“[urgent/serious] Goin 185 Km/h On Highway (100 Limit)”

CumminsDiesel wrote:I believe an elite driver is 'entitled' to elite driving privileges.

I'm sure you do. However, I and a lot of others are thankful that the law doesn't agree with you.

The difference between the race track and the public highway is that on the racetrack all the drivers have accepted the potential risk of the speeds involved. On the public highways this is not the case and to be traveling at such a speed differential to other traffic on a road that does not get the same degree of maintenance or inspection is an irresponsible abuse of a privilege you have been granted. Your sense of entitlement does not trump the safety of other drivers.

I referenced Roger Rodas in relation to the comment of a poster who self-described himself by saying:

diabolis wrote:An "elite" vehicle and about as "elite" as drivers get without being professional racers

Roger Rodas was in fact a professional racer who also felt he had "elite driving privileges" on the public roads and is a good example of someone else with this sense of entitlement. I'm sure he would have made similar arguments as you do before he died and also killed his passenger. He would have also have provided you with the "serious professional credentials" you are looking for. With that in mind, what is your point?

JetBlue - last time I checked, this was a board about the HTA and how to defend against charges laid under the HTA. Seeing as you haven't contributed anything of any value on the subject, I fail to see why you insist on being a troll.

Someone else brought up the "elite driver and car" argument, not me - and I only responded with my own experience and situation. It was not meant to advocate speeding, only to show that there could be other factors that could - and IMHO should - be taken into account when determining the danger one poses to himself and others by speeding alone. Among other things, the mechanical worthiness of the vehicle and the driver skill, experience and state of mind are, again IMHO, relevant to the discussion. I know of someone that a number of years back (pre "50km/h over = stunt" legislation) was charged with dangerous and careless driving, again simply for exceeding the speed limit under otherwise safe circumstances (empty highway outside of a populated area). His lawyer managed to successfully argue that under the circumstances and because of his training he was neither careless nor dangerous, and he was found not guilty.

As for Roger Rodas, he was driving at over twice the speed limit in the middle of a city street. I constantly see people in their SUVs doing 60 km/h on a 30 km/h street in front of a school while the kids are getting out (with cars parked on both sides of the road so poor visibility to boot), and while IMHO they present a much higher danger to others they only face a $80 fine while someone speeding on a empty highway faces a $20,000 bill for vehicle impoundment, lawyer fees, fines and insurance hikes. Seeing as you obviously can read, you chose to latch on the speed itself and the "elite" issue but completely ignored the "momentarily sped up and then slowed back down on a perfectly straight, clear stretch of road on a clear day, with no other car in sight for easily 2-3 km, four lanes wide in each direction with a huge median" part. While the law may be black and white, the reality of what is actually dangerous and to what extent is anything but. In my case both the police officer and the prosecutor acknowledged this and took it into account, which I guess makes it somewhat relevant despite your insistence on the opposite.

diabolis wrote:Among other things, the mechanical worthiness of the vehicle and the driver skill, experience and state of mind are, again IMHO, relevant to the discussion. I know of someone that a number of years back (pre "50km/h over = stunt" legislation) was charged with dangerous and careless driving, again simply for exceeding the speed limit under otherwise safe circumstances (empty highway outside of a populated area). His lawyer managed to successfully argue that under the circumstances and because of his training he was neither careless nor dangerous, and he was found not guilty.

So what? Your "I had a friend" story may be relevant for a Careless or Dangerous charge but this is discussion about a "Stunt Driving" charge.

Trying to convince those reading this thread, that the court will care anything about the things you believe are "relevant to the discussion" in this kind of a charge is misleading. The "I'm an elite driver" or the "My car is in excellent mechanical shape" or even the "I made sure that there was nobody within a thousand miles" defense will be pretty much as useless as your "Your Worship, I had to go that speed to bed-in my brakes" or your "I know about other drivers who do worse things" defense strategies.

just a little update, my court date is on December the 8th I will keep you guys updated. good news is, I haven't got any tickets since the incident.

If you want to speed, go to the racetrack. My brother got pulled over for stunt (60 over) and I got stuck with the impound fee. These things are very tricky to get out of, but with the right PROFESSIONAL, you could be lucky.

Good luck bro, i have an upcoming trial as well in january...if you dont mind me asking who you chose to represent you?

@UnluckyDuck I was young and dumb, everyone makes mistakes but I guess we all learn from them, I did not get my parents involved nor they helped me get out of this so far I've been paying on my own witch I have no disagrees over it, I also hired a paralegal to help me with this.

UPDATE:

I just had a conversation with my paralegal, he was able to get rid of the stunt driving charge but still had a speeding charge for 75 and over... my fine is 861$ and a one month license suspension.

Only question I have now is how will my insurance take this.

I've interestingly watched this thread for some time now and have read all of the reply's. Many of them sit on the very edge of pompous and self righteous. I was born in England and have spent the most of my life there. As such I've grown up with the strict meaning of the law and its impact on me. I have also had a full driving licence covering most vehicles from heavy military, articulated trucks to Public Service vehicles for 50 yes 50 years. As such I've notched up many hundreds of thousand miles and clearly remember the days before motorways. The speed limit on our first motorway the M1 that opened in the late 1950s had unlimited speed limits for sometime. As most of the cars in the UK would struggle to reach speeds in excess of 80 mph this made little difference. Drum brakes were the norm and discs at that time were seen as something exotic. Aston Martin Lagonda had their factory at Newport Pagnell which was near to the M1 and were found to be using the motorway at night to test their cars at speeds up to 140 mph (225.38 kM H). There were never any accidents involving Aston Martin and you need to realise that the motorway had NO central barrier between north and south carriageways. This however caused the current speed limit of 70 mph (112.63 Km h) to be introduced as a blanket speed on all subsequent motorways built since.

Our motorways are small in comparison to your Highways, normally 3 lanes each way, with a hard shoulder for breakdowns, and sometimes up to four. Police in the UK have for years now realised that traffic normally in the fast lane moves between 80 to 83-4 mph, average 135.18 Km h and ignore most drivers providing they are moving along with the rest of the flow at the same speed. This is normal practice across the country. The government is thinking about raising the current limit to 80mph 130+ Km h. So far everything works and has done for years and before anybody wisecracks, the death rate on the motorways has dropped year in year. This is not to say that at any time the Police cant use the extensive system of cameras that can log some 22 million vehicles daily, checking automatically for Insurance, MOT, current Road Fund Licence, whether the registered car is driven by a known villain or drug dealer.

It can also log the place and time that you got on the motorway and the time that you left the motorway and estimate your speed and issue a speeding ticket before you get home.

I used to travel frequently to Germany on business and again travel on the Autobahn is an unrestricted speed and its not unusual to be passed by cars travelling in excess of 150 Mph (241.39 Km h)

Surprisingly enough the drivers heads do not fall off and the cars behave as the were designed to do. Yes I have travelled long distances in a Jaguar x308 supercharged model in excess of 150 mph and also in a Ford Sierra Cosworth saloon and it didn't take racing driver skills to manage it, surprisingly.

So first of all you "The Retired Cop" that seems to have a very closed view on the ability of modern cars to be safe at speed can roundly be told that youre talking out of the top of your hat.

Modern cars from the mid nineties on are more than capable, if maintained properly, to drive along all day at modest speeds of 80-90 Mp h without disintegrating as foretold by Mr Plod.

Of course, there first of all is one significant bugbear, you guys over here, yes you guys in Government (cos you set the rules) are so myopic as to be blind to reality. Back In the real world (yes you know what I'm going to say THE UK) it was decided to start back in the sixties a thing called the Ten Year MOT test (Ministry of Transport). Until then cars were much like yours are today, any heap of rubbish could be used on the road provided you have paid all the taxes required. The first few years of the Ten year test put most of the pre-war cars permanently off the roads. The Test was regularly brought forward until today it's a three year test, meaning that when your car reaches its third birthday it has to undergo a rigid and extensive test covering every item on the car. What have you guys got, Nada, nothing but a silly test when you buy the car and not much after worth thinking about. Why even your e-test DOESN'T even record the odometer reading making the test worse than useless. So you have a speed limit that is so low that most people breech it daily driving modern cars that are more than capable if driven by competently qualified individuals. (after all 100Km h is only 62 Mph which is the speed limit on most of the roads in Britain, so its hardly breakneck is it)

Of course it sounds soo much faster in Km h than it does in Mph. So when did they pull that one over your eyes, eh? But getting back to the other point I made, which is "competently qualified individuals". Your driving skills shown on the roads around Toronto and beyond are appalling and most drivers should be ashamed over their lack of ability to behave and cope on modern roads. You have absolutely no lane discipline at all. You weave in and out as if you are at the (funfare) midway on the Dodgems choosing to leave the Highway to reach the off ramp at the last minute causing mayhem to all others. Try poor lane discipline on the Motorway in the UK and its $200 fine plus 3 points on your licence ( 12 and your out). A very high percentage of drivers in this country should not have driving licences because they clearly cannot demonstrate an ability to suit city slow roads, let alone slow highways.

But lets get to the very nub of this very long thread. Who in their right mind allowed the sort of legislation to go ahead and pass these very, very stupid laws namely the point of this discussion "Stunt Driving and Racing". I'm sure most of you (if not you should be) are aware of the words of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in wonderland. Just in case you're not I'll give it to you

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

The English Language which I hope you are all using (sorry couldn't help that) is very good and has thousands off words for all things in the universal Oxford English Dictionary. The definition of the words STUNT and RACING cannot and should not be used, because they are HUMPTY DUMPTY's words and the whole off this debacle would be summed up very cogently if the followings charges, if correctly constituted were applied instead.

1. Driving without due care and attention 2. Driving dangerously or recklessly which ever is the higher. 3. Exceeding the speed limit and ratcheted by the speed above the limit 4. The disqualification of the driving licernce. 5. Before the licence can be renewed attending re-education classes at your own expense is pretty normal now.

My Dear wife (Canadian) was on the subway the other morning and sat next to a black American about the same age as me (old). He was from Brooklyn New York. He struck up a conversation with my wife, who has a slight English accent picked up through many years there, and started to tell her how dumb and stupid he found the Canadians "There like sheep" he said and reeled off a great number of complaints about this fine nation. God my wife told me later, " it was just as if I was talking to YOU"

By now I can see all you guys just fuming and going apoplectic with rage. Well consider this, In the Globe and Mail last Saturday was an article headed The Conversation.

Well just ponder these words and think deeply about them, "Canadians aren't change leaders. We're deeply, deeply risk averse. If you give us a choice, we prefer the status quo, because we think it's less risky........ If you're unwilling to offend anybody, you don't get imaginative, innovative solutions". Certainly well worth a read if only to get an insight into how you all got into this situation and I can assure you from my perspective it ain't good.

As for me I'm tired fed up with this Kafkaesque place. Looking forward to being ripped off by the most expensive airport in the world and to get the *EDIT* out of here and back to sanity. Incidentally I'm due at the court tomorrow morning cause a stupid cop gave me a ticket because I didn't have a valid permit on the vehicle (ie: I didn't copy the back of the permit) I'm taking my copy of Alice in Wonderland with me and my Frank Kafka book. Tally Ho, wish me luck. No? Ok then Bastards.

Well I'm glad your post wasn't pompous or self-righteous. Holy *EDIT*, as a fellow Brit I would like to publically distance myself from your arrogance.

Sploop wrote:Who in their right mind allowed the sort of legislation to go ahead and pass these very, very stupid laws ...

... My Dear wife (Canadian) was on the subway the other morning and sat next to a black American about the same age as me (old). He was from Brooklyn New York. He struck up a conversation with my wife, who has a slight English accent picked up through many years there, and started to tell her how dumb and stupid he found the Canadians "There like sheep" he said and reeled off a great number of complaints about this fine nation. God my wife told me later, " it was just as if I was talking to YOU"

By now I can see all you guys just fuming and going apoplectic with rage.

Rather than rage, I think most readers are feeling pity, especially for your wife.

Just out of curiosity, isn't it the citizens of the UK who have gladly allowed their Internet to be censored by their government using a similar technique as China's communist leaders employ? When you voted for this kind of a nanny state leadership did you write "Yes" or "Baa" on the ballot?

Vasile wrote:Only question I have now is how will my insurance take this.

How do convictions affect my premium?

Serious

One conviction 100% surcharge

Each additional conviction 100% surcharge

Serious: Speeding 50 kph or more over the speed limit

_____________________________________________

If your insurance company finds out about the conviction, there's a very good chance you will either get dropped or your rates will go up 100%. You'll always have an opportunity to go to through facility insurance.

Congratulations on the plea-bargain, you've definitely saved a lot of money avoiding the S172 conviction.

Hi,

I found your information very useful. I was wondering if you can help referring a good lawyer/paralegal.

My case:

After midnight of December 30, 2014, I was returning from the USA. I got tailed by an unmarked police car and he pulled over in QEW – Appleby Line EastBound – HVO lane.

The cop said I was pushing 160km/hour (or 165 cant recall exactly what he said). Based on this, my rented car got impounded and my licence got suspended. The ticket didnt have a speed but it was written as Drive Motor Vehicle – perform stunt. Contrary to highway traffic act 172 (1).

I know I might have been speeding buy I seriously doubt I was over 150 at any point of time.

Questions:

1- Based on your research, have you heard about a good lawyer/paralegal for that area?

2- In an ink ticket, the officer put my court date Jan 27th 2014 instead of 2015. Is that a fatal error?

Thank you for your time

Dude

Each and every word, I digested !

I only have ONE thing to say to you,

And that's the word that comes at the end of the service

AMEN !

p.s

Missing Blighty like no-ones business and remembering that old adage

"The grass is never greener"

TTFN

Sploop wrote:I've interestingly watched this thread for some time now and have read all of the reply's. Many of them sit on the very edge of pompous and self righteous. I was born in England and have spent the most of my life there. As such I've grown up with the strict meaning of the law and its impact on me. I have also had a full driving licence covering most vehicles from heavy military, articulated trucks to Public Service vehicles for 50 yes 50 years. As such I've notched up many hundreds of thousand miles and clearly remember the days before motorways. The speed limit on our first motorway the M1 that opened in the late 1950s had unlimited speed limits for sometime. As most of the cars in the UK would struggle to reach speeds in excess of 80 mph this made little difference. Drum brakes were the norm and discs at that time were seen as something exotic. Aston Martin Lagonda had their factory at Newport Pagnell which was near to the M1 and were found to be using the motorway at night to test their cars at speeds up to 140 mph (225.38 kM H). There were never any accidents involving Aston Martin and you need to realise that the motorway had NO central barrier between north and south carriageways. This however caused the current speed limit of 70 mph (112.63 Km h) to be introduced as a blanket speed on all subsequent motorways built since.