Garbage truck nabbed under street racing law near Goderich, Ont.

[safristi]

..I use the PQ excuse...........................




    I need a Pee Quickly................ ...wot has 6 wheels  & Flies..olde jokes never stale...

[The Mighty Duck]

I much rather the QC version which has different limits based on the type of road and limit of the road rather than an arbitrary #.

But the speed limit already takes into account the type of road.  Let's just pretend for a minute that speed limits on public highways were reasonable - there's no excuse for going 50 over, it doesn't matter of its a residential street or a freeway.  Now, I understand the argument that 50 over on the 401 might not be "dangerous" per say, but the people arguing against the "stunting" laws are arguing in circles.  They should spend their time arguing for an increase in the speed limit, rather than trying to justify going 50 over the current limit...

[evil_twin]

I much rather the QC version which has different limits based on the type of road and limit of the road rather than an arbitrary #.

But the speed limit already takes into account the type of road.  Let's just pretend for a minute that speed limits on public highways were reasonable - there's no excuse for going 50 over, it doesn't matter of its a residential street or a freeway.  Now, I understand the argument that 50 over on the 401 might not be "dangerous" per say, but the people arguing against the "stunting" laws are arguing in circles.  They should spend their time arguing for an increase in the speed limit, rather than trying to justify going 50 over the current limit...

I agree with your logic here.  50 over the limit on any street 'should' be a severe penalty ASSUMING the posted speed limits made sense.  But they don't make sense...so why shouldn't this law take that into account??

If they upped the posted limits on the highways to something like 120 (I'd prefer 130 ), then the law would work fine.  170 km/h is very fast on a Canadian Hwy where most the other drivers aren't used to 'autobahn' type speeds...you should be penalized.

But until they make a change like that, shouldn't any new traffic laws (like this one) reflect the current state of our speed limits and driving conditions?

[Zombie]

The funny thing is that 50 over in garbage truck is like 70 over in a car and even more in a sports car. How long would it take a garbage truck to stop at that speed compared to a car? I know the law doesn't take that into account but there clearly is a big difference.

[The Mighty Duck]

But they don't make sense...so why shouldn't this law take that into account??

Because at the end of the day, the limit it still the limit, and each of us makes the decision whether to obey it or not.  Whether speeding can be reasoned away isn't really the point - if you think the limit needs changing, write a letter.  But don't speed and then complain that the laws are unfair - you know the laws going in, and you make a choice.

The effort that people spend complaining about the "street racing" laws are unfair would be much better spent working to convince the government to increase the speed limit.  And if the speed limit were increased to a reasonable level, it would solve the supposed "problem" with the new laws.

IMO it makes more sense to fix the original problem than to design the new law to account for the problem...  *shrug*

[Titanium48]

I like the fact that any time there is a story posted here about someone nabbed under the so-called 'street racing' law, the usual gang comes out railing about how stupid the police must be.

Hey, here's an idea:  watch the speed limit signs, and drive accordingly.  There is no excuse for doing 112 in a 60 zone and then complaining because you got caught. 

And when you constantly whine that the cops are wrong, you sound like a 7 year old.

I never complained about the driver getting a hefty fine and a license suspension, although arcticsteve made a good point about cops hiding behind reduced speed speed limit signs placed way too far in advance of actual built up areas.  I was complaining about the stupidity of a goverment agency (the police) causing hardship for another government (the town of Goderich).  It's not the fault of the citizens of Goderich that one of their garbage collectors was driving like a moron (or perhaps just reacted a bit too slow to a change in speed limit).  The driver should be the only one to be punished.  Any law that punishes someone for the someone else's mistake is a bad law and should be rescinded.

[Leviathan]

Why would just a garbage truck be exempt? You may as well include all municipal vehicles in that case and if you're doing that how about corporate vehicles? Ah but now big government and corporations are getting special treatment but the citizenry gets screwed. Oh right, that is the natural order of things - carry on 

[The Mighty Duck]

Why would just a garbage truck be exempt? You may as well include all municipal vehicles in that case and if you're doing that how about corporate vehicles? Ah but now big government and corporations are getting special treatment but the citizenry gets screwed. Oh right, that is the natural order of things - carry on 

If you lend your car to a friend who gets it impounded, is that fair to you?  There's certainly an argument either way.  But now let's say that you happen to use that car to deliver meals to soup kitchens.  Should the people who depend on you for food suffer because someone you know sped in your car?

[Leviathan]

Of course not. I just hope this dopey law doesn't spread beyond the COTU 

[Titanium48]

If you lend your car to a friend who gets it impounded, is that fair to you?  There's certainly an argument either way.  But now let's say that you happen to use that car to deliver meals to soup kitchens.  Should the people who depend on you for food suffer because someone you know sped in your car?

An argument either way?  How could having your car impounded for someone else's bad driving possibly be fair?  I suppose I could see it if your buddy said "can I borrow your car, Joe and I want to go street racing" but in the absence of specific prior knowledge like that it is totally wrong.

[The Mighty Duck]

An argument either way?  How could having your car impounded for someone else's bad driving possibly be fair?  I suppose I could see it if your buddy said "can I borrow your car, Joe and I want to go street racing" but in the absence of specific prior knowledge like that it is totally wrong.

If you lend your car to a friend, you're placing your trust in that person to drive in a reasonable and responsible manner.  If they get it impounded, you've exercised poor judgment, and maybe you deserve to be punished.  It's the same logic that says that if some friends leave a party at my house drunk, and crash, I can be held partially liable for letting them leave.  Or that if I lend you my gun, and you kill someone with it, I can be held liable for providing you with a weapon.

It's not an argument I neccessarily agree with (everyone makes their own choice, and it's not my responsibility to make sure they make the right ones!), but I can certainly see how other people might believe it.

[Vmango]

I'm just pissed that little to no research went into the thought process of this law at any level. I drove to and from Toronto yesterday and the "flow" of traffic at 4:00pm on the 401 east was 130-140. I mean, I was about 10 clicks from getting "drawn and quartered" for about 90% of the trip - and that was normal middle-lane traffic flow.

On the way home at midnight, the flow of the people in the left lane was easily 140+ and considering traffic, it was not dangerous in the least.

To me, it doesn't make sense to blanket everything based on what is an essentially a socially constructed "problem" on our roads. Just put some more thought into things, that's all I ask. Can't stand the big brother, the man, whatever.......

In other news, drove by at least 3 people that were easily drunk and swerving - if anything, this should be where the hammer comes down (from a person who's made some poor decisions).

[tpl]

Are you sure they weren't swerving to try to keep some wheels off the stripped surface on the 401  between Milton and Guelph ?  I certainly move around in my lane and chnage lanes far more than usual on that section now.

[Vmango]

Are you sure they weren't swerving to try to keep some wheels off the stripped surface on the 401  between Milton and Guelph ?  I certainly move around in my lane and chnage lanes far more than usual on that section now.

I was having a blast doing that myself......terrible, eh?

No, the ones I saw were definitly drunk or "messed up" in some other way...they were nodding-off swervs or "I can't concentrate enough to keep the wheel straight" swervs." Two of the three were on highway 8 entering KW.

[airbalancer]

I'm just pissed that little to no research went into the thought process of this law at any level. I drove to and from Toronto yesterday and the "flow" of traffic at 4:00pm on the 401 east was 130-140. I mean, I was about 10 clicks from getting "drawn and quartered" for about 90% of the trip - and that was normal middle-lane traffic flow.

On the way home at midnight, the flow of the people in the left lane was easily 140+ and considering traffic, it was not dangerous in the least.

To me, it doesn't make sense to blanket everything based on what is an essentially a socially constructed "problem" on our roads. Just put some more thought into things, that's all I ask. Can't stand the big brother, the man, whatever.......

In other news, drove by at least 3 people that were easily drunk and swerving - if anything, this should be where the hammer comes down (from a person who's made some poor decisions).

You people on the west side of To are crazy then , flow of traffic on a Friday at 4,  130-140
East side th flow is probably only about 110

[Vmango]

The guy in the truck certainly got what he deserved. I don't think anyone was arguing that it isn't dangerous or stupid for a large truck to be going that speed in a 60 zone.

The thread has merely turned into the never-ending debate over the [social] construction of this law in general.

One more thing.....if you're concerned about people having their trucks/cars inspected.......you'd be shocked at how many cars and trucks are unfit for the road. Again, this is probably something the government could look at prior to the blanket 50-over law.

[tpl]

There's a thing. Why should we NOT have to have cars/trucks inspected for safety every year/2 years/3 years ( pick one) at the owners expense.   Many Jurisdictions in the developed world do so with, IIRC, Japan being the most strict.
Politics I suspect. A whole pile of people would whine and complain that it was a "cash grab" and that their cars with bald all seasons and 2 year old wiper blades were perfectly safe... and of course the "activists" who would say that it discriminated against poor people.  I think it would be a good idea.  A full check including any Construction and Use violations. ( Jeeps with wheels protruding at the sides of the bodywork, jacked up pickups, slammed civics, all Chevy Cavaliers etc )

[safristi]

tpl...are U aiming @ "OLDE FARTE"...designation with that post...seems so unlike YOU...

[tpl]

Moi? Le Petomane   ?     Vieux Fartiste ?

Nope Saf  I just want to see all the unsafe junk off the roads rather than waiting for Sgt Wooley to get to them all.

[Cord]

Sounds like a scheme from the car makers to sell more vehicles.