OPP constable charge with racing

[grampaws]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_22702.aspx

whats good for the goose is good for the...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/05/15/opp-officers-charged-under-street-racing-law.aspx

But their lisenses were not suspended.??

[Canadasvt]

What a farce....and Fantino is the King of Farce!

[Taemian]

Couple of things here guys...

As I read the article, said cstbl was not ticketed for while engaging in racing with any other vehicles, he was just engaged in "excessive speed" (more than 30 kph over the limit.) The main purpose of the anti-street racing regs were to allow the COURTS, not the police, to have more of a bite than existing legislation allowed during actual car vs car street racing. (Google Jimmy Ng RCMP)

I can't access the second link, so I can't comment on it.

Also, having read Fantino's book entitled "DUTY", I share most of his opinions. That said, I moved away from St Catharines back in 1986, so negative news stories about him never make it out here. What am I missing?

[QWK SVT]

Too much information is missing, to pass judgement in these cases (and that's my biggest bone of contention with the new laws - judgement without information)...


Also, having read Fantino's book entitled "DUTY", I share most of his opinions. That said, I moved away from St Catharines back in 1986, so negative news stories about him never make it out here. What am I missing?

The "street racing" law allows for the potential seizure and destruction of vehicles. OK, I can understand that... We want to deter street racing. I have seen countless morons racing hondas along the 400-series highways, weaving in and out of traffic. Throw the book at them, AFTER THEIR DAY IN COURT. The law allows for the seizure at the descretion of the responding officer, and it is immediate - no "day in court". This can occur anytime a vehicle is travelling at >50KM/h over the limit, or when performing a stunt. Examples of qualifying stunts would include quickly accelerating to the posted limit, spining tires, or make the left-hand turn before the oncoming traffic has a chance to react to the light turning green... We've never done any of that, have we?

Quite simply, the laws give the police has too much power in this instance, and little to no recourse for the driver.

What's even worse is that our Attorney General, Michael J. Bryant, has been quoted as saying, “The government has the power to seize and destroy cars that have been adapted for street racing, and can do so before a race takes place or any charges are laid.” :eek: Well thank you, big brother, for sharing with me that great piece of logic! :shake:

So, a modified car can, technically, be crushed WITHOUT HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN A STREET RACE, because the intent is implied, solely based on the fact that the car has been modified. Wow! There are so many things wrong with this reasoning; “wow” is all I can say...

I have sent a letter to Mr. Bryant, and received a form letter response, dated 11 weeks after my letter was sent. There wasn't even mention of the points I had in letter, propsing that the police work together with the "automotive community" to educate, and build awareness... Just a "Thanks and F-Off" was the basic response I received. That was last summer. I am still waiting for a response to my follow up letter :depress:

Examples of the outstanding questions include (but are not limited to):

Is simply the modification of a vehicle itself sufficient proof of the driver's intent to participate in street racing?
If Mr. Bryant believes so, what specific types of modifications to a vehicle would constitute intent to use the vehicle in a street race? (Examples would include wheels, tires, exhaust systems, braking components, superchargers/turbochargers, suspension components, stronger engine components [such as different pistons, camshafts, etc.], replacement engines, etc.)
Should the driver of every modified vehicle driving in a safe manner (e.g. not excessively speeding, quick lane changes, etc.) be in constant fear that the police can/will confiscate his/her vehicle? How would Mr. Bryant propose said vehicle should be safely transported from location to location (e.g. to particpate in a sanctioned racing event, car show, etc.)?
Still waiting, with bated breath...:shake:

</RANT>

[Dennis Reinhart]

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_22702.aspx

whats good for the goose is good for the...

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/toronto/archive/2008/05/15/opp-officers-charged-under-street-racing-law.aspx

But their lisenses were not suspended.??


Florida has the RADAR program, that is what the Marauders were set up for. Rid Aggresive Driving And Roadrage

[Taemian]

Too much information is missing, to pass judgement in these cases (and that's my biggest bone of contention with the new laws - judgement without information)...



The "street racing" law allows for the potential seizure and destruction of vehicles. OK, I can understand that... We want to deter street racing. I have seen countless morons racing hondas along the 400-series highways, weaving in and out of traffic. Throw the book at them, AFTER THEIR DAY IN COURT. The law allows for the seizure at the descretion of the responding officer, and it is immediate - no "day in court". This can occur anytime a vehicle is travelling at >50KM/h over the limit, or when performing a stunt. Examples of qualifying stunts would include quickly accelerating to the posted limit, spining tires, or make the left-hand turn before the oncoming traffic has a chance to react to the light turning green... We've never done any of that, have we?

Quite simply, the laws give the police has too much power in this instance, and little to no recourse for the driver.

What's even worse is that our Attorney General, Michael J. Bryant, has been quoted as saying, “The government has the power to seize and destroy cars that have been adapted for street racing, and can do so before a race takes place or any charges are laid.” :eek: Well thank you, big brother, for sharing with me that great piece of logic! :shake:

So, a modified car can, technically, be crushed WITHOUT HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN A STREET RACE, because the intent is implied, solely based on the fact that the car has been modified. Wow! There are so many things wrong with this reasoning; “wow” is all I can say...

I have sent a letter to Mr. Bryant, and received a form letter response, dated 11 weeks after my letter was sent. There wasn't even mention of the points I had in letter, propsing that the police work together with the "automotive community" to educate, and build awareness... Just a "Thanks and F-Off" was the basic response I received. That was last summer. I am still waiting for a response to my follow up letter :depress:

Examples of the outstanding questions include (but are not limited to):


Is simply the modification of a vehicle itself sufficient proof of the driver's intent to participate in street racing?
If Mr. Bryant believes so, what specific types of modifications to a vehicle would constitute intent to use the vehicle in a street race? (Examples would include wheels, tires, exhaust systems, braking components, superchargers/turbochargers, suspension components, stronger engine components [such as different pistons, camshafts, etc.], replacement engines, etc.)
Should the driver of every modified vehicle driving in a safe manner (e.g. not excessively speeding, quick lane changes, etc.) be in constant fear that the police can/will confiscate his/her vehicle? How would Mr. Bryant propose said vehicle should be safely transported from location to location (e.g. to particpate in a sanctioned racing event, car show, etc.)?
Still waiting, with bated breath...:shake:

</RANT>


That is much different than the anti-racing regs that were drafted here in BC. It is still the courts' final decision, it is NOT any police depts ultimate authority that sets the penalty.

However, police have ALWAYS had the ability to seize a vehicle on the spot for gross violations of the MVA, or pertaining safety laws. I have no problem with that. Seizure out here DOES NOT mean that the vehicle is automatically crushed, but is impounded the same way DWI or unsafe/uninsured vehicles are impounded.

Your listing of qualifiying stunts, is it listed in some new regs out there? If you could forward me some more info, that'd be great. I'm in conversations with the IRSU out here, and I'd love to hear their thoughts on it. Thanks!

[QWK SVT]

Here is a link to Bill 203, which covered this off:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/38_Parliament/Session2/b203ra.pdf

Here is the specific section (I have highlighted my areas of concern and added comments in red perenthesis):

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. (a stunt is NOT defined)
Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver's licence may be suspended,
(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or
(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years.
Determining subsequent conviction
(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.
10-year limitation
(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2).
Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall, (the Attorney General has publicly stated that having a modified vehicle implies intent, and could, therefore, provide reasonable grounds)
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). (when did the officer become the judge and jury, too?)
Administrative seven-day licence suspension
(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver's licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made.
Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment
(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,
(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and
(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b).
Release of vehicle
(8) Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment.
Early release of vehicle
(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1).
Duty of officer re licence suspension
(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person's driver's licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended.
Duty of officer re impoundment
(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered.
Same
(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry.
No appeal or hearing
(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver's licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. (guilty, before proven innocent? No... You cannot even prove your innocence)
Lien for storage costs
(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.
Costs to be paid before release of vehicle
(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid.
Owner may recover losses from driver
(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment.
Offence
(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
Intent of suspension and impoundment
(18) The suspension of a driver's licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time.
Forms
(19) The Minister may require that forms approved by the Minister be used for any purpose of this section.
Regulations
(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;
(b) exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;
(c) defining the terms "race", "contest" and "stunt" for the purposes of this section.
Definition
(21) In this section,
"driver's licence" includes a driver's licence issued by another jurisdiction.

(continued, next post)

[QWK SVT]

22. Part X of the Act is amended by adding the following section:
Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited
172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; (don' have nitrous, myself, but I see a LOT of folks at the track with a bottle in the trunk. Guess that's illegal, even if they properly disconnect it, prior to driving home)
(b) there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and
(c) if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment.
Same
(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,
(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;
(b) the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and
(c) the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment.
Offence
(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both.
23. Subsection 214.1 (7) of the Act is amended by striking out "and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years" at the end and substituting "and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than the maximum period for which his or her licence could be ordered suspended by a court under section 130 or 172, as the case may be".
24. Section 217 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exceptions to release of motor vehicle
(4.1) A motor vehicle shall not be released under subsection (4) if it was removed, stored, detained or impounded pursuant to any provision of this Act other than subsection (4) of this section.

This whole law does not equate to fair treatment, and IMO puts too much power in the hands of the officer. If he/she is having a bad day, unnatually loud exhaust, or the whine of a blower could be enough to have your vehicle impounded, and you have NO recourse. Not cool :mad2:

[Dr Caleb]

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. (a stunt is NOT defined)

This law looks like it's begging to be challenged.

Just FYI though - in the Alberta Highway Traffic Act - 'stunt' and 'stunting' are defined explicitly elsewhere. In Alberta, 'stunting' is 'distracting other drivers from the safe operation of their vehicle'. . . or something close to that.

I do have to say, however, anyone going 60+ km/h over the posted speed does not deserve the right to drive. I hear too often things like 210 in a 100 zone. I think the record around here is 280 or 290 in an 80 zone. (recently on the new Anthony Henday extension)

Sad part is, I've done it. 220 or 240 through a radar trap (don't know speedo only went to 210) , in a 100 zone. It's a wonder I survived my youth. ;)

[QWK SVT]

This law looks like it's begging to be challenged.

Just FYI though - in the Alberta Highway Traffic Act - 'stunt' and 'stunting' are defined explicitly elsewhere. In Alberta, 'stunting' is 'distracting other drivers from the safe operation of their vehicle'. . . or something close to that.

I do have to say, however, anyone going 60+ km/h over the posted speed does not deserve the right to drive. I hear too often things like 210 in a 100 zone. I think the record around here is 280 or 290 in an 80 zone. (recently on the new Anthony Henday extension)

Sad part is, I've done it. 220 or 240 through a radar trap (don't know speedo only went to 210) , in a 100 zone. It's a wonder I survived my youth. ;)

Agreed - we have all done it (gone >50km over the limit). Depending on circumstances, I even agree with the punishment (e.g. going that fast in a school zone). My primary concern is the amount of lattitude afforded the officer at the time, and the lack of recourse for the "offender".

I personally feel this is being used as a tax grab, and not a deterent... If the gov't was serious about stopping the activity, I believe education and awareness programs (such as the Edmonton Police Services' "Street Legal" program, link here (http://www.amemagazine.com/pastissues/AME2005april.pdf)) are far more effective. I'd also like to see a safe and secure location (drag strip) closer to the city (nearest is a 1.5 hour drive, and farther for folks on the other side of town). I think accessibility would greatly reduce occurances... Plus, it would benefit ME, and I'd like to see my tax dollar benefit me, for once...

[QWK SVT]

And here are the definitions of race, stunt, etc...
(source: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_070455_e.htm)

Definition, “race” and “contest”
2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “race” and “contest” 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. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (2).
Definition, “stunt”
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “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. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.

[Dr Caleb]

I agree with you about the officers having too much discretion, BTW. And the EPS 'Street legal' is a great program! Friday night at the track is 'run what you brung' night, but for some reason they stopped the V-8 class. ???

As for those definitions . . . .WTF?

Those definitions are so full of holes!

2.3.iii - that means everyone on the 401/427 at rush hour are stunting?

3.3 - what if you are good at 'drifting'? :evil:

3.8.ii - So everyone who speeds up to make sure you can't merge from an off ramp is not only guilty of 'failure to yield' but 'stunting'? (Not that I'm opposed to those asses having their car crushed ;) )

And 3.8.C must be covered by something else too - 'Unsafe left turn' I'm guessing, not 'stunting'.

[Taemian]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the great and detailed links. I think I'll try and be the voice of reason here (not condesention) and address what I think is your major point.

The immediate detention of the vehicle is no different, as I read it, if you are DWI or racing. The same language applies and is used in both cases. It also is used for impounding unsafe/unroadworthy vehicles.

The police officer becomes "judge and jury" as you put it, in just about everything he does on a day to day basis! EXAMPLE: His observations/conclusions while responding to domestics is ENTIRELY based on what he sees. He takes who he thinks is the aggressor and locks them up until a judge can sort it all out. He doesn't hand out sentences, only detentions. Think about it like that, you'll see that is what happens for most of an officer's job. Same with any racing detentions.

DWI stuff is the same. Officer must have "reasonable suspicion" of impairment. If he doesn't/can't back it up, the case is thrown out. Also applies to unsafe vehicles. If the car is majorly jouncing up and down and has bald tires, is it the officer's job to have a tire tread depth gauge and a shock absorber rebound guage handy in order to impound the car, especially if he can see steel threads poking out of the tire edges? The car will be impounded, a traffic officer will examine th e car and write up details, and submit it to the report. The same idea will be applied to racing charges.

Your AG is an idiot, and has no idea on proper policy/legality. Any charges based on "intent" would have to include video/audio evidence that "said defendant" indicated his pre-planned intent. Otherwise, things would be tossed.

The nitrous regs seem to me to be added because of EMS responders, not police. There have been cases of first responders unaware of nitrous bottles that posed HUGE dangers due to fire. Just like CNG/propane powered vehicles MUST have a decal showing it to be such, I think a nitrous sticker would be a sensible idea for no other reason than the safety of firemen and EMTs. As for being visible, I read it as any trunk mounted application is fine, unless it is hidden under/within a trunk organizer or some such barrier. Lots of guys do this for a clean trunk appearance, so it is unseen when opening the trunk. The major point in this section is that once the NOS is disconnected, that you can NOT make it active from the passenger compartment. Go to the track, hook it up, disconnect, go home. But if you include a remote activation switch and purge that can somehow mechanically reconnect at any point in time, you're toast. Back in my days of renting police cars to movies, so long as all the fuses/ wires were pulled from the lightbars, you could travel without removing them. HOWEVER, the fuse box would have to be underhood or elsewhere, so you couldn't plug in a fuse while driving along, use the lights, then remove the fuse and say "Me, Officer? No, I didn't use the lights, there's no fuse in them right now." The disconnect has to be unconnectable by the driver when driving. Same thing applies to the nitrous system in these regs as I read them.

Please see my rebuttal as a constructive one, I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong.

[de minimus]

This whole law does not equate to fair treatment, and IMO puts too much power in the hands of the officer. If he/she is having a bad day, unnatually loud exhaust, or the whine of a blower could be enough to have your vehicle impounded, and you have NO recourse. Not cool :mad2:

Actually you do have recourse....see
(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver's licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.

IMO this is much ado about nothing...it simply codifies the common law of "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle" or some such provision.
The definitions of "stunting" are a bit clumsy....they really should have said something like "Stunting includes, but is not limited to the following:
a)...
b)...
c)...., etc.

[QWK SVT]

The whole "judge and jury" thing isn't so troubling when there is hard, imperical evidence of an infraction (e.g. police witnessed street racing, or a radar of >50km over). It's the the fact that many "stunts" are covered off elsewhere within the Highway Traffic Act (double dipping), the law has resulted in substancial towing and impound fees, regardless of the ruling by the court (at a much later date), and, most of all, the fact that there is too much room for interpretation on a very loosely written law...

IMO, laws (in general, and this one specifically) should be VERY prescriptive. This law is not written as such... Our AG making the statements he has highlights this... Here's a quote, from him (source (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/227464)):


“Somebody who’s putting together a … car for street racing might as well be putting together an illegal narcotic or putting together an explosive,” the attorney general told reporters.

“What I would say to anybody who is engaging in the illegal act of street racing is, we don’t need to wait until that car hits the road fully loaded,” said Bryant.

“We can seize that car if we have information from police and, just on the balance of probabilities, if we can establish that that car is being used for the unlawful purpose of street racing, we will seize it and you will never see it again,” he said.

“We will crush your car. We will crush the parts. You will never see it again.”

I would strongly urge any owner of a modified car in Ontario to think about the statements, above. After that, you may wish to sign this petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/civil013/petition.html

[Dr Caleb]

I agree QWK. If you think about his blatant attitude - many 'stock' equipped cars could also be considered to be 'in the balance of probabilities' to be used for street racing.

Mustang Cobra's, the Mercury Marauder, even older Corvette Grand Sports'.

What's to stop an OPP officer from saying 'in all probability, you are likely to street race' and suddenly your car is being crushed?

I could go on a rant, but I won't.

[QWK SVT]

I could go on a rant, but I won't.

I think I've probably done enough of that, for the both of us :D

[Taemian]

The whole "judge and jury" thing isn't so troubling when there is hard, imperical evidence of an infraction (e.g. police witnessed street racing, or a radar of >50km over). It's the the fact that many "stunts" are covered off elsewhere within the Highway Traffic Act (double dipping), the law has resulted in substancial towing and impound fees, regardless of the ruling by the court (at a much later date), and, most of all, the fact that there is too much room for interpretation on a very loosely written law...

IMO, laws (in general, and this one specifically) should be VERY prescriptive. This law is not written as such... Our AG making the statements he has highlights this... Here's a quote, from him (source (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/227464)):


“Somebody who’s putting together a … car for street racing might as well be putting together an illegal narcotic or putting together an explosive,” the attorney general told reporters.

“What I would say to anybody who is engaging in the illegal act of street racing is, we don’t need to wait until that car hits the road fully loaded,” said Bryant.

“We can seize that car if we have information from police and, just on the balance of probabilities, if we can establish that that car is being used for the unlawful purpose of street racing, we will seize it and you will never see it again,” he said.

“We will crush your car. We will crush the parts. You will never see it again.”

I would strongly urge any owner of a modified car in Ontario to think about the statements, above. After that, you may wish to sign this petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/civil013/petition.html

He shoots himself in the foot with his own words here..."if we can establish that the car IS BEING USED for the unlawful purpose of street racing." Without evidence/proof of violation, there's no crime. Intent to street race is not a crime UNLESS an officer halts the offense immediately before the actual race offense starts, and would have otherwise taken place without the officer's interference.

Your AG is clearly putting on a show for the crowds, and swiping at a group that has little will or ability to fight back in kind. Let it roll off your back, he's a legal moron and just wants press.

I hope this addresses your concerns in the posts above.

[Aren Jay]

Police have a double standard. They enforce laws they break every day.

Reminds me of the news from NS today. 12 off duty police officers beat up two black guys while two on duty police in cruisers sit and watch. They forgot to turn their cameras on and only broke up the fight after one of the black guys was knocked out.

The head RC says no police officer did anything wrong and he is satisfied that nothing untoward happened.

Yeah right.

[Taemian]

Police have a double standard. They enforce laws they break every day.

Reminds me of the news from NS today. 12 off duty police officers beat up two black guys while two on duty police in cruisers sit and watch. They forgot to turn their cameras on and only broke up the fight after one of the black guys was knocked out.

The head RC says no police officer did anything wrong and he is satisfied that nothing untoward happened.

Yeah right.

"Look at me! Everybody look at me! Somebody look at me! Please o please o please? I'll write ANYTHING to get attention. Look at all my 5000 crazy posts that I write, most just to get a reaction. SOME kind of reaction. Won't you please validate me and my needs?":shake:

Lucky thing news teams aren't following certain people around, they'd be commited after the 11 oclock news was shown.

Seriously, where is the ignore command on this board?

EDIT: By the way, one of the two black men threw the first punch. He knocked the first white, off-duty officer unconcious. Until that point, it had been a battle of words. Gee, one guy with one friend punching a guy with a dozen friends. Obviously a great tactitian and scholar. There is no mention in any of the 5 articles I read about police watching and not intervening for awhile. Where exactly did you get your information? (PS- You can't answer "Elvis" or "aliens", but feel free to post us a link.)

[Taemian]

News article

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=fa98c6a5-940c-4341-a0cd-e6fed6eda2aa

Interesting to note that one of the black men involved is the son of a preacher. An Al Sharpton type preacher. One who admires Rev. Jesse Jackson immensely. Enough said. So much for turning the other cheek.

I know, it's my fault that white people enslaved your great great great great great great grandparents. Please continue hating ME for that, and make sure you respond to any/every racial slur or taunt with violence. Don't bother showing me you're a man of character or anything.

Also, to the idiot who posted about this, the HALIFAX police chief said that HIS OFFICERS who responded to the incident were cleared of any wrong doing. The guilt or innocence of the involved off duty RCMP officers has yet to be determined.

Context is everything, you moron.

Also, neither of the black men were knocked out. Perhaps you need a spell-check AND a fact check function on your computer.

[QWK SVT]

Wow... I'm not touching that discussion... Not with a 10-foot pole :poke:

I will say this: Working for the organization I do, in the capacity I am in, I have seen FIRST HAND how the media neglects details, embellishes, takes statements from less-than-credible sources, or out-an-out lies, to sensationalize a story. I trust very little I read in the papers (not even talking about the Enquirer, I mean the Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, National Post, too), particularly if not valided, with my own two eyes.

Back to the original topic of the post: At the end of the day, I find the law to be very poorly written, and even more poorly interpreted. I have no problem with the basic principles of the law (if it is in fact to improve road saftey, and not the tax grab it has become), but I strongly feel a re-write is desperately in order. I, for one, will strongly consider the stance on this issue, when casting my next vote...

[Aren Jay]

I watched it on the news, didn't read about it online at all. There are things called TV's you might want to check them out.

Yeah yeah you protect your fellow boys in blue, right or right they do anything right. Never not right just right. Right.

I suppose this racing cop wasn't racing, right? Law clearly does not apply to him, right?

How is this: http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-i230029-Tasering-followed-racial-slurs-charges-Fells.html

Turns out the black guy knocked out a racist and then was tasered.

off particular note "Drummond was charged with uttering threats, public disturbance and resisting arrest."

“It’s interesting that he wasn’t charged with assault,” said Rev. Fells, “in light of the fact that he knocked a person out.”

Fells said he was assured by Staff-Sgt. Phil Barrett of the RCMP detachment that the story would get out when cameras on the police cruiser’s dash were reviewed.

“But it turned out there were no videotapes in the machines,”

Now isn't that convenient.

[Taemian]

I watched it on the news, didn't read about it online at all. There are things called TV's you might want to check them out.

Yeah yeah you protect your fellow boys in blue, right or right they do anything right. Never not right just right. Right.

I suppose this racing cop wasn't racing, right? Law clearly does not apply to him, right?

How is this: http://www.novanewsnow.com/article-i230029-Tasering-followed-racial-slurs-charges-Fells.html

Turns out the black guy knocked out a racist and then was tasered.

off particular note "Drummond was charged with uttering threats, public disturbance and resisting arrest."

“It’s interesting that he wasn’t charged with assault,” said Rev. Fells, “in light of the fact that he knocked a person out.”

Fells said he was assured by Staff-Sgt. Phil Barrett of the RCMP detachment that the story would get out when cameras on the police cruiser’s dash were reviewed.

“But it turned out there were no videotapes in the machines,”

Now isn't that convenient.

TVs you say? Yeah, I USED to watch them when I was a kid. We now have a different medium called the interweb or something. But thanks for the heads up.

You have obviously gone off prematurely again (is this a reoccuring problem for you?) and neglected to read most of the points raised in this thread about STREET RACING. Maybe try rereading it again.

As far as the off duty LEOs in your off tangent rant, here's what I see: An idiot off duty member says something stupid to a citizen. Member walks towards van, citizen follows and taunts. Off duty members see a fellow member being taunted by citizen and taunting back, not knowing why since they were not witness to the incident, but come out to intervene. A small brawl ensues, the original taunter got knocked out (which is fine by me in principle) and the offender was arrested after resisting arrest by ON-DUTY uniformed officers.

You want to punch a guy for making racist remarks? Go ahead. Doesn't matter if he's a plumber or a cop, you're going to jail. PERIOD. Anybody who strikes another person in full view of an on duty police officer should expect no less. (You did read the part about on duty police officers trying to difuse the situation right? It takes TWO aggressive parties for that.) A little rhyme that might help you out, maybe you've heard it before, starts with "Sticks and stones..." If you can't do the time, put your hands in your pockets and just keep walking away. As the articles all mention, the 2 black men followed the off duty member towards the van, continuing to inflame the situation. They probably thought he was bluffing about having lots of friends nearby, and figured they'd teach him a lesson. Hardly innocent in my eyes.

If a police officer decided to punch out every suspect that verbally insulted them (oh how traumatic!:shake: ) while on duty, oh puu-leeze. Brush it off and soldier on.

And the whole "racial" taunt thing is irrelevant. If I call a white guy a motherF***er, or a female a dumb c*nt, an ignorant comment is always the same. Racially themed insults are no better OR WORSE than any other type of insulting comment. Get over yourself.

As to the "missing" video tape, the quotes that come from the offender's dad make it sound like there were a dozen cameras that all had missing tapes. In fact, ONE tape was missing from the SINGLE dash cam involved. I'm not happy how this presents at all, but I've seen things like this happen in fleet service, when having a tape would've HELPED an officer make his case. Do officers scream " It's a set up! Conspiracy! blah bla blah! " Tapes get taken out for evidence, and not replaced with new blanks. It's not that rare if you're exposed to that workplace and the daily screwups.

[Taemian]

Wow... I'm not touching that discussion... Not with a 10-foot pole :poke:

I will say this: Working for the organization I do, in the capacity I am in, I have seen FIRST HAND how the media neglects details, embellishes, takes statements from less-than-credible sources, or out-an-out lies, to sensationalize a story. I trust very little I read in the papers (not even talking about the Enquirer, I mean the Toronto Star, Globe & Mail, National Post, too), particularly if not valided, with my own two eyes.

Back to the original topic of the post: At the end of the day, I find the law to be very poorly written, and even more poorly interpreted. I have no problem with the basic principles of the law (if it is in fact to improve road saftey, and not the tax grab it has become), but I strongly feel a re-write is desperately in order. I, for one, will strongly consider the stance on this issue, when casting my next vote...

I agree with you about the poorly drafted and written law. There are far too many loopholes (for both sides to argue) and I think the AG's time could be spent elsewhere with better results. As usual in politics, it's about the sizzle and not the steak.

[Aren Jay]

Actually two cruisers were on the scene and two cameras both did not have tapes in them back at the station.

The Head RC said so on TV himself. Thin blue silent blind line.

[Taemian]

Actually two cruisers were on the scene and two cameras both did not have tapes in them back at the station.

The Head RC said so on TV himself. Thin blue silent blind line.

I'll have to accept your word on that tv report, since we have had no video coverage of this incident at this end of the country. I'm looking for any info on the web I can find. What network did you see it on? I can't find CBC info.

I still find this a bit hinky. The video capture units (old vcr versions anyways) are in locked boxes in the trunk, so I'll wait til all the facts are in after the investigation.

[Dr Caleb]

I'll have to accept your word on that tv report, since we have had no video coverage of this incident at this end of the country. I'm looking for any info on the web I can find. What network did you see it on? I can't find CBC info.

I still find this a bit hinky. The video capture units (old vcr versions anyways) are in locked boxes in the trunk, so I'll wait til all the facts are in after the investigation.

Which is why we don't try people in the media. We don't know the facts. I won't take an opinion until a Judge does, and then perhaps I might take the opposite opinion. But there is video.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=37318188-4179-4dc7-8cbf-7f975f4c8b9f

If you don't know the name 'Digby', think of it as Hastings street, way east (but with stunning scenery). Racial tensions between the mostly black Digby, and mostly white Cole harbour have been going on for decades. It's one of the few places in Canada where such tension exists.

[de minimus]

If you don't know the name 'Digby', think of it as Hastings street, way east (but with stunning scenery). Racial tensions between the mostly black Digby, and mostly white Cole harbour have been going on for decades. It's one of the few places in Canada where such tension exists.

huh? Digby is at least 200 km from Cole Harbour looks nothing like Hastings Street, is mostly white and offshore there are really big Scallops. Cole Harbour is next to Dartmouth and near Preston which is a mostly black community. Racial tension is a bit of a stretch.....you've got to stop listening to the CBC.

[Dr Caleb]

huh? Digby is at least 200 km from Cole Harbour looks nothing like Hastings Street, is mostly white and offshore there are really big Scallops. Cole Harbour is next to Dartmouth and near Preston which is a mostly black community. Racial tension is a bit of a stretch.....you've got to stop listening to the CBC.

Me = :loco: Just looked at a map. Yea, I'm getting old.

I think I'm thinking of Preston, not Digby. There used to be a lot of racial tensions there but not in the last decade or so. And the 'Hastings Street' was in reference to the poverty and unemployment, not the topography ;).

What do I know, I'm just a prairie boy. Hehe. Been a while since I've been in NS.

[Aren Jay]

It was either Global or CTV.

I couldn't find the video either.

It will be interesting to see if anything happens with the "racing" police officer.

[Aren Jay]

Dr. Caleb I do agree with you that racing facilities should be made available for those of us that would wish to use them. Drag racing and road racing, if done on track would keep the instance of street racing to a minimal.

Yes street racing, everywhere, is a problem and needs a solution, but just not doing it isn't the solution. A place to safely do it is needed.

Those caught street racing should be sentenced to probation with time served at a race track. Get them were they want to be, even if it is cleaning the toilets at the track, they will come back to race.

Suspension of license works only to a point. Again if they have no street license but are encouraged to come and get a track license, then it is better for everyone.

Track license, track driving school, safety courses etc... it all makes sense but only if you have somewhere to do it. Yes there should be such a place. It doesn't need to be privately operated either. Nationally (RCMP) involvement or Provincial or Local police involvement at a municipal run track would serve just as well.

Plus involvement on a race school and track experience / time could lead to the reinstating of a street license. Likewise loss of a street license could lead to suspension of a track license. In the end it would, once setup, reinforce the street safe driving and track racing.

For all the money that has gone into this Ontario law, yes it makes some money back but I doubt it is a one to one ratio. A race school track and police involvement would help curb any such activity on the streets.

[grampaws]

There are clubs that host track days..at mosport.
http://www.hadamotorsport.com/forum/showthread.php?t=784

Even this club has notices everywhere to prove they are authourized
events!