Little Update on the "50 over" rule in Ontario

[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"

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"

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]

.