Author Topic: New Law in TO (Read 17822 times)

quadzilla · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2007, 07:29:31 pm »

On the news tonight they were talking about how people's rights are being removed as you are presumed guilty and have to prove your innocence.

Do they impound cars when people are caught driving drunk?

Wetson · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2007, 08:26:20 pm »

As much as I hate to say it.... I agree with this law. Someone had to have the b@lls to take a stance and now it's been done. Countless times I see drivers on the 400 series highways driving dangerously.... cutting in and out, speeding, tail gating etc. Perhaps having their car impounded and hitting them where it hurts, the pocket book, will teach a lesson and get through to them.

tpl · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:07:58 pm »

The problem is to me that it is imposing the penalty before being found guilty. We dont have many reverse onus crimes... fortunately, drug dealing is one of them. This one OUGHT to be declared unconstitutional but if anyone has the money to get there,the Supremes will undoubtedly use the reasonable in a just society clause that they also used for random stops for impaired driving.

Before you flame: I have no problem with high penalties for excessive speed, aggressive driving, DUI, drug dealing etc. but I do have a terrible problem with random "show us your papers and blow into this machine", reverse onus and with the penalty being imposed before a court has returned a guilty verdict.

Wetson · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:11:09 pm »

I do agree that the law is not perfect and the issues surrounding it are complex however it is a start.

tpl · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:28:52 pm »

Wetson. I don't think you get it. It is a law that is basically going against nearly 1050 years of the rights of the common man in our legal system.... and not even for a good reason ( like terrorism for example) just for speeding.

inco · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:34:06 pm »

What should they do when an impaired driver is caught for his erratic driving, but can't be tested for alcohol - give the car back to him and let him go on his way?

A person clocked at 160 in a 100 zone needs a time out I guess. Seven days - two weeks, or a couple of days - it's just a number. If wrong, damages.

They take away guns, why not cars?

quadzilla · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2007, 09:43:39 pm »

Quote from: inco on October 01, 2007, 09:34:06 pm

What should they do when an impaired driver is caught for his erratic driving, but can't be tested for alcohol - give the car back to him and let him go on his way?

They could let the passenger (if there is one and not drinking) drive the car home. Yes, I know...why didn't the non-drinking passenger just drive in the first place but we know that doesn't always happen.

In the case of the 50/over rule, this wouldn't be allowed.

Also, are you saying they do impound drunk driver's cars or not?

rrocket · « **Reply #27 on:** October 01, 2007, 10:11:31 pm »

I'm not sure of drunk driving laws, but do you lose your car for 7 days if you blow over?

gotak · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2007, 01:03:17 am »

I'd say this law should hold whether busy street/highway or not. Too many times you get street racers running into innocent cars on the streets or highways late at night and killing people.

I do think this law a bit to hard and fast though. It should be you get a court date right away and then if guilty you lose your car.

Snowman · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2007, 05:52:52 am »

What happens if I am on a short passing section on a 90 km/h two lane highway and pass a car and I hit 142? Do I get any flexibility?

inco · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2007, 05:55:23 am »

According to the law - no, but maybe a street smart cop might understand and ignore it.

tpl · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2007, 07:03:25 am »

Quote from: inco on October 01, 2007, 09:34:06 pm

What should they do when an impaired driver is caught for his erratic driving, but can't be tested for alcohol - give the car back to him and let him go on his way?

A person clocked at 160 in a 100 zone needs a time out I guess. Seven days - two weeks, or a couple of days - it's just a number. If wrong, damages.

They take away guns, why not cars?

When a suspected impaired driver is stopped and gets to blow into the breathalyser and it shows >50 or >80 he can reasonably be assumed to be guilty and can be arrested and he and his car taken off the road. No problem. He gets his car back IIRC 12 hours later.

I don't have a problem with people losing their licence for a "time-out" AFTER they have been found guilty. A quite reasonable punishment together with points and a fine.

What I have a problem with is the individual policeman being able on his own decision to find someone guilty of a minor offence like speeding and apply a piece of the punishment before the court hearing. What happens if the alleged speeder is later found innocent by the court, can he get his car impound fees back? and anoy other expenses such as the cost of not returning a rental car ? I bet no.

As for taking away guns. I bet that if you have a licensed firearm in your possession and are going about your lawful business and are obeying the rules about when and where and how you can transport the firearm that it will not be taken away from you.

tpl · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2007, 07:06:15 am »

Quote from: inco on October 02, 2007, 05:55:23 am

According to the law - no, but maybe a street smart cop might understand and ignore it.

The Fuzz will have to answer that. Police officers used to have discretion about minor breaches of the law and AFAIK still do... you can just get a warning for a speeding charge. It probably depends on how this law is written. If it uses the word "shall" or the word "may" in some critical sentences

inco · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2007, 08:32:53 am »

The difference here is time. Conviction is proof of guilt and I understand where you are coming from. And it's reasonable to assume that some cop carrying a grudge may try and lay a charge against someone else for real or imagined things.

But - a person speeding caught on radar and shown the results, would be accused of being guilty at that time, subject to being verified by conviction later. So for the action at the time they impound the car. If proven not guilty, or able to weasle out of it because of some silly technicality, they would be eligilbe to recoup fees.

My analogy with the gun is the same. If a person is accused of murder, but not found guilty, they don't let the person keep the gun. So why should the government not take away the weapon the accused was using - in this case the car.

Spheric · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2007, 09:25:45 am »

When moving from a standstill position at the lights, am I allowed to accelerate as fast as I can upto the legal posted limit on that road ? (eg. 80 kph etc)

eax · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2007, 09:47:33 am »

$2000 min fine. Cool, Ill see you in court. Impound my car for a week before I've been proven guilty? Wrong. Does that mean that if I'm found innocent, the municipal goverment will refund my week of impound and compensate me for the distress? I have been caught in a radar trap and was actually the wrong car. The officer had already written the ticket and told me that was what court was for! I asked for disclosure, Had a witness and proved myself innocent. The officer had mistaken my vehicle as she said I was coming up a road when I was actually entering of a ramp but moved over into the path of the offending vehicle. I can't imagine if the same circumstance had happened with this law in effect. I wasn't 50 over mind you but it still points out that human error still occurs in policing. It's a real big brother issue and puts too much power in the hands of the police. I believe that you can also have your car impounded for some "arbitrary" judgements such as following too close.
I don't really understand this law. Our limits seem a little rediculous to me considering in Europe limits are much higher. Roads like the 407 could handle a much higher limit. Even Montana doesn't have a limit during the day. I'm unsure of why in Ontario speeding is considered such a huge problem. I believe that traffic fatalities are on a steady decline since the early 1990's but the media has made a HUGE issue of speeding, truck accidents ect. in Ontario. I can't imagine it's any worse here than in any other major NA metropolis. Perhaps better liscensing, better training, better testing is the answer.

I have a feeling that a lawyer will take up this cause, perhaps on a charter violation...

Scaerio · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2007, 09:57:35 am »

Screw impounding cars belonging to the offending owners. The Ontario Govt. should crush them right in front of the owner. Why? So that the Ministry of Transportation can run a "Time to Unpimp Zee Auto" -style ad campaign!

I would love to watch while the little sh!t who almost hit me front on while he was passing on a double yellow yesterday morning in his clapped-out MK II Integra was forced to see his "baby" die an agonizing death.

(Yes, I am a cute vindictive little biatch. My favorite movie hero is the chick from the film "Hard Candy.")

quadzilla · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2007, 10:18:19 am »

The funny (or not so funny) thing is I feel safer driving on the 400/401 with cars going by at 150kph when the medium speed is usually 125-130kph than I do at 80-90kph in the rain and having car/trucks passing me at 110-120kph. Or how about when its snowing and the highway isn't plowed yet and I'm doing 70kph when the big trucks are passing me at 110-120kph still.

safristi · « **Reply #38 on:** October 02, 2007, 10:26:20 am »

"if you blow ovr !!!"........

..ya should lose yer driving priviledges for at LEAST A WEEK....

tpl · « **Reply #39 on:** October 02, 2007, 10:41:11 am »

Quote from: quadzilla on October 02, 2007, 10:18:19 am

The funny (or not so funny) thing is I feel safer driving on the 400/401 with cars going by at 150kph when the medium speed is usually 125-130kph than I do at 80-90kph in the rain and having car/trucks passing me at 110-120kph. Or how about when its snowing and the highway isn't plowed yet and I'm doing 70kph when the big trucks are passing me at 110-120kph still.

I wonder why they don't have a blitz on trucks doing 110/120.

I think that the answer to your first point is relative speeds. If I am cruising along at 130 on the 401 I dont feel that someone doing 150 is particularly fast. But if like you obviously, I am being cautious and doing 80-90 in the right lane in falling snow a big truck passing me at 110 seems like death on wheels approaching.