“Jp Rules - Hta172 Violates The Charter”

tdrive2 wrote:If this does get repealed this will make big time news. Well if its gets changed i heard Fantino's time is up soon as this would for sure cook his bacon along with him trying to get rid of a Jury member in his case with those 2 cops. So if this makes news and we find out this law was unconstitutional, etc and the impoundment on the stop was against our code of law then what happens?

The so-far unconfirmed rumour is that Fantino will likely leave the OPP after the 100th Anniversary via retirement. Then he's mused about running for Mayor of Vaughan. The case you refer to was his attempt to remove a JUSTICE from the case, not a jury member. If the law gets struck down or repealed, what will happen? Answer: According to several law experts, not much.

tdrive2 wrote:So are these people going to get reimbursed?

According to the same law experts, answer: No. Mistake or error by the gov't in passing such a law would not justify massive reimbursement. I had believed otherwise in the past, but apparently that is not the case.

tdrive2 wrote:Anyways now in the future that the 172 wont be so bold in taking your car on the spot

Um...

tdrive2 wrote:officers also wont be scared to use it on those trouble makers who routinely plug passing lanes and try to slow down the flow of traffic.

As long as it is on the books, officers can use it. If it is not justified for use against someone who was driving more than 50 km/h over the posted speed limit, it also is not justified against left-lane hogs, no matter how much you dislike them.

tdrive2 wrote: If this does get repealed this will make big time news. Well if its gets changed i heard Fantino's time is up soon

The law was not put into affect by Fantino, but by "your" elected government period.

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us. The most important thing is he supports the very front line officers that work day/night.

Correct but i was referring to using the law in general for other things it has and not just using 172 for 50 over.

Using 172 would not make a difference whether or not it included impoundment on the stop.

I was just saying if this law was not so "bold" or extreme to impound your vehicle officers may begin to use this law for other things as i described earlier.

I am sure there is alot of cops that do not like this law and instead will reduce a 50 over to 49.

I dont have a big comment on the impoundment. I dont have a problem with 172.

Although i feel on alot of our 400's the speed limit is set artificially low and no one or the flow of traffic actually travels at this speed.

For example a limit of 120 when people go 120-130 and impound at 170 does alot more to catch real speeders than a limit no one listens to at 100 km/hr when everyone goes 120-130, but not just 20-30 over the flow of traffic will get your car on a tow truck.

Atleast in the city people are usually within the limit to maybee 15 over. I dont really say most people go 15 over on city streets posted at 50,60,70.

But there has been many times i have been on a 400 series highway where most cars are going between 120-140. Which would be 20-40 over MAX posted limit.

I have been on the 401 many times and the flow of traffic is 130.

I almost have NEVER seen this happen on most city streets posted at 40,50,60,70.

hwybear wrote:

tdrive2 wrote: If this does get repealed this will make big time news. Well if its gets changed i heard Fantino's time is up soon

The law was not put into affect by Fantino, but by "your" elected government period.

Fantino has been an excellent leader for us. The most important thing is he supports the very front line officers that work day/night.

I understand bear.

I said this because he was one of the big voices the province saw on the Media as the person who had this law.

He is not 100 % responsible but the general public tends to associate him with this new law.

When they find out this law was unconstitutional because of the impoundment they are very likely to point the finger at him.

of course the MTO, McGunity, etc had something to do with it but i believe the general public will look at him if this law is changed and it makes the news.

tdrive2 wrote:Again to all of you that say this law has saved so many lives.

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety ... tml#ref_2a

(scroll down to 2.

I like the part where it mentions speed to fast and to fast for conditions accounts for about 160 out of 1200 collisions, and the fact that some almost 500 or just under half this amount occurred under normal conditions.

This is 2004 stats which is pre 172 days....I know for a fact those stats are incorrect.

(IE: I only indicate "driving normal" on maybe 1 in 20 collisions, I am not lazy and actually read all the choices to consider, rather than just checking off the first box)

I had to use the 2004 cause the other ones don't have it in there.

Is there any way to view the OPP's actual stats or records?

Only the MTO site seems to have these kind of statistics.

I wouldn't even know how to find last weeks stats, much less last year or the year before.

Maybe under the OPP main website, the annual report 2008/2007

It just does not make a difference to me, calls will happen no matter how many stats there is. Just can't have common sense on the highways by the drivers

Radar Identified wrote:

tdrive2 wrote:So are these people going to get reimbursed?

According to the same law experts, answer: No. Mistake or error by the gov't in passing such a law would not justify massive reimbursement. I had believed otherwise in the past, but apparently that is not the case.

It is better, more efficient, feels much better, and costs less taxpayers' money to bail out an automaker or two . Both sides, McGuinty's Liberals and Harper's Conservatives are doing it.

Seriously though, 172 has some great stuff in it, although only speeding and squealing/spinning tires are enforced.

My take on the law:

Speeding: Why a new law to govern something that is already there? 128 already has ample penalties for speeding. Re-vamp that instead, increase penalties, etc.

Spinning tires: I spun tires on a green light on my car couple days ago. It was raining though. Does that make me a stunt driver? Most would agree not.

Squealing tires: There is a bylaw in (I believe) almost every town that prohibits doing that. There is one in Guelph, that's for sure. Again, why a new law when there already is a regulation in place?

Spinning doughnuts can be considered as having control over a car. It is thought that having a person (young driver) spin some doughnuts on an empty parking lot, in order to learn how the car behaves when it is spun so, increases awareness of what to do when in a similar situation, such as spinning on ice, etc.

Driving with a person in the trunk: what if the dude is incapacitated (too drunk) to be placed elsewhere? Had that happen once to a friend, he "blew" (the doctor plugged a test tube in his mouth) 0.8+ in the hospital (yes, over 10 times the legal limit). He dislocated his arm falling down the stairs, and we had to rush him to the hospital, though he can't remember it... 4 people to carry the guy, including a DD, no space in the car: to the trunk he goes. Before the 172 came into effect.

What about those who speed up when being overtaken? Way more risk in doing that than in someone doing 30 instead of 20 while making a right turn and sqealing tires a little. What was the last time someone got ticketed for doing that? This must happen on the 400-series quite often, at least I see that a fair bit.

Anyone hear the news of a 15-year old Korean punching a bully twice his size in the nose, drawing blood, and being charged with assault? One more example of the ridiculousness of the current situation. We are accepting the laws that are meant to protect us, but they are doing us, as Russians like to say, a "Bear Service" (I was told an old Russian story about a circus performer/trainer who had a pet bear. One day the bear decided to swap the fly of the trainer's forehead while the poor chap was sleeping. You can figure out the rest). The wimps get wimpier, the crazy - crazier.

We forgot to defend ourselves with what we got, and we letting someone else do it for us. Your property is being ransacked? Wait for the cops, don't fire shots in the air or in the general direction of the robber, else you will be charged with attempted murder. You are being beaten by a bully? If you have a black belt, under no circumstance can you use that roundhouse kick to knock some sense into the bully, else you will be charged with use of deadly force in aggravated assault. In other words, victims that fight back are no longer victims but assailants. Funny how things change roles. All in a desire to create a nanny state. Why not vote in a Communist Party next election with the same result of a nanny state? It will even look for jobs for you ...

The lawmakers went through the list of all that can be potentially dangerous and outlawed that, but they forgot that you need to blast some dynamite to make a tunnel. And dynamite is very dangerous, when wrong/dumb people use it. But Niagara Falls power plant would have been quite impossible without it.

Here, here Racer.

And if someone breaks into my house they better be a whole lot bigger then me. And the cops are going to need the rubber gloves too.

Reflections wrote:Here, here Racer..

thumbs up! (we need more smilies)

I see so much of this type of thing you mention (nanny state) Racer. I have seen so much whinning, sniveling, etc of everyone for anything....how many protests do you see, everyday there is a protest. We have rights groups out our @$$. We have inquires out our butt too. Criminals have more rights than the victims. Why do people make up excuses, rather that accept the consequences? Think the excuses and people not being prosecuted leads to more laws and we become overburdened by stuff.

Nicely said, racer.

Although one update: The York Region Police are now recommending to the Crown that they drop the charge against the 15-year-old boy who punched the bully in the face. That kid should never have been charged in the first place. The school board also really screwed that one up.

As for Fantino.. Ever since the very idea of Bill 203 came out, he started chasing cameras to find every opportunity to advance his future political career by being out there in the media. That's in addition to having been involved in scandals both in Toronto and at the head of the OPP. He's also been going after the underlings who dared to speak out against him. Don't forget that we're dealing with the guy who said

a problem is now arising where portions of the public believe that Dundas Square is a public space.

A person like that shouldn't have been given the responsibility of a PC, not to mention running the whole show for Ontario.

That there "racer" has an edumacation.......yup, gone done and graduated right outta grade skool....he sure is smart, S, M, R, T.......smart.

FiReSTaRT wrote:As for Fantino.. Ever since the very idea of Bill 203 came out, he started chasing cameras to find every opportunity to advance his future political career by being out there in the media..

I don't think it was a bad thing to get right out front and centre with the media in regards to Bill 203. The gov't did not say much, so Fantino did...at least the message got out.

Now, if ONLY that similiar type of thing would have happened with the MOVE OVER LAW when it first came out......in 2002.

We have a move over law?