Stupid laws, smug cops

[Asher]

You assume the speed limit isn't absurdly low and widely disregarded altogether.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

These guys were ACTUALLY racing. They would've had their cars impounded, licenses suspended, and charges brought before the new "racing" law ever took place.

Accused of racing. And this is why the new law has been applied on top of existing laws.

And the fact that there are 324 idiots who still insist on speeding +50 kph over a limit shows the need to hammer into their small brains that they don't have the right to speed. The more of them who get their cars impounded, the better.



Oh lots of studies showing red light cameras reduce overall number of accidents:


Red-light cameras can reduce the number of injuries from car crashes at intersections by up to 30 percent, according to a new worldwide review of studies.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9333

U.S. Highways Department:
There was indeed a modest aggregate crash cost benefit of RLC systems even when accounting for the negative impact of rear end collisions.

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm

For example, a study of red light cameras in Oxnard, California found seven percent fewer crashes overall and 29 percent fewer injury crashes at intersections after the cameras were introduced. However, not all collisions at intersections involve red light running. When the data were re-analyzed to take into account only those crashes related to red light running, the findings showed much greater benefits — 20 percent fewer crashes and 46 percent fewer injury crashes.

http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/redlite.html

A study of accidents at intersection with red-light cameras in seven U.S. cities was recently done for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

It showed a 25 percent drop in broadside collisions – or "angle crashes" – at those intersections but a 15 percent rise in rear-end collisions.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050130/news_1m30cameras.html

One new study, conducted by researchers at the Institute for Transportation Research and Education, in cooperation with North Carolina State University, reviewed traffic data from over a dozen intersections in Raleigh considered to be the most dangerous in the city, half of which had red light cameras. Researchers compared the “before” and “after” red-light related accidents between the two groups. The results showed right-angle accidents were reduced by 42 percent at red-light camera intersections, with a 25 percent reduction in rear-end accidents Total red-light related accidents dropped by 22 percent.

http://www.stopredlightrunning.com/html/newsrelease_011905.htm

[Tingkai]

Most people think they're good drivers. The problem is they're not.

Oh, they're fine when everything is normal, but few people are trained to react properly to a sudden emergency. The problem with excessive speeding is the higher the speed, the less time to react. The margin for error shrinks and major accidents happen.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Accused of racing. And this is why the new law has been applied on top of existing laws.

No, it has not. The new law has nothing to do with this case. It was not applied.

[Wezil]

It was actually. From the article:

Police seized two vehicles, a badly damaged Audi and a BMW, under Ontario's new street racing laws, applied to drivers travelling more than 50 km/h over the speed limit.

[Asher]

Then what's this?

Originally posted by Wezil


Indeed. They were charged under the existing Criminal Code provisions not the new HTA section.

They seized them under the new law but are not bringing charges under the new law?

[Asher]

And also:

Accused of racing.

I find it curious Tingkai defends this. If we're making a big point of differentiating between accused/guilty, how can you back a law that punishes the person before trial?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
Then what's this?


They seized them under the new law but are not bringing charges under the new law?

My bad, sorry. I should have worded it better. They were charged under both the CC and the HTA. Aside from a 7-day impoundment (not really an issue here obviously) I'm not sure what the HTA charges will do that the CC charge doesn't already...

I'm going to find the new street racing provision and post it for info puposes.

[Asher]

It seems somewhat odd to me that you can have two laws for the "same thing" then charge someone under both.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
It seems somewhat odd to me that you can have two laws for the "same thing" then charge someone under both.

There may be a Kineapple(sp?) argument (duplicate charge) on that.

[Wezil]

It would appear what McGuinty has done was "beef up" the former provision against street racing (s.172) by amending the penalty section and including a new Regulation (455/07). Anyway,

S.172 of the HTA as it now reads:

172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Offence

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence may be suspended,

(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or

(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
...

Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment

(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,

(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and

(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

The associated Reg (455/07) link (mainly definitions, no penalty section as that is in s.172): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/reg...s_070455_e.htm

And the Dangerous Driving provision of the Criminal Code:

249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;
...
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Dangerous operation causing bodily harm

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Dangerous operation causing death

(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes the death of any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

[Wezil]

Seems to me that aside from a 7-day vehicle impoundment (they vehicles were wrecked anyway) the purpose to the HTA charge is to obtain a long-term licence suspension.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
If we're making a big point of differentiating between accused/guilty, how can you back a law that punishes the person before trial?

We routinely "punish" people before a trial, like keeping them in jail before a court hearing, denying them bail, and impounding cars of drunk drivers.

We allow the detaining people or their vehicles when there is a high risk that the accused might commit a crime again if allowed to go free. This applies to people who drive at excessive speeds.

There is also the question of whether the new law's detention is reasonable. The answer is yes.

Whether the two men were racing as oppose to just speeding is another question. Maybe they were both late for an event, like a wedding, or maybe they were racing. We don't know.

[Wezil]

Did you hear how many vehicles were seized last weekend? If someone is going to challenge this then I suspect it will happen before too long.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai


We routinely "punish" people before a trial, like keeping them in jail before a court hearing, denying them bail, and impounding cars of drunk drivers.

We allow the detaining people or their vehicles when there is a high risk that the accused might commit a crime again if allowed to go free. This applies to people who drive at excessive speeds.

There is also the question of whether the new law's detention is reasonable. The answer is yes.

I think there's a huge jump on saying people caught speeding that fast will speed that fast on the way home.

For drunk drivers, they're still going to be drunk after the 10 minute stop so it makes sense to impound the car.

But for speeders? I don't see any real public-safety reason for impounding the car for 7 days other than to dole out a punishment before a trial. The purpose of impounding the drunk driver's car is NOT punishment, it's public safety. I think when this is challenged, that portion of the law will fall. It's ill-advised and not conducive to jurisprudence.