessive speed, greater than 50km/hr over the posted speed limit"

This is legislated into a definition of a "stunt". To which super hero McKenzie doesn't even look up and babbles about racing

Being confused, I'm at least in the majority! Not one of my friends or family members really knows what the hay is going on. OK, so a 'stunt' may not be 'racing' but the penalty is the same and people are pissed about that.

So what do you consider a stunt?? Is spinning the tires on snow consider a stunt? What if I feel like speeding(fast) up to the speed limit witout squealing tires, would that get my car impounded?.

casper wrote:

What if I feel like speeding(fast) up to the speed limit witout squealing tires, would that get my car impounded?.

(clicky) http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic362.html

standby...going to find the wording/ section for everyone....

HTA OREG 455/07

Definition of Stunt: includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle

DEFINITION OF RACE: include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.

3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,

ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or

iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).

(2) In this section,

"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway

So for number 2 if you are not squealing tires from a stop and not turning while in control of the vehicle you are OK. Lets say I'm driving an AWD car with lots of power and good traction around the corner without exeeding the speed limit and not spinning tires is that OK?. I still think that the officer should use his common sense in those situations. So in the winter time your back end looses traction and you spin the car, the police sees that and impounds your car. WTF!

IMHO...#2....to get that one would have to be of course turning, spin the tires enough that I can hear the squeal and I would like to see some smoke.....or carry the squeal completely through the turn without letting off of the accelerator.

Winter time....I have driven front wheel, rear wheel drive vehicles (car, SUV, pickups and vans). One with any common sense knows when the vehicle is going to lose control and can feel same, therefore let off the gas and let you can have control again...no problems. Be an @$$ and do a donut or two one deserves to lose their wheels as they have no beeping clue how to drive....but on that note...if the roads are that bad....we usually have more calls of vehicles in the ditch than we can keep up with, so honestly wouldn't have time to wait around giving a ticket to this one vehicle.

Yes, common sense should prevail!

hwybear wrote:

e roads are that bad....we usually have more calls of vehicles in the ditch than we can keep up with,

On that note from myself.....wish there was a ticket to give for "fail to adjust driving habits in inclement weather/ road conditions - drive off road"

What a waste of resources for almost every vehicle in the that goes into the ditch...police, fire and EMS.

hwybear wrote:

You two

Reflections: I have already confirmed that the sign of "slow traffic keep right" is not enforceable in itself in another forum. And unfortunately for people that ask....someone was issued an offence for unnecessary slow driving that was somewhere on Hwy 69 about 8yrs ago...and the JP threw it out....stating the maximum speed is 90km/hr they were under so no offence was committed...even with 30plus vehicles backlogged behind....so thank the courts!! or the gov't for the poor wording.....I have to tend to agree with the poor wording....it should acutally state going "X" km below the speed limit is too slow.

So, could we instruct the police to pay a friendly visit to our slow moving rolling road blocks. Officers will stop someone say 15 over and just check out who they are, why not the slow movers as well. Just a nudge to remind them that the roads are used by everyone and they too are outside the norm?

It's absolutely clear to me that the intent of the stunt and speed laws was to control competition "AT SPEED"... NOT ACCELERATION. No where does it describe any offense as it relates to acceleration. There is big difference between speed and acceleration. Hard acceleration can be accomplished without breaking any speed laws.

To me, a couple kids runnin' their moms' Fireflies up through first gear is NOT a race or a STUNT until they continue on, well PAST the speed limit (a "marked" departure).

I have ALWAYS felt safer accelerating away from a traffic light FIRST. Getting out there ahead of everyone (in clean air so to speak) always made me feel much less likely to have contact with other cars proceeding from the same light. But since these new stunt laws were summoned up from the depths of "heck", I thought I would surely get impounded. I feel a tad better about it now that I've taken a closer look. I can only hope that ALL law enforcement sees it the same way as I do.

I have the general feeling that the laws were penciled out while watching The Fast and the Furious. The definitions spell out word for word the stunts that were performed in that movie. I don't know how much a "Drifting" scene there is in YOUR town, but I can guarantee it's not an issue here, LOL. But slip the back-end out a little bit (due to a posi rear-end behind a 400ci engine) and some hardcore cops just might use the written definition of "stunt" to ruin your day. THAT's why I have a problem with stuff. Way too much potential for police abuse based on personal opinion.

BTW... Bears detailed list of definitions should be made a "sticky" here. Perhaps titled, "Racing" and "Stunts" defined:

Bookm wrote:

But slip the back-end out a little bit (due to a posi rear-end behind a 400ci engine) and some hardcore cops just might use the written definition of "stunt" to ruin your day.:

Simple common sense.....leave a small squawk, don't even think anything will be done......squeal, smoke billowing OR squeall all the way through the complete turn....then someone might be walking!

I still don't agree with that, it should be up to the judge to decide that and not some rookie officer that is in a bad mood. I thought we live in a free country and are innocent untill proven guilty??. Total BS if you ask me. Thats just a publicity stunt, as bad as David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby. On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it. All these new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

casper wrote:

I still don't agree with that, it should be up to the judge to decide that and not some rookie officer that is in a bad mood. I thought we live in a free country and are innocent untill proven guilty??. Total BS if you ask me. Thats just a publicity stunt, as bad as David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby. On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it. All these new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

That one's got some zing to it

casper wrote:

I still don't agree with that,

that is what is so great, we can all have our opinion.

casper wrote:

it should be up to the judge

Ontario Court of Justice does NOT uses judges!

casper wrote:

David Millers proposal to close down shooting ranges in Toronto. He said that guns are very dangerous and people should not have them in their possesion even as a hobby.

Yep, that is brutal!! Never going to prevent gun violence, same as the gun registry has never helped, except to punish every day people, not the people doing the crimes!

casper wrote:

On the same note according to Fantino cars are used as a weapon also in some cases. Why not crush all the cars and be done with it.

I have personally seen a car used as a weapon, but of course someone just reading articles or sitting at a coffee shop or sitting in a lunch room, does not have an appreciation for what we deal with and see, way too often. Everytime I have seen a car used as a weapon, it is usually well "self crushed".

WEAPON: anything used OR designed to be used OR intended for use

- to cause death to a person

- to injure a person

- to threaten a person

casper wrote:

The new laws and rules look good on paper and appeal to the public but really don't solve anything other then make huge money for the government.

Bill 203 takes the extreme brutal drivers off the road that have absolutely no care in the world for following the rules of the road. The every day, motoring public is not affected.

Gov't making money ........too funny........ no one has to give the gov't one penny, just follow the rules of the road.

It is also funny, that people cry about the costs of tickets (which are avoidable), but don't think twice about buying a beer, smokes or GASOLINE!! Those items are taxed to death (NOT avoidable) and no one bats an eye at paying it........kinda of screwed up mentality!

EG Gasoline

2003 63 cents litre

2004 70 cents (11% increase from 2003)

2005 84 cents (20% increase from 2004) or (33% increase from 2003)

2006 90 cents (7% increase from 2006) or (42% increase from 2003)

2007 104 cents (15% increase from 2006) or (65% increase from 2003)

2008 126 cents (21% increase from 2007) or (100% increase from 2003) I KNOW my PAY has not went up 100% over 5yrs

With about 40% being the actual cost of the fuel!!

EG: Cigarettes

Taxed at 13 cents per cigarette.

EG: Alcohol

46% of price is tax.......not to foget the when going to a restaurant you get charged and "Alchol tax" as well!

hwybear wrote:

It is also funny, that people cry about the costs of tickets (which are avoidable), but don't think twice about buying a beer, smokes or GASOLINE!! Those items are taxed to death (NOT avoidable) and no one bats an eye at paying it........kinda of screwed up mentality!

EG Gasoline

2003 63 cents litre

2004 70 cents (11% increase from 2003)

2005 84 cents (20% increase from 2004) or (33% increase from 2003)

2006 90 cents (7% increase from 2006) or (42% increase from 2003)

2007 104 cents (15% increase from 2006) or (65% increase from 2003)

2008 126 cents (21% increase from 2007) or (100% increase from 2003) I KNOW my PAY has not went up 100% over 5yrs

With about 40% being the actual cost of the fuel!!

EG: Cigarettes

Taxed at 13 cents per cigarette.

EG: Alcohol

46% of price is tax.......not to foget the when going to a restaurant you get charged and "Alchol tax" as well!

Are you sure you're not an accountant . I think caspers main point about the legal system getting the runaround, punishment before court, is justified. I have seen the rookie cops at ride programs almost demanding I take a breathalyzer for admitting to having one beer and the "seasoned" officer giving him the "shut the fun up" look. I am sure 'Bear that we won't have to worry about you using this law out of context, however you are not every cop.

Reflections....well I do have a business accounting diploma....but still forgot most....so relied on internet calculators and websites for the info.

I understand your perspective of Caspers comments a lot better than the original post. I do not think it would be so much the young officers, a lot are very good (especially the guy I'm training right now ) and very educated. As every job, there are bad apples, and these ones sometimes could misinterpret legislation or make bad decisions, which then makes bad case law all across the board plus makes us all look bad.

I do not know about the punishment before the conviction that you mention. This has been done for years on different charges (ie 90 day ADLS of a licence and not yet convicted of an impaired, CMV Impoundment as well for "x" number of days). Further, many people are out on "bail" (keep it simple) with conditions, and yet no conviction yet.

Having all that behind us, I certainly respect others point of view, and can appreciate the concern.

hwybear wrote:

Reflections....well I do have a business accounting diploma....but still forgot most....so relied on internet calculators and websites for the info.

I understand your perspective of Caspers comments a lot better than the original post. I do not think it would be so much the young officers, a lot are very good (especially the guy I'm training right now ) and very educated. As every job, there are bad apples, and these ones sometimes could misinterpret legislation or make bad decisions, which then makes bad case law all across the board plus makes us all look bad.

I do not know about the punishment before the conviction that you mention. This has been done for years on different charges (ie 90 day ADLS of a licence and not yet convicted of an impaired, CMV Impoundment as well for "x" number of days). Further, many people are out on "bail" (keep it simple) with conditions, and yet no conviction yet.

Having all that behind us, I certainly respect others point of view, and can appreciate the concern.

I seem to see the young officers being more "aggressive" in their approach to situations, just from what I have personally witnessed. The "seasoned" officers seem to be able to make better judgements about people, or have more knowledge of the people they are dealing with and seem to be friendlier, such as yourself, you're around 35 if I remember correctly. Still, when I see a younger officer I wonder about their judgement and analytical[sp.] skills. The problem with this law is the subjectiveness of the application.

Anyone else heard this regarding HTA sec 172(BadBill203)

(Below is copy and pasted from another site)

I have a bit of news in regard to the now famous Sec. 172 of the HTA which is to occur in Caledon East, Ontario this Thursday June 5th. There is to be a challenge to the Charter Application which is to be put forth on this day. Obviously it will be put over for judgement but at least there is now a movement by someone to have this law revised (at a minimum) or hopefully eliminated.

I will update you if and when I gain receipt of more information.

Anyone else heard of this?

And where did you find that???????

From a mostly Anti-police site,which I am not,nor am I Pro-police!

Which actually brang me too this site, it's in the middle!

I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

hwybear wrote:

I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

Driving is a priviledge but you do have the right to your day in court before the sentence is served.

Reflections wrote:

hwybear wrote:

I have heard that also, but have not seen anything in B&W. I heard it was going to be in October and apparently a 320 page document. This info I have was from a local paralegal, who said literally said "I don't have time to read all that BS, as it apparently it is a rights issue and yet driving clearing written is a priviledge".

time will tell!

Driving is a priviledge but you do have the right to your day in court before the sentence is served.

No difference between the 7 day suspension and the

- 90 day ADLS suspension

OR in criminal matters where conditions are imposed on people who are not yet convicted and must abide by until trial

Every thing else where the offence is criminal I agree, but until speeding becomes criminal I see no need for the judge, jury and executioner to be on the side of the road.

90 day ADLS and 12 hour suspension are actually both Provincially imposed suspensions, HTA 48. FYI