|
Street racing cases may get thrown out after Ont. law ruled unconstitutional
|
View this Thread in Original format
| geroin |
| quote: | September, 9, 2009 - 12:40 pm
THE CANADIAN PRESS TORONTO - Ontario drivers can still get tickets for speeding but street racing cases currently before the courts may get thrown out after the province's street racing law was deemed unconstitutional.
Toronto lawyer James Morton says the ruling by Judge G.J. Griffin of Napanee strikes down the law because it allows people to be convicted and face jail time even if they're morally blameless.
In his decision, the judge didn't prevent police from handing out tickets but the move will put cases on hold pending an appeal by the Crown.
Even if the decision doesn't hold up, says Morton, the charges may get thrown out anyway because of delays.
The province brought in stiffer fines and automatic suspensions of driver's licences in 2007 in hopes of cracking down on dangerous driving.
Under the law, minimum fines for street racers were $2,000, with a maximum of $10,000 - a penalty Ontario said at the time was the highest in Canada for street racing. |
http://680news.com/news/national/mo...tent=n093056123
Very happy about this, I was agaisnt this law ever since it came into effect. |
|
|
| Goashem |
| but they will still be able to take away your license and more importantly car which is just as ridiculous |
|
|
| MarkT |
from the details, I agree 100% with the decision. more here:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/692925
so it's not going to impact the 'stunt driving' legislation as a whole. this decision specifically dismissed a conviction under this legislation, based solely on speed, as unconstitutional.
automatically calling 50-over "stunt driving" is ing ridiculous, IMHO...it's SPEEDING and we already have laws to cover that act. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
GOOD!!!
And they should do the same for the .05 suspensions as well where you are convicted road side without judge or jury.
Thank god for some common sense for once! |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by Goashem
but they will still be able to take away your license and more importantly car which is just as ridiculous |
why is that ridiculous? there is no reason for ANY driver to be going 150km/h and putting people's lives in danger. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Goashem
but they will still be able to take away your license and more importantly car which is just as ridiculous |
Really? Thats not right to take your car. Whether its with or without conviction the state should not be allowed to steal your car unless its confiscated for the purpose that it is proven to be an ill gotten gain. Even then the burden of proof should be heavily imposed on the state.
License is a different matter. A drivers license is not a right and if you break the law excessively you should have it taken away. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
why is that ridiculous? there is no reason for ANY driver to be going 150km/h and putting people's lives in danger. |
I agree.. but double charging someone on the same crime is ridiculous |
|
|
| aLLsTaR bEn |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
why is that ridiculous? there is no reason for ANY driver to be going 150km/h and putting people's lives in danger. |
This is very true, but speed laws were implemented in the 50's or prior when cars were not designed with as much safety and fuel efficiency. Many US states had speed limits that are 70mph so about 140km/h. There was a debate on raising the speed limits on Canadian hwys a while back. I wish they would have. Cars can handle these types of speeds very easily, but yet it is always those retards that are doing 80km/h on the hwy in the fast lane hitting the brakes that cause accidents. Take for example the Autobahn in Germany, very few accidents, little to no speed limits....it is cause people taking driving seriously and not as a joke. Driving is a privilege not a right!
Speeding is traffic violation not criminal offence, if you cause harm then it should transfer over, but just because you went 50 over the limit doesn’t give them a right to criminally charge you and take your car away
edit: Chinamon, the reason you say no one should go 150km/h cause your civic struggles to get there, but you have no problems with 140km.h :eyespop: time to upgrade the powerplant!!! |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
why is that ridiculous? there is no reason for ANY driver to be going 150km/h and putting people's lives in danger. |
there is no evidence that simply driving 150km/h "puts people's lives in danger" and (IMHO) it's ridiculous that someone can be convicted for "stunt driving" *solely* for speeding.
btw, she was charged was for driving 50km/h over the limt...not driving 150km/h. she exceed 50 over the limit of 80, so she could have been doing 130+ on Hwy 7 (not necessarily reckless, if you really think about it).
everyone has to note the specifics of the decision though...as the reason it was deemed unconstitutional is NOT even due to that reasoning (though I personally find the law bull for that reason):
| quote: | The law, enacted two years ago, requires no criminal intent when speeding is 50 km/h over the speed limit; proof alone of someone doing this is sufficient for a conviction, something considered "absolutely liability" under law.
Essentially, the conviction is automatic - and upon conviction there must be a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000, which may also be combined with jail term of no more than six months. The original Justice of the Peace decision found her guilty, but reduced that minimum fine even lower because of the circumstances.
Since punishment may also include jail, the judge ruled this violated Section 7 of the Charter, which specifies no one can be deprived of "life, liberty and security of the person... except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
This section is "unconstitutional as it creates an absolute liability offence for which one can be imprisoned," the judge wrote. |
|
|
|
| Jayx1 |
it used to be that there was an exception to speeding if you were in the process of passing a car or truck on a two lane highway. The idea being its safer to speed and pass and then resume to regular speed than it is to spend time and languish in a lane with oncoming traffic.
I guess this law has changed? Another cash grab i take it? |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by aLLsTaR bEn
This is very true, but speed laws were implemented in the 50's or prior when cars were not designed with as much safety and fuel efficiency. Many US states had speed limits that are 70mph so about 140km/h. There was a debate on raising the speed limits on Canadian hwys a while back. I wish they would have. Cars can handle these types of speeds very easily, but yet it is always those retards that are doing 80km/h on the hwy in the fast lane hitting the brakes that cause accidents. Take for example the Autobahn in Germany, very few accidents, little to no speed limits....it is cause people taking driving seriously and not as a joke. Driving is a privilege not a right!
Speeding is traffic violation not criminal offence, if you cause harm then it should transfer over, but just because you went 50 over the limit doesn’t give them a right to criminally charge you and take your car away
edit: Chinamon, the reason you say no one should go 150km/h cause your civic struggles to get there, but you have no problems with 140km.h :eyespop: time to upgrade the powerplant!!! |
many of our roads are not ready for high speeds either. the only one i can see working is 407 otherwise too many of our population are still slow drivers.
as for the autobahn, it was built specifically for that reason. imagine we decided one day to make our highways unlimited speed limit? it would be a disaster. if we built a new highway specifically for unlimited speed then it might work but we have no space for it. |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
there is no evidence that simply driving 150km/h "puts people's lives in danger" and (IMHO) it's ridiculous that someone can be convicted for "stunt driving" *solely* for speeding.
btw, she was charged was for driving 50km/h over the limt...not driving 150km/h. she exceed 50 over the limit of 80, so she could have been doing 130+ on Hwy 7 (not necessarily reckless, if you really think about it).
everyone has to note the specifics of the decision though...as the reason it was deemed unconstitutional is NOT even due to that reasoning (though I personally find the law bull for that reason): |
depends on where on hwy7. if you are around bayview or leslie or kennedy or hwy48 then that is ridiculous. if she was around dufferin or keele where there are many lanes then i can understand. however, she knew the limit was 80km/h so why the was she going 130 in the first place? she should know that if she got caught then she should get whatever the law says. |
|
|
|
|
