Little Update on the "50 over" rule in Ontario

[JRSC00LUDE]

So, just a few minutes ago Commissioner Fantino of the OPP was on Charles Adler discussing the new law after a months stats. were in.

In a one month period they have fined over 1000 people for going 50 over the posted speed limit. He said that they just "couldn't believe" how many people they've caught.

Given that their bullshit hasn't worked out the way they planned yet, he now says that they may have to increase the fines to be in excess of 10,000.00 and look at lowering it to only 30 over so as to have a bigger impact on peoples behaviour.

So, out of that 1000 people fined how many do all you morons who were in favor of this think were "street racing"?

Also, will you still be clamouring your approval if they do indeed drop it to 30 over? Is that still "reckless"? Will you still be innocent of ever breaking the law? Do you still want that precedent set and have it come here?

If that doesn't expose it for the vote buying cash-grab that it is, what will? If you really want to have an impact on actual dangerous driving don't levy fines at all, just suspend the license for a year and make them start back at square one after. They had better get a good definition of what actually constitutes "dangerous driving" first.

Flame away, lets hear it!

EDIT - If you don't believe what I have said either correct me if you listened to the same segment or go find a transcript of this afternoons show and look for yourself.

[ca18det240sx]

^i agree 100%, its all cash grabs. If they REALLY wanted to deter things, there would be more suspensions and less fines.......

[98type_r]

In my opinion even proposing a $10 000 fine for 30km over a posted limit is absolutely ridiculous. Driver inattention is a factor in collisions far more often than excess speed.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE

If that doesn't expose it for the vote buying cash-grab that it is, what will? If you really want to have an impact on actual dangerous driving don't levy fines at all, just suspend the license for a year and make them start back at square one after. They had better get a good definition of what actually constitutes "dangerous driving" first.


It's an idiot tax. Make it 10G's. You don't HAVE to pay it. Though, I agree that if you really want to have an impact, then start crushing the cars. After a few people get their expensive cars turning into pop cans on the news, perhaps people will really become a little more aware..

[Xamim]

Originally posted by codetrap


It's an idiot tax. Make it 10G's. You don't HAVE to pay it. Though, I agree that if you really want to have an impact, then start crushing the cars. After a few people get their expensive cars turning into pop cans on the news, perhaps people will really become a little more aware..

A car doesnt need to be expensive to go fast.

I think 10K is a little too much. Have you guys noticed how many people actually do 130-150 on Deerfoot?

[avishal26]

so they're thinking about a $10,000 fine for doing 30 over on the highway?? what is this...f****ng nazi rule???

If this is how its gonna be in ontario then why would someone wanna buy an expensive car at all?? to brag about how much they paid in taxes? Because they won't be able to brag about its top speed for sure.

And I love how they said 80% of the people caught were male....I don't know if anyone's thought of this before but I'm sure there are more male drivers around than women drivers....which would make it seem reasonable that more male than woman drivers are caught breaking the road laws. I've been almost run off the road by a blonde drivin a hummer.....but I bet she pays a quarter of what I do for insurance.

I agree that people speed, and speed sometimes causes accidents, but just because someone is doing 150 kmph on the highway doesn't mean that they're street racing. I could be racing someone on the street doing just 60 and be swerving in and out of traffic (Not that I do) and not get a ridiculous fine whereas some poor guy who's rushing home to see his family after maybe a week of stayin away gets pulled over and labelled a street racer? Just because someone is driving fast doesn't mean they're dangerous. IMO someone smoking in the car and talking on the cell phone is a helluva lot more dangerous than someone speeding. Maybe the liberal government should think about arresting everyone who doesn't comply with all the road rules....there should be a $2,000 fine for someone who doesn't hold the steering at 10 and 2 (or 9 and 3....) and a $5,000 fine for someone who doesn't stop at a stop sign for exactly 2 seconds.

I go to school in Kingston, Ontario but I live in Calgary permanently. I had to sell my 240sx because the darn kingston's roads were too bad for its sport suspension setup. Why doesn't the awesome liberal government spend some money fixing up the damn roads instead of putting ridiculous fines up people's asses. I can't believe the Ontario population let the rule come into play in the first place. I can only imagine the riot that would take place in calgary if CP as much as thought of putting up such a ridiculous fine. I still remember how everyone complained about cops using un-marked cars on the side of highway 2 (or QE2 or whatever its called now) to catch speeders.

[Jlude]

Originally posted by Xamim


A car doesnt need to be expensive to go fast.

I think 10K is a little too much. Have you guys noticed how many people actually do 130-150 on Deerfoot?

Exactly right... I do 120 on deerfoot and people are flyin' by me on a regular basis... and I'm guilty of going faster than that as well... but jesus... 10k... that could ruin a person, especially a younger person.

[spikerS]

Originally posted by Jlude


Exactly right... I do 120 on deerfoot and people are flyin' by me on a regular basis... and I'm guilty of going faster than that as well... but jesus... 10k... that could ruin a person, especially a younger person.

If that person drives in a responsible manner, then they have nothing to worry about. That is what this whole system is in place for.

as for the 10g ticket, that was the maximum. thanks for leaving that out JRSCOOLDUDE. the guy stated that the fines levied are between 2 and 10g, and 10g being for multiple offenders. other things beside the fine are, you car is towed and impounded for 7 days, your licence is suspended for 7 days, auto insurance premiums will rise, plus some other things.

not only did he say, maybe we should have pushed for 30kph over rather than 50, but said that they will be looking into increasing the amount of time that the person's driver's licence is suspended.

he also stated that he was not in favor of having the auto makers make it impossible for the vehicle to go faster than 100kph, as he stated sometimes that there is a requirement for a vehicle to go faster, and wants to stress to people to drive more resposibly.

at least present the whole facts, and not just the side that will ignite the populace.

[T-Dubbs]

i go to school in Barrie, On
and people are always speeding by on the highway( i live next to the 400)
many people speed alot, but a 10k fine is fucking stupid. the ticket would be more than my car is worth.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by avishal26
If this is how its gonna be in ontario then why would someone wanna buy an expensive car at all?? to brag about how much they paid in taxes? Because they won't be able to brag about its top speed for sure.
And you are exactly the kind of dumbass that they are trying to catch. If you think you should be testing out the top speed an expensive car on public roads, you're an idiot. It's called a track, use it.

Originally posted by avishal26
And I love how they said 80% of the people caught were male....I don't know if anyone's thought of this before but I'm sure there are more male drivers around than women drivers....which would make it seem reasonable that more male than woman drivers are caught breaking the road laws.
You think that 80% of the drivers on the road are male? Really? That makes sense to you?

Originally posted by avishal26
Maybe the liberal government should think about arresting everyone who doesn't comply with all the road rules....there should be a $2,000 fine for someone who doesn't hold the steering at 10 and 2 (or 9 and 3....) and a $5,000 fine for someone who doesn't stop at a stop sign for exactly 2 seconds.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Anyways, this is an idiot tax. The statistics are showing that there are even more idiots than they thought there were. Maybe if people would stop giving justification for this kind of stuff, the government wouldn't be able to get away with it.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by avishal26
so they're thinking about a $10,000 fine for doing 30 over on the highway?? what is this...f****ng nazi rule???


If it were Nazi Rule, we'd have autobahns.

Bring on the Autobahns...

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by Jlude


Exactly right... I do 120 on deerfoot and people are flyin' by me on a regular basis... and I'm guilty of going faster than that as well... but jesus... 10k... that could ruin a person, especially a younger person.

I wouldn't stop.

[avishal26]

Originally posted by Antonito

And you are exactly the kind of dumbass that they are trying to catch. If you think you should be testing out the top speed an expensive car on public roads, you're an idiot. It's called a track, use it.


You don't test the top speed of your car on public roads...I never said that...I am all for going to the track to test the limits of your car. What I meant was that if you have an expensive/fast car, you can't really brag about it because on the highway, you're going just as fast as the average joe in his civic. I don't know about you, but I like to have fun in my car. Thats the only reason why I would buy a depreciating asset in the first place.


Originally posted by Antonito

You think that 80% of the drivers on the road are male? Really? That makes sense to you?

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


No where in my post does it say I think 80% ofthe drivers are male, I just said that there are more male drivers than female (I'm not saying by 80%), so by saying that 80% of the drivers caught were male, they're just discriminating for no reason. I refuse to believe that women are safer drivers, especially not after the experiences I have had.



Originally posted by Canmorite


If it were Nazi Rule, we'd have autobahns.

Bring on the Autobahns...

WOOOOOOOOOO :clap:....I was just thinking that too.

BTW...do more people lose their lives on the autobahn than regular highways?? cause as far as I know people do upwards of 200kmph on the autobahn.
something to think about .. ... maybe all highways should be speed limit free :poosie: now there's a thought !~!

[spikerS]

Originally posted by avishal26






No where in my post does it say I think 80% ofthe drivers are male, I just said that there are more male drivers than female (I'm not saying by 80%), so by saying that 80% of the drivers caught were male, they're just discriminating for no reason. I refuse to believe that women are safer drivers, especially not after the experiences I have had.




right, statistics now lie and discriminate. the sky is blue, wait that makes me racist! I have never heard of a number discriminating based on sex. :banghead: :banghead:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Canmorite


If it were Nazi Rule, we'd have autobahns.

Bring on the Autobahns...

Go Nazi!


Anyway, I think they should keep the limit @ 50 but confiscate their car and crush it in public on weekends.

I would pay $10 to watch it depending on what they are crushing.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by spikers
as for the 10g ticket, that was the maximum. thanks for leaving that out JRSCOOLDUDE. the guy stated that the fines levied are between 2 and 10g, and 10g being for multiple offenders. other things beside the fine are, you car is towed and impounded for 7 days, your licence is suspended for 7 days, auto insurance premiums will rise, plus some other things.

Where did I say that wasn't the maximum. The statement was that he suggested they may have to look at raising it to more than 10G. The other shit you spieled off is old news. What's your point?


Originally posted by spikers
not only did he say, maybe we should have pushed for 30kph over rather than 50, but said that they will be looking into increasing the amount of time that the person's driver's licence is suspended.

He said maybe we SHOULD look at LOWERING it to 30 over, that's what I said. What's your point?


Originally posted by spikers
at least present the whole facts, and not just the side that will ignite the populace.

If you read the thread title, this was an UPDATE. This has all been covered before and anyone who is interested already knows the rest of the information. I stated the valid points that were made today as an UPDATE. What part of an UPDATE do you have difficulty comprehending? If I told all the old details of the law it wouldn't be an UPDATE on new info. now would it? What's your point asshole?

b.t.w. - maybe next time you can use your fucking esp to tell us all about it before it happens so we don't have to waste our time discussing it.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
So, just a few minutes ago Commissioner Fantino of the OPP was on Charles Adler discussing the new law after a months stats. were in.

In a one month period they have fined over 1000 people for going 50 over the posted speed limit. He said that they just "couldn't believe" how many people they've caught.

Given that their bullshit hasn't worked out the way they planned yet, he now says that they may have to increase the fines to be in excess of 10,000.00 and look at lowering it to only 30 over so as to have a bigger impact on peoples behaviour.

So, out of that 1000 people fined how many do all you morons who were in favor of this think were "street racing"?

Also, will you still be clamouring your approval if they do indeed drop it to 30 over? Is that still "reckless"? Will you still be innocent of ever breaking the law? Do you still want that precedent set and have it come here?

If that doesn't expose it for the vote buying cash-grab that it is, what will? If you really want to have an impact on actual dangerous driving don't levy fines at all, just suspend the license for a year and make them start back at square one after. They had better get a good definition of what actually constitutes "dangerous driving" first.

Flame away, lets hear it!

EDIT - If you don't believe what I have said either correct me if you listened to the same segment or go find a transcript of this afternoons show and look for yourself.

i wish i could fine this guy 10,000 for being an asshole and cut off his balls so he can't reproduce. But i'm not a fascist pig so i won't. It’s his lucky day :rofl:

[fcukda]

Originally posted by ca18det240sx
^i agree 100%, its all cash grabs. If they REALLY wanted to deter things, there would be more suspensions and less fines.......

AGREED!

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by BigMass


i wish i could fine this guy 10,000 for being an asshole and cut off his balls so he can't reproduce. But i'm not a fascist pig so i won't. It’s his lucky day :rofl:

Do you mean me or the commissioner?

[avishal26]

Originally posted by BigMass


i wish i could fine this guy 10,000 for being an asshole and cut off his balls so he can't reproduce. But i'm not a fascist pig so i won't. It’s his lucky day :rofl:

:thumbsup:

[BigMass]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


Do you mean me or the commissioner?

nah, the article man. The Commissioner

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by avishal26
BTW...do more people lose their lives on the autobahn than regular highways?? cause as far as I know people do upwards of 200kmph on the autobahn.
something to think about .. ... maybe all highways should be speed limit free :poosie: now there's a thought !~!

Per capita, I believe the accident rate is much higher in North America. The amount of safety precautions they take are much higher, and the driver training courses they make you write are much more stringent then Canada or the US.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by BigMass


nah, the article man. The Commissioner

Whew.....thank god, didn't need another "sally simpson" complaint thread under my belt here. :rofl:

[A790]

Originally posted by T-Dubbs
i go to school in Barrie, On
and people are always speeding by on the highway( i live next to the 400)
many people speed alot, but a 10k fine is fucking stupid. the ticket would be more than my car is worth.

No kidding. I hit up Barrie every few weeks and the 400/401/410/416, the minimum is 120 (20 over the limit already) and people FLY past you. Crazy shit.

[Redlyne_mr2]

Ontario sucks at everything... case closed.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Hakkola


I wouldn't stop.

:werd:

if you KNOW you would get minimum $10,000 fine, and you are making $30,000 a year, why would you?

[BigMass]

cruel and unusual punishment works on the same level as it did in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. You want to almost wipe out drugs dealers? Easy, make it a law where Police are allowed to shoot on sight if they even spot any type of drugs in your hands. You want to wipe out homelessness? Just take them out. Stop spitting on the ground? Fine someone $20,000 and ruin their lives. Nobody will spit anymore. Want people to stop speeding? Fine them $20,000 (which for some would be a worse punishment than jail time) and crush their car.

Some of you idiots that think any punishment is justified because you are "breaking the law" don't realize this is going down the path of a Police State. Sure, it start with speeding, or taking away the cars of Johns picking up prostitutes. Then it moves on to a wider an wider spectrum.

Soon there will no longer be crime, no violence, no drugs, no speeding, no spitting, no more homeless people begging you for cash. What a fucking utopia you morons.

[JRSC00LUDE]

^

But you'll be safe. You'll never have to worry about someone driving too fast again. Or eating too much cause they're hopped up on goofballs. Or laughing too loud cause they're drunk in public. Or enjoying life becase they're free to make choices.

But no, WE are the idiots because we can see the forest AND the trees. Stupid us.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Ontario sucks at everything... case closed.

Correction... the Ontario LIBERALS suck at everything.

I can't believe those assholes have stayed in power.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by BigMass
cruel and unusual punishment works on the same level as it did in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. You want to almost wipe out drugs dealers? Easy, make it a law where Police are allowed to shoot on sight if they even spot any type of drugs in your hands. You want to wipe out homelessness? Just take them out. Stop spitting on the ground? Fine someone $20,000 and ruin their lives. Nobody will spit anymore. Want people to stop speeding? Fine them $20,000 (which for some would be a worse punishment than jail time) and crush their car.

Some of you idiots that think any punishment is justified because you are "breaking the law" don't realize this is going down the path of a Police State. Sure, it start with speeding, or taking away the cars of Johns picking up prostitutes. Then it moves on to a wider an wider spectrum.

Soon there will no longer be crime, no violence, no drugs, no speeding, no spitting, no more homeless people begging you for cash. What a fucking utopia you morons.

You are correct with this, it IS a slippery slope. But, the pendelum of justice has been on the side of the criminal for too long. I'm thinking along the lines of the punishment should be in line with the potential for harm that it causes.

Your drug dealer is trafficing in death, so feed him his drugs until he dies (or take the more merciful route of executing him).... if your speeding causes a death, your life is forfeit, unless you can bloody well prove some fairly extenuating circumstances... spitting on the sidewalk, have to swallow a gob of spit from someone else.

That whole Christian bullshit of an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind is bullshit. If you are a danger to society, then society has the right to take your punk ass out.

None of this life imprisonment crap. If you choose to live outside of societal standards, then you choose to give up it's protections and guarantees.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by Antonito
The statistics are showing that there are even more idiots than they thought there were. Maybe if people would stop giving justification for this kind of stuff, the government wouldn't be able to get away with it.

That's one way of interpreting it. I'd say instead that statistics are showing that the general populace is demonstrating that local speed limits are perhaps TOO SLOW.

Now that doesn't mean they should raise it to 150km/h on the highway, but perhaps there is a compromise to be had somewhere. This "system" you are trying to defend is not necessarily always right.

[Antonito]

Oh cry me a fucking river. Listen to you guys. Nazi regimes? Police states? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll say it again, it's an idiot tax. Not some master plan to enslave Canada.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by Inzane


That's one way of interpreting it. I'd say instead that statistics are showing that the general populace is demonstrating that local speed limits are perhaps TOO SLOW.

Now that doesn't mean they should raise it to 150km/h on the highway, but perhaps there is a compromise to be had somewhere. This "system" you are trying to defend is not necessarily always right.

True, some places could obviously be increased. However that's not the topic here. The topic is stupid people that know the consequences and do it anyways. There is no reason to go 50 over (except passing every once in a while, guess how many of those people got busted passing though).

[JRSC00LUDE]

^

It may be an idiot tax at 50 but now that it's on the books what happens if they do lower it to 30? Their reasoning for possibly looking at doing it is because of how many people they have caught going 50. Guess what? At 30 they would catch a lot more so their reasoning would say we better move it to 20 and so on and so on. Continually punishing minor "criminals" with heavy fines that do nothing but generate money for the gov't and make peoples lives worse off will not benefit anyone.

Again, find solid statistics that say speed alone is what makes driving dangerous. Not going to happen. The only real point is that they've opened a box and now they'll keep pulling rabbits out of it. There are better, far more effective ways to make driving safer but they will cost money not make it.


Originally posted by Antonito
There is no reason to go 50 over (except passing every once in a while, guess how many of those people got busted passing though).

I bet they were all passing someone haha!

[BigMass]

well no offence, but what the fuck are "societal standards". The whole point of a free country is that everyone has different standards and morals and should be able to live life the way they choose as long as their actions do not impede on the freedoms of others.

I personally do not agree in punishing or fining somebody who has harmed no one. These speeding fines are nothing short of legal extortion.

I’ll tell you who is a danger to society. Militarized police units breaking down someone’s front door because they are growing or selling plants.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by BigMass
well no offence, but what the fuck are "societal standards". The whole point of a free country is that everyone has different standards and morals and should be able to live life the way they choose as long as their actions do not impede on the freedoms of others.

I personally do not agree in punishing or fining somebody who has harmed no one. These speeding fines are nothing short of legal extortion.

I’ll tell you who is a danger to society. Militarized police units breaking down someone’s front door because they are growing or selling plants.

BigMass, no offense taken.. I would submit that societal standards are the collection of rules and guidelines that everyone follows on a day to day basis that provide the structure and protection for all those "freedoms". Basically all the stuff that prevents us just from killing each other on sight.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
It may be an idiot tax at 50 but now that it's on the books what happens if they do lower it to 30? Their reasoning for possibly looking at doing it is because of how many people they have caught going 50. Guess what? At 30 they would catch a lot more so their reasoning would say we better move it to 20 and so on and so on. Continually punishing minor "criminals" with heavy fines that do nothing but generate money for the gov't and make peoples lives worse off will not benefit anyone.
I'm conceding this one, as this topic is indeed about how they want to lower it, not the original 50 over law.

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE

Again, find solid statistics that say speed alone is what makes driving dangerous. Not going to happen.
You can use statistics to prove or disprove anything, 83% of people know that. Here's the statistic that I go by, as seen in countless Beyond threads such as this:

Originally posted by SUPERAWESOMESPEEDERGUY
Ha guys, just wanted to find out why I crashed. I was going around a corner in my super race car that can handle any and all speeds, and I crashed. I may have been going over the speed limit, but that doesn't have anything to do with it. Now I've written off my $100,000 car. Help!
Speed isn't dangerous for some people, but it is for a lot of people, and it's especially dangerous to the people that think they are better drivers than they are (ie: most of the people here on Beyond).

Is there a statistic that proves this 100%? Of course not. But see the forest for the trees as it were.

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
I bet they were all passing someone haha!

Boo-urns ;)

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Antonito


True, some places could obviously be increased. However that's not the topic here. The topic is stupid people that know the consequences and do it anyways. There is no reason to go 50 over (except passing every once in a while, guess how many of those people got busted passing though).

So... anyone who breaks any law should be subject to whatever punishment the gov't wants? Give me a break :rolleyes: Why not just lop off everyone's feet so they can't drive anymore, hell they knew what they were doing was wrong! Same for theives, off with their hands right?

Idiot

[Antonito]

Originally posted by 962 kid


So... anyone who breaks any law should be subject to whatever punishment the gov't wants? Give me a break :rolleyes: Why not just lop off everyone's feet so they can't drive anymore, hell they knew what they were doing was wrong! Same for theives, off with their hands right?

Idiot

I'm slightly impressed, you were able to overexagerate without resorting to using the words Fascist, Nazi, Police State, or New World Order.

But you're still a retard.

The system that was in place for the last few decades obvoiusly wasn't working, so they've imposed stiffer penalties. Increasing the amount of fines and licensing penalties is a lot different than corporal punishment, and if you don't know the difference, you probably can't even put on your own pants. Although I'm pretty sure you just lack the mental capacity to make a point without resorting to wild exaggerations.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Antonito


I'm slightly impressed, you were able to overexagerate without resorting to using the words Fascist, Nazi, Police State, or New World Order.

But you're still a retard.

The system that was in place for the last few decades obvoiusly wasn't working, so they've imposed stiffer penalties. Increasing the amount of fines and licensing penalties is a lot different than corporal punishment, and if you don't know the difference, you probably can't even put on your own pants. Although I'm pretty sure you just lack the mental capacity to make a point without resorting to wild exaggerations.

The fact is, the base hasn't even been established to see if the new law is effective and they already want to change it. WTF?

How about let's see if the numbers for next month before adjustments? How about some stats on convictions and not arrests? You'll need time for both the public and law enforcement to adjust to new rules.

I'm actual like the new rule. But seeing how the commissioner is handling it, I can see it for personal/department gain more than safety. This commissioner need to be fired.

[Toma]

Easy solution. Put a bullet in the head of the idiot who is pushing this through.

This is in FACT turning into a police state. You cannot punish something if it is what a huge percentage of the population does.

IE.... if in fact on these highways, even 30% of the people go 120, the speed limit MUST be 130.

Kill him for being a fascist. Simple.

Fuck, only 2% of the population are gays.... yet thats still legal, and has a higher mortality rate (percentage wise) then speeding.

[403Gemini]

I wouldnt say its a cash grab, i just think its raw stupidity that they're doing it and actually thinking it will work

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Toma
Easy solution. Put a bullet in the head of the idiot who is pushing this through.

This is in FACT turning into a police state. You cannot punish something if it is what a huge percentage of the population does.

IE.... if in fact on these highways, even 30% of the people go 120, the speed limit MUST be 130.

Kill him for being a fascist. Simple.

Fuck, only 2% of the population are gays.... yet thats still legal, and has a higher mortality rate (percentage wise) then speeding.

Are you drunk?

[Schwa]

being gay and being straight is still a 100% mortality rate :dunno:

[Toma]

Originally posted by Schwa
being gay and being straight is still a 100% mortality rate :dunno:
Oh thank god :thumbsup:

Now I understand why trying to stop car accidents, cancer, and heart diseases is a futile effort.....

They were all gonna die anyway :cry:

Resistance is futile!

[Jay911]

Originally posted by Inzane


That's one way of interpreting it. I'd say instead that statistics are showing that the general populace is demonstrating that local speed limits are perhaps TOO SLOW.

Circle gets the square!! Three cheers for having a clue.

Most places if they found that the 85th percentile was doing over the posted speed, would raise the posted speed. A disturbing number of places (Calgary, M.D. Rocky View, etc) seem to think that the 85th percentile going over the posted speed should be met with rubbing their hands with glee on how much money they're going to make on photo radar tickets this year.

[Hamilton515]

.

[nikka]

i bet that most of these incidents were not even "street racing"
i see utility vans and minivans with 5 kids in the back on the way to soccer blowing by me doing 50 over... i wouldnt consider that street racing, but wreckless driving.

That commissioner probably loves his american muscle or something and one day he got smoked by a tuner and now he just wants revenge. ;)

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito


I'm slightly impressed, you were able to overexagerate without resorting to using the words Fascist, Nazi, Police State, or New World Order.

But you're still a retard.

The system that was in place for the last few decades obvoiusly wasn't working, so they've imposed stiffer penalties. Increasing the amount of fines and licensing penalties is a lot different than corporal punishment, and if you don't know the difference, you probably can't even put on your own pants. Although I'm pretty sure you just lack the mental capacity to make a point without resorting to wild exaggerations.

and you dont think its a wild exaggeration to say that people going 50 over are a menace to society and should be fined up to 10k?

the old system wasnt working so changing the fines from 500 dollars to 10,000 is obviously the the next logical step and not in any way an exaggeration?

and thats all assuming that your even right about the "system not working". if 85% of people are speeding, as others have said, maybe its the system (speed limit) thats wrong. the government is supposed to support and protect the views of the majority. if 85% of people in this society want to drive 150km/h. then THAT should be the rule.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dansmith11


and you dont think its a wild exaggeration to say that people going 50 over are a menace to society and should be fined up to 10k?

the old system wasnt working so changing the fines from 500 dollars to 10,000 is obviously the the next logical step and not in any way an exaggeration?

If you don't understand the difference between raising an existing fine to a larger fine, and chopping off criminals appendages, you're an idiot.

Also, the people that are typically going 50 over are in fact menaces to society. The problem is that everyone here wants to reserve that right for themselves. Notice how on every "who's a crazy driver?" threads, every single guy going 150 in a lifted truck is a stupid asshole according to you guys? Or the RHD crowd? Or anybody driving a Neon? Or basically anybody that is driving a different car from the one that whomever is posting drives?

Of course there are some people who can drive well at a speed that is higher than everyone else, but it's not much of an exageration to say that a large portion of people going 50 over are in fact assholes. How often do you sit there and watch some nut job following inches from the back of a car because he is "only" going 120? How many people do you see swerving in between cars unsafely so they don't have to slow down?

Overexageration? I think not

Also, you of course ignore the fact that the average fine is only $2000. That's actually not that much of an exageration. The $10,000 is only for repeat offenders and the truly reckless. But that's not important, right?

Originally posted by dansmith11

and thats all assuming that your even right about the "system not working". if 85% of people are speeding, as others have said, maybe its the system (speed limit) thats wrong. the government is supposed to support and protect the views of the majority. if 85% of people in this society want to drive 150km/h. then THAT should be the rule.

There is a huge difference between 85% people going 10-30 over the limit on certain roads (Deerfoot for instance) and a small percentage of people going 50 over the limit, or even 30 over on roads where the average person wants to only go maybe 10 over the limit.

[A790]

The reality remains is that the current driving situation in southern Ontario (around the GTA specifically) is scary and these laws are a rather sad attempt to curb them. In reality, the GTA likes to pretend that it exists above and beyond the rules of the rest of the country, and as many Torontarians are finding out, that simply isn't the case.

If the Ontario government lowers their "capital punishment" to 30 over a lot of people are going to get nailed. Soccer moms, businessmen, young kids, and old people. It will happen, and what happens it will be very much a pissoff.

But, the real question is, how long before those laws migrate to other provinces if they are shown to be successful and acceptable by the public?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by A790
But, the real question is, how long before those laws migrate to other provinces if they are shown to be successful and acceptable by the public?

Ah, and therein lies the rub.....

[Antonito]

Originally posted by A790
The reality remains is that the current driving situation in southern Ontario (around the GTA specifically) is scary and these laws are a rather sad attempt to curb them. In reality, the GTA likes to pretend that it exists above and beyond the rules of the rest of the country, and as many Torontarians are finding out, that simply isn't the case.

If the Ontario government lowers their "capital punishment" to 30 over a lot of people are going to get nailed. Soccer moms, businessmen, young kids, and old people. It will happen, and what happens it will be very much a pissoff.

But, the real question is, how long before those laws migrate to other provinces if they are shown to be successful and acceptable by the public?

It's been proven that if enough people get pissed off all at once, laws get repealed, or at the least they won't be coming to Alberta (see: emissions testing, and even how long it took to ban smoking in bars, which shouldn't have taken even a fraction of the time to be instituted). If they start nailing regular people in cases where the danger is not as clear, as opposed to just wannabe F1 racers going a lot faster than everyone else, it'll be gone soon enough, or won't show up here at all.

[SilverRex]

10k on 30 over is over the hill,

now days car's are faster and more powerful, a little gas on the padel and you will be easily be over.

I think over 50 is about right as you really have to intentionally go out of your way to hit those number.

but the best punishment isnt the amount of money, too big of a fine I Agree will ruin people's lives.

They should impound the car for the length of time depending on the overspeed they've done.

over 30 = 30 days without car + small fine

over 40 = 3 months without car + medium fine

over 50 = 6 months without car + heft fine 10G

over 70-100= loose car forever.

loosing licences I think is a waste of time, people still manage to get behind a wheel. unless, they impose a law where if your caught driving with a suspened licence they can actually throw you in jail for a year+ since you are danger to public as much as someone driving under influence.

P.S as a joke, if all roads were one lane, I bet no one will race anymore because you cant. Maybe then people will be timing each other and do across city laps. haha

[eljefe]

Originally posted by SilverRex
10k on 30 over is over the hill,

now days car's are faster and more powerful, a little gas on the padel and you will be easily be over.

I think over 50 is about right as you really have to intentionally go out of your way to hit those number.



I agree, and to set the record straight the OP in this thread misquoted Fantino anyway. Fantino was quoted in each and every article not saying they needed to go back and change the law at all. He mused that his only regret was not trying for setting the fines at 30k over in the first place. There was no reference to changing the new law what-so-ever.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by SilverRex
10k on 30 over is over the hill,

now days car's are faster and more powerful, a little gas on the padel and you will be easily be over.

I think over 50 is about right as you really have to intentionally go out of your way to hit those number.

but the best punishment isnt the amount of money, too big of a fine I Agree will ruin people's lives.

They should impound the car for the length of time depending on the overspeed they've done.

over 30 = 30 days without car + small fine

over 40 = 3 months without car + medium fine

over 50 = 6 months without car + heft fine 10G

over 70-100= loose car forever.

loosing licences I think is a waste of time, people still manage to get behind a wheel. unless, they impose a law where if your caught driving with a suspened licence they can actually throw you in jail for a year+ since you are danger to public as much as someone driving under influence.

P.S as a joke, if all roads were one lane, I bet no one will race anymore because you cant. Maybe then people will be timing each other and do across city laps. haha

so you're saying Rage2 should never be allowed to drive in his life or own his cars because i guarantee you that he's hit over 200 km/h on the highway at some point in his life. Or are you saying it's only a crime if you get caught? If not, I guess you’re saying Rage2 is a dangerous criminal that has no right to be on the road or own his property. The same could be said for a lot of other people on this board. You’re in agreement with this?

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by eljefe


I agree, and to set the record straight the OP in this thread misquoted Fantino anyway. Fantino was quoted in each and every article not saying they needed to go back and change the law at all. He mused that his only regret was not trying for setting the fines at 30k over in the first place. There was no reference to changing the new law what-so-ever.

Which is why I said if I was wrong feel free to correct me. What I heard was as you said, perhaps they should have set it at 30 over. However, I also THOUGHT I heard him say they still may have to consider looking at lowering it in the future. And this isn't from an article, it was from a live talk radio conversation.

That's all.

[SilverRex]

Originally posted by BigMass


so you're saying Rage2 should never be allowed to drive in his life or own his cars because i guarantee you that he's hit over 200 km/h on the highway at some point in his life. Or are you saying it's only a crime if you get caught? If not, I guess you’re saying Rage2 is a dangerous criminal that has no right to be on the road or own his property. The same could be said for a lot of other people on this board. You’re in agreement with this?

I would only consider someone dangerous if they dont obey the law, especially.. I mean epecially if you have your licences taken away and you still get behind the wheel.

as far as going 200 k/m, if you get caught, then you pay a price, because you pay a price for breaking the law. sure there are some stupid laws outthere, but the only idea is not really about being unfair to those who happen to be caught, but rather we are trying to stop people who race at high speeds irresponesibily. It is just unfortuante you can never seperate the good and bad altogether. I rather see rage 2 pissed off loosing his car for months then to see my wife killed in a accident as a result of street racing.

You will probablly agree when death comes to your door or family because of this.

I do see there should be a fine line between speeding 200 within city limits and speeding 200 on the high way.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by BigMass


so you're saying Rage2 should never be allowed to drive in his life or own his cars because i guarantee you that he's hit over 200 km/h on the highway at some point in his life. Or are you saying it's only a crime if you get caught? If not, I guess you’re saying Rage2 is a dangerous criminal that has no right to be on the road or own his property. The same could be said for a lot of other people on this board. You’re in agreement with this?

If he is going 200km/hr on the road, then yes, I think he should get hit with the applicable punishment.

Do you think someone should go to jail if they murder someone? How's that for logic?

Also once again you completely overstep reality. Who is saying that Rage should never drive again? Nobody but the voice in your mind that translates what people say into the garbage that you actually hear. There is a big difference between someone getting punished once as a deterent, and someone being banned forever for a lapse in judgement.

[mekeni]

Originally posted by Antonito

Do you think someone should go to jail if they murder someone? How's that for logic?


:dunno: :dunno:

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Antonito


If he is going 200km/hr on the road, then yes, I think he should get hit with the applicable punishment.

Do you think someone should go to jail if they murder someone? How's that for logic?

Also once again you completely overstep reality. Who is saying that Rage should never drive again? Nobody but the voice in your mind that translates what people say into the garbage that you actually hear. There is a big difference between someone getting punished once as a deterent, and someone being banned forever for a lapse in judgement.

you have no logic, grasp on reality or reading comprehension. I was replying to a thread that stated

over 70-100= loose car forever.

That means Rage should never drive again and loose his car.

Murder infringes on someone's right to Life. Speeding, making it home and having hurt nobody does not. How the fuck do you even make that connection?

[BigMass]

Originally posted by SilverRex


I would only consider someone dangerous if they dont obey the law, especially.. I mean epecially if you have your licences taken away and you still get behind the wheel.

as far as going 200 k/m, if you get caught, then you pay a price, because you pay a price for breaking the law. sure there are some stupid laws outthere, but the only idea is not really about being unfair to those who happen to be caught, but rather we are trying to stop people who race at high speeds irresponesibily. It is just unfortuante you can never seperate the good and bad altogether. I rather see rage 2 pissed off loosing his car for months then to see my wife killed in a accident as a result of street racing.

You will probablly agree when death comes to your door or family because of this.

I do see there should be a fine line between speeding 200 within city limits and speeding 200 on the high way.

that's fine but i asked a simple question. If Rage has gone 200 km/h at one point in his life on Crowchild (inside the city mind you) in the middle of the night with nobody on the road should he be able to every drive again and should he have his car taken away? Yes or No. If you say "No" then even you dont agree with what you are saying. If you say "Yes" Then i would dissagree with you but you would at least be consistant in your ideas

Or should we differentiate between City and Highway. Or if it’s a crowded road or not, or if he had a good car or not. Or what?

[SilverRex]

Originally posted by BigMass


that's fine but i asked a simple question. If Rage has gone 200 km/h at one point in his life on Crowchild (inside the city mind you) in the middle of the night with nobody on the road should he be able to every drive again and should he have his car taken away? Yes or No. If you say "No" then even you dont agree with what you are saying. If you say "Yes" Then i would dissagree with you but you would at least be consistant in your ideas

Or should we differentiate between City and Highway. Or if it’s a crowded road or not, or if he had a good car or not. Or what?

first I never mention not able to drive again as part of the punishment. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. second, the 70-100 loose car forever is simply a suggestion, how and where is the fine line to be drawn in order to deter dangerous drivers off the road is completely another discussion. It would be silly for me to say yes there are somethings I never said or intended in the first place.

Your putting too much focus on trying to be fair to good drivers. But my focus is on the bad ones. I already state its a fact and it is unforuante good and bad drivers will always be stuck together under current traffic laws.

it is like taking those highschool shooting incidents in the US. You could treat everyone with respect and trust only to find out a few dead bodies later that something has to be done. Or you can investigate and start taking people's threat and issues seriously because he or she may pull a fast one on you when you least expect it. How can you tell from two student that both have anger issue, but one is just having a bad day. Do you pull both into the principle office and start your questioning or you impose a rule that anyone caught believing they may be dangerous will should be grounds for dismissal?

Or how bout this one,
harrassment at the workplace. Either by accident or not. you can get into pretty serious shit if you offended someone by accident because he or she cant take a joke. But though I feel sorry for them, such strict no tolence rule are there for a reason, to stop the real people who take harrasing people as their way of life.

unfortunately we are talking about people's lives on the road here. you and I probablly can say rage2 is a smart driver, but no one can tell that on the road. if the police see someone's going 200, you have to believe the worse is happening.

If you have a problem of 'but I have always follow the law and this is just the odd time type of deal' well then adjust the fine so that it reflects people who 'often' race on streets.

I also feel unfair at times too, being pull to the side by a cop because I was driving 4:00 am in the morning and they automatically assume either im a racer or drinking and start questioning. But in the back of my mind, I feel they are doing a good job because if they start allowing everyone to ' lets use your example, driving 200 at night with no cars on the road' Then all the punk ass racer will come out to party.

Oh, but one more thing.
I think rage2 is smart enough not to get caught, so it doesnt matter what law is out there, he'll find a way around it. almost every time. :nut:

[Antonito]

Originally posted by BigMass


you have no logic, grasp on reality or reading comprehension. I was replying to a thread that stated

over 70-100= loose car forever.

That means Rage should never drive again and loose his car.

Murder infringes on someone's right to Life. Speeding, making it home and having hurt nobody does not. How the fuck do you even make that connection?

You got me there, I thought you were still the guy that says "increasing fines is like cutting off peoples hands".

Indeed, reading comprehension on this one > me

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito


If you don't understand the difference between raising an existing fine to a larger fine, and chopping off criminals appendages, you're an idiot.

Also, the people that are typically going 50 over are in fact menaces to society. The problem is that everyone here wants to reserve that right for themselves. Notice how on every "who's a crazy driver?" threads, every single guy going 150 in a lifted truck is a stupid asshole according to you guys? Or the RHD crowd? Or anybody driving a Neon? Or basically anybody that is driving a different car from the one that whomever is posting drives?

Of course there are some people who can drive well at a speed that is higher than everyone else, but it's not much of an exageration to say that a large portion of people going 50 over are in fact assholes. How often do you sit there and watch some nut job following inches from the back of a car because he is "only" going 120? How many people do you see swerving in between cars unsafely so they don't have to slow down?

Overexageration? I think not

Also, you of course ignore the fact that the average fine is only $2000. That's actually not that much of an exageration. The $10,000 is only for repeat offenders and the truly reckless. But that's not important, right?


There is a huge difference between 85% people going 10-30 over the limit on certain roads (Deerfoot for instance) and a small percentage of people going 50 over the limit, or even 30 over on roads where the average person wants to only go maybe 10 over the limit.


i never said anything about cutting off peoples hands, i never even said it was a bad thing to raise the fine. i said it was an exaggeration to raise it by 20x the current fine.

and im not ignoring the fact that the average fine is 2k, the point is the law ALLOWS for up to 10k. just because no judge has handed that fine out yet, doesnt mean its ok for them to have that amount of power.

would you feel safe if the police had the power to shoot you on sight for breaking the law, but as long as they hadnt gone that far YET, then its ok ? (and your probably just going to call this an exaggeration again, but i think your missing the point, sure they arent cutting off peoples hands YET, but where do you draw the line? you cant just let your government/police force hand out any punishment they want. there has to be limits and checks on any system of power)

a 10,000 dollar fine can ruin someones life, you could end up losing your house, your car, your family. everything. all for doing 50 over? if you really think driving 50 over is THAT dangerous that it warrants this harsh a punishment, i think your the idiot.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dansmith11



i never said anything about cutting off peoples hands, i never even said it was a bad thing to raise the fine. i said it was an exaggeration to raise it by 20x the current fine.

and im not ignoring the fact that the average fine is 2k, the point is the law ALLOWS for up to 10k. just because no judge has handed that fine out yet, doesnt mean its ok for them to have that amount of power.

would you feel safe if the police had the power to shoot you on sight for breaking the law, but as long as they hadnt gone that far YET, then its ok ? (and your probably just going to call this an exaggeration again, but i think your missing the point, sure they arent cutting off peoples hands YET, but where do you draw the line? you cant just let your government/police force hand out any punishment they want. there has to be limits and checks on any system of power)

a 10,000 dollar fine can ruin someones life, you could end up losing your house, your car, your family. everything. all for doing 50 over? if you really think driving 50 over is THAT dangerous that it warrants this harsh a punishment, i think your the idiot.

Then I don't know what to say. If you think that a monetary fine and fatal gunshots are the same concept, well, more power to you.

Here's a funny thought. If it's so life crushing to get a $10,000 fine, maybe you shouldn't go 50 over the limit. Crazy I know. It's a weird side effect of this law they've put out simply to get your money and hold you down for their evil purposes. I wonder if they even realised it at the time. If only going 50 over wasn't an unavoidable and necesarry thing.

[codetrap]

You know, I read an interesting statistic somewhere that the average speeding ticket on Hwy 2 is around 160Km/h.

I wonder how many of those people caught would repeat offend if their little car was turned into a pop can?

[nikka]

lets start a petition to bring the autobahn to canada!!


i can see doing 50 over in residential or even in the city is no doubt dangerous.. but 10 grand???????? :eek:

the highway is another story.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by codetrap
You know, I read an interesting statistic somewhere that the average speeding ticket on Hwy 2 is around 160Km/h.

I wonder how many of those people caught would repeat offend if their little car was turned into a pop can?

Probably none, but thats a little too far in terms of punishment.

Soon enough we will be like Singapore. Spitting on the ground equals a beating from police. No thanks.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by codetrap

I wonder how many of those people caught would repeat offend if their little car was turned into a pop can?

I wonder how many people would stop? I also wonder if there would be an increase in Mountie funerals. :dunno:

[DayGlow]

My personal viewpoint on this one is that I agree that around the 50 over mark the fines should really start going up and the 7 day suspension is a good idea.

I don't think it should be dropped to around 30 over. I think the system works fine as is with higher fines/demerits on a scale up to 50 over, then at 50+ the heavy stuff starts.

Speed is an integral part of aggressive driving, one that is very easy to prove in court. I think we can all agree we need to get the aggressive drivers off of the road and if this is the catalyst for it, so be it.

As I've always said, it isn't the absolute speed that is the problem, but relative speed between vehicles that is. No one is expecting that car to be racing up the road at 50 over the limit and someone that checks their mirror and shoulder checks will not catch that car flying up the road that fast.

This brings to the front the argument of blasting down the empty road. Much like the tree falling in the woods, is a car going 200+ when no one is around really speeding? What I put forth to you is the argument people make about blasting down the empty road in the middle of the night. Yes your car can safely go at that speed, but are in complete control of your environment? Do you know for sure what hazards are ahead?

My point is that if you do not know that cop is ahead that gets you going at that speed you don't know what else could be up there either. I much rather you get nabbed by the cop than have a terrible accident that forever haunts you. Everyday in my job I meet people that never thought it would happen to them, whatever terrible thing it maybe. But it does happen to people and often or not, they do not see it coming or have any control over it.

So if you are truly alone and are in an environment you are completely aware of, speeding would not be a problem, but then you would never be caught going at that speed in the first place so it's not a problem.

Driving isn't a right, but a very large responsibility. Your life and the lives of others are in your hands every time you get behind the wheel. Abuse that responsibility and you should be punished. I agree with the idea of really going after the extreme end of the problem, the people that are caught going 50 over.

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Antonito


You got me there, I thought you were still the guy that says "increasing fines is like cutting off peoples hands".

Indeed, reading comprehension on this one > me

You argue that if the people are in the wrong and they know it, then fuck them they get whatever punishment the gov't can think up, so why not just lop off their feet :dunno: they knew it was wrong! A 10k dollar fine is potentially life-ruining, and if you think that someone deserves that for driving 30kph over the limit then are some serious flaws in your thinking.


Originally posted by DayGlow
My personal viewpoint on this one is that I agree that around the 50 over mark the fines should really start going up and the 7 day suspension is a good idea.

I don't think it should be dropped to around 30 over. I think the system works fine as is with higher fines/demerits on a scale up to 50 over, then at 50+ the heavy stuff starts.

Speed is an integral part of aggressive driving, one that is very easy to prove in court. I think we can all agree we need to get the aggressive drivers off of the road and if this is the catalyst for it, so be it.

As I've always said, it isn't the absolute speed that is the problem, but relative speed between vehicles that is. No one is expecting that car to be racing up the road at 50 over the limit and someone that checks their mirror and shoulder checks will not catch that car flying up the road that fast.

This brings to the front the argument of blasting down the empty road. Much like the tree falling in the woods, is a car going 200+ when no one is around really speeding? What I put forth to you is the argument people make about blasting down the empty road in the middle of the night. Yes your car can safely go at that speed, but are in complete control of your environment? Do you know for sure what hazards are ahead?

My point is that if you do not know that cop is ahead that gets you going at that speed you don't know what else could be up there either. I much rather you get nabbed by the cop than have a terrible accident that forever haunts you. Everyday in my job I meet people that never thought it would happen to them, whatever terrible thing it maybe. But it does happen to people and often or not, they do not see it coming or have any control over it.

So if you are truly alone and are in an environment you are completely aware of, speeding would not be a problem, but then you would never be caught going at that speed in the first place so it's not a problem.

Driving isn't a right, but a very large responsibility. Your life and the lives of others are in your hands every time you get behind the wheel. Abuse that responsibility and you should be punished. I agree with the idea of really going after the extreme end of the problem, the people that are caught going 50 over.

I don't think I've ever agreed more completely with anything else ever said on beyond.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito


Then I don't know what to say. If you think that a monetary fine and fatal gunshots are the same concept, well, more power to you.

Here's a funny thought. If it's so life crushing to get a $10,000 fine, maybe you shouldn't go 50 over the limit. Crazy I know. It's a weird side effect of this law they've put out simply to get your money and hold you down for their evil purposes. I wonder if they even realised it at the time. If only going 50 over wasn't an unavoidable and necesarry thing.


you keep missing the point. obviously a fine isnt the same as shooting someone. the point is this is a start, if it starts to be ok for them to pass laws with punishments this harsh, its only a matter of time until that becomes the norm. and then once its the norm to have punishments that harsh, the envelope will get pushed further and further. and before you know it your getting fined 5k for j-way walking and people are cutting your hands off for stealing.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by 962 kid


You argue that if the people are in the wrong and they know it, then fuck them they get whatever punishment the gov't can think up, so why not just lop off their feet :dunno: they knew it was wrong! A 10k dollar fine is potentially life-ruining, and if you think that someone deserves that for driving 30kph over the limit then are some serious flaws in your thinking.


No, you fucking braindead idiot, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Try fucking reading.

I'm arguing that for the last 3 or more decades they have been giving fines in the range of hundreds of dollars, and it is not working, people are still speeding excessively. So they are increasing the existing penalty to see if it stops people. I am not arguing that the government should be allowed to do whatever they want. I just so happen to agree with them on this punishment.

If they start shooting people for looking at them funny, then yes, I'll be right there with you in the protest lines. But no, I don't think a heavy monetary fine for doing something that is 100% avoidable and unnecessary (driving 50 k/hr over) is at all innapropriate.


Originally posted by dansmith11



you keep missing the point. obviously a fine isnt the same as shooting someone. the point is this is a start, if it starts to be ok for them to pass laws with punishments this harsh, its only a matter of time until that becomes the norm. and then once its the norm to have punishments that harsh, the envelope will get pushed further and further. and before you know it your getting fined 5k for j-way walking and people are cutting your hands off for stealing.

OH my fucking god I hate the "slippery slope" argument. The slope starts wherever the person using the analogy wants it to start. I could make a case that the slope started when the country outlawed murder.

Oh no, they might take it 3000 steps further and start killing people to use as human throw rugs for the Nazi overlords. We must immediately get rid of every single law ever!

See, it's a slippery slope between making a legitimate point and going off like a chicken with it's head cut off. I think you've slid right down that slope and off into panicky-idiot land, wouldn't you agree? Or are you an idiot because you don't agree with my slippery slope analogy?

In order for a country to work, a law must impose a punishment that is strict enough to keep people from reoffending. The old fine was not working, people are still going at ridiculous speeds. So how do you suggest we fix this?

That's what I'd like to know, how do we actually fix this without raising the fines? Magic? Pixies? Wishful thinking?

[962 kid]

Originally posted by Antonito


No, you fucking braindead idiot, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Try fucking reading.

I'm arguing that for the last 3 or more decades they have been giving fines in the range of hundreds of dollars, and it is not working, people are still speeding excessively. So they are increasing the existing penalty to see if it stops people. I am not arguing that the government should be allowed to do whatever they want. I just so happen to agree with them on this punishment.

If they start shooting people for looking at them funny, then yes, I'll be right there with you in the protest lines. But no, I don't think a heavy monetary fine for doing something that is 100% avoidable and unnecessary (driving 50 k/hr over) is at all innapropriate.

Again, if you think that a potentially life-ruining fine is reasonable for a non-criminal offense, then you have major issues. If the people have been speeding excessively for 30 years without the gov't even fucking knowing about it (In a one month period they have fined over 1000 people for going 50 over the posted speed limit. He said that they just "couldn't believe" how many people they've caught.), then the speed limit should be raised. Simple, then you don't have people being fined thousands of dollars for doing what they've been doing for the last 30 years. Only an absolute retard would believe that a 10k dollar fine is appropriate.

You don't like my chopping off legs analogy? Here let's try this. In New Hampshire, it's illegal to run machinery on sundays, and yet businesses have been doing it for decades. Would you think it's appropriate for all businesses that operate machinery on a sunday to receive a 10 million dollar fine, because some archaic, outdated law still exists for some ludicrous reason?

[Antonito]

Originally posted by 962 kid


Again, if you think that a potentially life-ruining fine is reasonable for a non-criminal offense, then you have major issues. If the people have been speeding excessively for 30 years without the gov't even fucking knowing about it (In a one month period they have fined over 1000 people for going 50 over the posted speed limit. He said that they just "couldn't believe" how many people they've caught.), then the speed limit should be raised. Simple, then you don't have people being fined thousands of dollars for doing what they've been doing for the last 30 years. Only an absolute retard would believe that a 10k dollar fine is appropriate.

You don't like my chopping off legs analogy? Here let's try this. In New Hampshire, it's illegal to run machinery on sundays, and yet businesses have been doing it for decades. Would you think it's appropriate for all businesses that operate machinery on a sunday to receive a 10 million dollar fine, because some archaic, outdated law still exists for some ludicrous reason?

Yes, they haven't known about it for 30 years :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (there are not enough rolleyes emoticons in all the world for this)

He "couldn't believe how many people they've caught" because you have to be stupider than a sack of dirt to speed after you have been told that you potentially face a $10,000 fine. I mean really, how brain dead do you have to be? You guys act like the world is coming to an end, and these people still figure it's a good idea to speed? That's why I'm ok with this law, it really is only punishing the stupidest of people.

As for your new analogy, it is....somewhat better. A $10million dollar fine is still way out of proportion with what we are talking about here, but at least we are comparing giant apples with much smaller apples, rather than apples and nuclear weapons. But you are wrong in comparing an antiquated law that has outlived it's usefullness. This law was just introduced, by current day politicians. Under the watchful eye of the voting population who were whining to try to stop the street racers and hooligans. Obviously on this site this is not that popular, but the government doesn't listen to what young car enthusiasts say. And not because they are fascists, but because young car enthusiasts don't vote. Look at the election threads here for proof. You know who does vote? Soccer moms and old people. Both of whom are sick of being cut off by the next DRIFTU RACERAH star who thinks nothing can ever possibly go wrong as he weaves in and out of traffic.

But you won't understand this, so I don't even know why I'm bothering.

[mac_82]

Originally posted by Antonito
He "couldn't believe how many people they've caught" because you have to be stupider than a sack of dirt to speed after you have been told that you potentially face a $10,000 fine.

I couldn't agree more. I myself drive on the 401 and QEW regularily, and on every electronic road sign, it blatantly says for everyone to read: 50km/h over gets a fine/suspension. So even if you live in a cave and hadn't heard about the new law via the tradional methods, you have NO excuse.

:angel:

[kertejud]

Originally posted by 98type_r
In my opinion even proposing a $10 000 fine for 30km over a posted limit is absolutely ridiculous. Driver inattention is a factor in collisions far more often than excess speed.

Here's what I propose.

Set up photo radar sites up and down the highways, post signs saying that they're coming up. If anybody goes more than 30 through them, its the $50,000 fine, they lose their license and their car gets crushed (or sold, proceeds going to the homeless...or something).

Its basically a stupid tax. You catch people speeding who also aren't paying attention, two birds with one stone. Plus, its sure to reduce traffic on Ontario's already overcrowded highways.


And Antonio, I may have disagreed with you on some things recently, but with this, :werd:

[codetrap]

So, it's not a criminal offense to speed over 50. So make it one. Is there any real difference between driving 50kph over the posted limit, and running down the street with a loaded gun in your hand, your finger on the trigger, and the safety off?

Both may be perfectly safe depending on your skill, unless of course you trip...

And as to rage2 losing his car and his license forever if he's stupid enough to get caught, yes, I'm all for it. I would hope that he's smart enough to realize that just because he can do a thing, does not mean he should do a thing.

Then again, if I had my way, the prisons would be a lot less populated by lifers and the justice system would be a whole lot more streamlined, but that is another argument.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito


No, you fucking braindead idiot, that's not what I'm arguing at all. Try fucking reading.

I'm arguing that for the last 3 or more decades they have been giving fines in the range of hundreds of dollars, and it is not working, people are still speeding excessively. So they are increasing the existing penalty to see if it stops people. I am not arguing that the government should be allowed to do whatever they want. I just so happen to agree with them on this punishment.

If they start shooting people for looking at them funny, then yes, I'll be right there with you in the protest lines. But no, I don't think a heavy monetary fine for doing something that is 100% avoidable and unnecessary (driving 50 k/hr over) is at all innapropriate.



OH my fucking god I hate the "slippery slope" argument. The slope starts wherever the person using the analogy wants it to start. I could make a case that the slope started when the country outlawed murder.

Oh no, they might take it 3000 steps further and start killing people to use as human throw rugs for the Nazi overlords. We must immediately get rid of every single law ever!

See, it's a slippery slope between making a legitimate point and going off like a chicken with it's head cut off. I think you've slid right down that slope and off into panicky-idiot land, wouldn't you agree? Or are you an idiot because you don't agree with my slippery slope analogy?

In order for a country to work, a law must impose a punishment that is strict enough to keep people from reoffending. The old fine was not working, people are still going at ridiculous speeds. So how do you suggest we fix this?

That's what I'd like to know, how do we actually fix this without raising the fines? Magic? Pixies? Wishful thinking?



i dont see whats so hard to grasp about this concept, if you make punishments extremely harsh for one crime, its only a matter of time until that same prinicple is applied to other crimes, and eventually it will be applied to something that affects you or your family/friends, and then you wont be sitting here saying, just dont break the law and everything will be fine. obviously this isnt a process that happens over night, and obviously im not saying to abolish all laws. but the potential is there for this to spread to other things, and if that doesnt concern people then its almost guranteed to happen. There has to be a voice against it, or the government ends up with more and more power. look at how things are going in the US right now. More and more freedoms are being infringed upon for the sake of safety. if you dont draw the line somewhere, it just keeps going.

and as for this law specifically. im not saying its not a crime and its not stupid, im not even saying they shouldnt raise the fines. (although license suspensions would make a LOT more sense if you want to actually make poeple stop speeding and not just collect some cash) what im saying is they went too far, and the way the law is written you have cops with the power to hand out a 10k fine and potentially ruin someones life for doing 50 over on an empty road with no other people around to injure.

im all for harsh punishments if your risking other peoples lives, but if your not. then i dont think its right to have a punishment that harsh. its the way the law is written that gives it too much power.

and last but not least, you keep calling everyone retarded for comparing this law to other things saying we are all dumb and its like comparing apples to nuclear bombs, and yet you have compared speeding to murder in more then one of your posts.

so if we are all retarded. so are you. your also kind of a dick cuz you cant just debate something without calling people idiots. so even if i am retarded, your a retarded dick head. so i still got one up on you.

in closing. i win.

(and lighten up man, you dont have to call people idiots for having a different opinion then you)

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dansmith11




i dont see whats so hard to grasp about this concept, if you make punishments extremely harsh for one crime, its only a matter of time until that same prinicple is applied to other crimes, and eventually it will be applied to something that affects you or your family/friends, and then you wont be sitting here saying, just dont break the law and everything will be fine. obviously this isnt a process that happens over night, and obviously im not saying to abolish all laws. but the potential is there for this to spread to other things, and if that doesnt concern people then its almost guranteed to happen. There has to be a voice against it, or the government ends up with more and more power. look at how things are going in the US right now. More and more freedoms are being infringed upon for the sake of safety. if you dont draw the line somewhere, it just keeps going.

It's not as obvious as you'd think. The potential is there, but there has always been potential anytime any law restricting any freedoms is passed. Fighting for freedom and being wary of corruption is great, but I don't see the advantage of impeding safety measures because of future events that may or may not happen, and are still preventable anyways.


Originally posted by dansmith11

and as for this law specifically. im not saying its not a crime and its not stupid, im not even saying they shouldnt raise the fines. (although license suspensions would make a LOT more sense if you want to actually make poeple stop speeding and not just collect some cash) what im saying is they went too far, and the way the law is written you have cops with the power to hand out a 10k fine and potentially ruin someones life for doing 50 over on an empty road with no other people around to injure.

im all for harsh punishments if your risking other peoples lives, but if your not. then i dont think its right to have a punishment that harsh. its the way the law is written that gives it too much power.

There are many times when these people will be risking other peoples lives. And as has been said before, it's unfortunate that cautious speeders have to be lumped in with the idiots, but that's life. The reason they are making this law across the board is because once you start including arbitrary things like "how clear was it, was there any obstructuctions that could have changed things, what kind of car is it, how fast can it stop, etc", you have a judicial clusterfuck of people bringing "facts" showing why their supped up Camaro is fully capable of amazing driving feats, or having to full discect the exact stretch of highway.

All far too much work and far too prone to abuse when at the end of the day it's all wrong to some degree, and completely unavoidable.

Originally posted by dansmith11

and last but not least, you keep calling everyone retarded for comparing this law to other things saying we are all dumb and its like comparing apples to nuclear bombs, and yet you have compared speeding to murder in more then one of your posts.

Have you seen how many people get killed each year because someone decides to drive at ridiculous speeds? People are dying because of the conscious decisions of someone speeding. That's a lot closer to murder than a $10,000 fine is to lopping off someones hands for stealing.

Originally posted by dansmith11

so if we are all retarded. so are you. your also kind of a dick cuz you cant just debate something without calling people idiots. so even if i am retarded, your a retarded dick head. so i still got one up on you.

in closing. i win.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Originally posted by dansmith11

(and lighten up man, you dont have to call people idiots for having a different opinion then you)


As far as me calling people idiots, I do so because that is pretty much the norm around here. I learned from the best.

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito


It's not as obvious as you'd think. The potential is there, but there has always been potential anytime any law restricting any freedoms is passed. Fighting for freedom and being wary of corruption is great, but I don't see the advantage of impeding safety measures because of future events that may or may not happen, and are still preventable anyways.



There are many times when these people will be risking other peoples lives. And as has been said before, it's unfortunate that cautious speeders have to be lumped in with the idiots, but that's life. The reason they are making this law across the board is because once you start including arbitrary things like "how clear was it, was there any obstructuctions that could have changed things, what kind of car is it, how fast can it stop, etc", you have a judicial clusterfuck of people bringing "facts" showing why their supped up Camaro is fully capable of amazing driving feats, or having to full discect the exact stretch of highway.

All far too much work and far too prone to abuse when at the end of the day it's all wrong to some degree, and completely unavoidable.


i dont think you need to include 900 other factors in the law, but how about at least something saying "if in x distance from another vehicle". that would be a pretty clear/simple addition to the law which now makes it state you can only recieve a fine that harsh if your close enough to another person that you could have endangered their life.




Have you seen how many people get killed each year because someone decides to drive at ridiculous speeds? People are dying because of the conscious decisions of someone speeding. That's a lot closer to murder than a $10,000 fine is to lopping off someones hands for stealing.



no, i havent. have you? i tried to find some stats on speed related deaths, but apparently my google kung-fu is weak. ill be amazed if theres more then 10 a year. if anyone can find some stats on how many deaths that are as a DIRECT RESULT of speeding, that would sure help this arguement. but for as much media attention as excessive speed and street racing has got lately, i can only remember a handful of news stories where someone actually died.

im not so sure a stat like that exists though, as its pretty hard to prove an accident was a direct result of speeding, most stats related to this subject almost for sure include a large number of highway accidents where people werent speeding but given its on a highway, speed is obviously going to contribute to the severity of any accident that happens.




Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.



As far as me calling people idiots, I do so because that is pretty much the norm around here. I learned from the best.

haha that last part was just jokes, not to be taken seriously.

[Hakkola]

The thing that sucks is that everyone gets hit with the same fine, they should do what they do in Finland and make the fines a percentage of your yearly income. That way someone who makes $100 000 is hit as hard as someone who makes $10 000.

My problem is that a lot of people can't come close to being able to afford a $10 000 fine.

You might argue, don't do the crime if you can't pay for it, but then why not just jack up the fines on every infraction to some rediculous amount, so it isn't just the poor who can't afford to be penalized so harshly.

[Antonito]

Originally posted by dansmith11
i dont think you need to include 900 other factors in the law, but how about at least something saying "if in x distance from another vehicle". that would be a pretty clear/simple addition to the law which now makes it state you can only recieve a fine that harsh if your close enough to another person that you could have endangered their life.
If you're close enough to a cop that he catches you, you're too close to at least one car.

Originally posted by dansmith11
no, i havent. have you? i tried to find some stats on speed related deaths, but apparently my google kung-fu is weak. ill be amazed if theres more then 10 a year. if anyone can find some stats on how many deaths that are as a DIRECT RESULT of speeding, that would sure help this arguement. but for as much media attention as excessive speed and street racing has got lately, i can only remember a handful of news stories where someone actually died.

im not so sure a stat like that exists though, as its pretty hard to prove an accident was a direct result of speeding, most stats related to this subject almost for sure include a large number of highway accidents where people werent speeding but given its on a highway, speed is obviously going to contribute to the severity of any accident that happens.

You;re right, I google and I can't find anything that actually has a "this many deaths this year in all of Canada directly caused by street racing"

Hoever, about 30 seconds of googling brings up this

note the "37 deaths from street racing in GTA alone" (http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2007/08/15/c6993.html?lang=_e.html)

And really, just look on this site itself (Beyond) to see how many accidents are caused or at least influenced by speed. Off the top of my head (and I've only been here for a few months), I know that that one guy who got run down outside a bar a few months ago was by a guy going way over the limit who couldn't stop in time to not hit the guy. Plus several accidents that by shear grace of God no one got killed (the kid in the Corvette smashing up 3 cars, that 300Z that pretty much got torn into little bits, the paramedic that got put in the hospital when a street racer ran into him, and those are just the ones I remember in the last few months I've been here)

Of course, probably none of these can be directly attributed if you really want to justify your need to speed. Just be aware that this is the same bullshit logic that industry schills use to deny that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Just because there isn't 100% proof, doesn't mean that a reasonable person shouldn't be able to assume that the most likely cause is in fact the cause.

[narou]

SPEED KILLS... My cousins friend got pretty much chopped in half by a speeding car... Like his legs came off hes dead.. The two big Jamaicans that were with him oh man... The driver and passenger got well BEAT DOWN... Driver didn't press charges...

But yah if your going more than 30km/h over the speed limit and you can even see another vehicle which will most likely be the case in my opinion your playing with fire...

[dansmith11]

Originally posted by Antonito

If you're close enough to a cop that he catches you, you're too close to at least one car.


You;re right, I google and I can't find anything that actually has a "this many deaths this year in all of Canada directly caused by street racing"

Hoever, about 30 seconds of googling brings up this

note the "37 deaths from street racing in GTA alone" (http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2007/08/15/c6993.html?lang=_e.html)

And really, just look on this site itself (Beyond) to see how many accidents are caused or at least influenced by speed. Off the top of my head (and I've only been here for a few months), I know that that one guy who got run down outside a bar a few months ago was by a guy going way over the limit who couldn't stop in time to not hit the guy. Plus several accidents that by shear grace of God no one got killed (the kid in the Corvette smashing up 3 cars, that 300Z that pretty much got torn into little bits, the paramedic that got put in the hospital when a street racer ran into him, and those are just the ones I remember in the last few months I've been here)

Of course, probably none of these can be directly attributed if you really want to justify your need to speed. Just be aware that this is the same bullshit logic that industry schills use to deny that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Just because there isn't 100% proof, doesn't mean that a reasonable person shouldn't be able to assume that the most likely cause is in fact the cause.

the problem with the "well if a cop catches you , you were close enough to another person to hurt them" arguement is that a cop is not an innocent bystander. a cop is out there strategically positioned to be less visible so he can catch you breaking the law. he also is aware of and has accepted the dangers that come with his job. he's not an innocent civilian. if hes just out driving down the highway, and you go flying past him. sure then hes not differnet then another car, and should qualify as the other car close enough to be endangered, but when they are hiding out to catch you, or happen to see you speeding when your already in front of them, then no, i dont think that counts as being someone your endangering.

and street racing and going 50 over isnt the same. thats why i think this law needs to at least be clear in that it can only be applied to someone who IS racing, or is at the VERY LEAST close enough to another car to cause them harm.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by dansmith11


and street racing and going 50 over isnt the same. thats why i think this law needs to at least be clear in that it can only be applied to someone who IS racing, or is at the VERY LEAST close enough to another car to cause them harm.

Really, intent of the person aside, what is the empirical difference? How would you make it clear? Proving intent is a bitch.

I suspect that the reason that it's 50 over is that you'd simply have people claiming that they weren't racing, since the cops didn't actually catch the other racer. This way, they have a line in the sand, one that simply can't be denied.

[Antonito]

What codetrap said. Once you start putting the onus on the cops to start pulling out scale models and tape measures and having to have video proof (how else would you prove that someone was within 200m or whatever of another car?), you're just making a mockery of the system.

[Hamilton515]

.