“Street Racing?”

The fact remains that this law can be held over the motorist head........ I have had a few officers, how do we say, try to influence me into incriminating myself. The law says the officer has six months to lay this charge.......So in essence if the officer lays section 172 on my arse 5.5 months after something, insert your own traffic violation here, and then I plead down to 25 over, does that serve the interest of the public???????

THE LAW IS FLAWED.

hwybear wrote:Conviction rate is construed to whomever wants it to be.

33% - that is those convicted under 172...What is the actual % of those that left with absolutely nothing?

Also see Conviction rate slowing for street-racing legislation.

ticketcombat wrote:

hwybear wrote:Conviction rate is construed to whomever wants it to be.

33% - that is those convicted under 172...What is the actual % of those that left with absolutely nothing?

325 convicted, 229 dropped and 526 reduced. Source: "Street racing: thousands charged, few convicted"; CBC, June 9, 2008

so that is 1080.....and 229 dropped......so that is now 21% not being convicted OR 79% being convicted.

Since 1999 to 2007 there have been 35 street racing related deaths

They construed those numbers around so well, we now have 172

and 11,000 disasters have been averted

325 convicted, 229 dropped and 526 reduced. Source: "Street racing: thousands charged, few convicted"; CBC, June 9, 2008

That's only 325 convicted of "racing". Theoretically, 745 people need their impoundment fees back.

I agree with Reflections (except for the math part). 755 people were penalized for something they were never convicted of. And of those, 229 were not guilty of anything. That's just wrong.

ticketcombat wrote:I agree with Reflections (except for the math part). 755 people were penalized for something they were never convicted of. And of those, 229 were not guilty of anything. That's just wrong.

The whole law is wrong!

If those 755 people who were penalized, recieved their up front fees back, the plane would be brought down and sold on ebay, pilot included

10 x 2000 minimum, whoops my bad.

ticketcombat wrote:I agree with Reflections (except for the math part). 755 people were penalized for something they were never convicted of. And of those, 229 were not guilty of anything. That's just wrong.

229 times say 1200..............

Let me go find the calculator........oooh, whendid that spot show up on the wall..... there it is........ $274800. I wonder how much of that needs to go to the AD-Scam boys????????????????????

The whole law is wrong!

For the 229 people who had their charges dropped or were found not guilty, a poster on another message board summed it up best: Let's say we waited until after the court date. You're found NOT guilty, therefore we are going to seize and impound your vehicle for 7 days and suspend your licence, at your expense. Make sense? I don't think so!

No I don't think there should even be the 7 day suspension, even though some in my opinion deserve that and much more!

Here's what I think: The law won't be around forever. Up-front seizure of your lawfully-owned private property for a set period of time, with no recourse available, is denial of due process, and it violates the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section 172 explicitly says "THERE IS NO APPEAL, OR RIGHT TO BE HEARD FROM" any action taken in regards to the suspension or impoundment, no "show cause," no appeal, nothing. Several hundred years of common law precedent in similar matters says that is not permissible, so that's likely getting tossed. As for the impoundment, which is de-facto punishment without conviction, that's also likely to be removed. The licence suspension might stand up. Challenges to administrative licence suspensions have generally not gone too well, ALTHOUGH I should mention that in every one of those cases that I know of, there WAS an avenue of appeal for the suspension, which is not available under section 172. The fines and other stuff after conviction will probably stay. I guess we'll have to see what the courts say, but the odds look like they're in favour of part of the law being struck down.

All of this "stunt driving" or "racing" was already against the law before Bill 203. The penalties available for driving, say, 160 on the 401 were reasonable enough under the HTA. For dangerous driving (example: 238 in an 80 on Highway 26), and for street racing, there was section 249 of the Criminal Code... and still is. And the Criminal Code has much more severe penalties than the HTA, IMO, but the penalties there are imposed after conviction.

I smell legal training in that response.

I'll throw another idea in the mix

Charge as normal at roadside....go to court.....when conviction registered 30 day suspension on 1st offence and $2000, 90 day on 2nd offence and $5000, 1yr on 3rd offence and $10000.

that should comprise the found guilty part, plus is a strong deterent and penalty should one be caught.....heck vote HB for Premier

Charge as normal at roadside....go to court.....when conviction registered 30 day suspension on 1st offence and $2000, 90 day on 2nd offence and $5000, 1yr on 3rd offence and $10000.

Sounds fair to me! At least, for stunt driving...

hwybear wrote:I'll throw another idea in the mix

Charge as normal at roadside....go to court.....when conviction registered 30 day suspension on 1st offence and $2000, 90 day on 2nd offence and $5000, 1yr on 3rd offence and $10000.

that should comprise the found guilty part, plus is a strong deterent and penalty should one be caught.....heck vote HB for Premier

Scooby say "I riechy that one better, raggy".

hwybear wrote:I'll throw another idea in the mix

Charge as normal at roadside....go to court.....when conviction registered...

Finally Bear!!! Penalizing people AFTER they are convicted. Is that confetti falling from the sky!?!