Speeding? Ontario has an answer

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I don't think the phrase, "can do so before a race takes place or any charges are laid" means the police are going to go around checking every car to see if it is modified for racing.

What I think the phrase is in there for is so that if the cops show up on some kind of Fast & the Furious style get together where it's pretty obvious that some racing is going on they can destroy all the cars there even the ones that haven't had their turn to race yet. Make it so that even going to some obscure road where street racing is happening can be punished.

Again that is just as vague. A bunch of cars grouped together "on an obscure road" is now a crime? Ever heard of the right to peaceful association? Even if they are racing, crush the cars that are racing. Other wise it is just an arbitrary decision. There could be 10 cars on a road and only two are actually racing. Ok, so you crush those cars. but out of the other 8, 4 could have modifications that indicate they could street race. So you crush those 4. But the other 4 are in stock condition so you don't crush them? That makes no sense. It would be like going to a boxing fight and arresting the two fighters and all the big guys in the crowd that are "capable of fighting."

I don't buy it. You want to punish people, they have to do something wrong before you can punish them.

[worth]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't buy it. You want to punish people, they have to do something wrong before you can punish them.

###

[arsenal]

What is going to deemed as "modified for racing". If a car is all show and no go (full aero kit, but no engine mods), will that get crushed just because it looks like a racer?
What about people who modify their cars for the drag strip, but still use it as a daily driver. They are going to have all the mods (FMIC, turbo, gauges, etc).

The other issue that this is going to bring up is what about importing 15 year old vehicles? Alot of the cars being imported in are Skylines, which is theoretically a race car (At least the GTR version). Are they going to stop people from importing those? Just because it might be raced?

What about the old muscle cars? Are those going to be crushed too?

This whole "Protect us from ourselves" mentality is ######ed.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Again that is just as vague. A bunch of cars grouped together "on an obscure road" is now a crime? Ever heard of the right to peaceful association? Even if they are racing, crush the cars that are racing. Other wise it is just an arbitrary decision. There could be 10 cars on a road and only two are actually racing. Ok, so you crush those cars. but out of the other 8, 4 could have modifications that indicate they could street race. So you crush those 4. But the other 4 are in stock condition so you don't crush them? That makes no sense. It would be like going to a boxing fight and arresting the two fighters and all the big guys in the crowd that are "capable of fighting."

I don't buy it. You want to punish people, they have to do something wrong before you can punish them.

That brings up something else. What about car clubs? If you see 20 people with muscle cars outside of a drive-in, uh oh, crush them all, they are racing!!!

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

I don't think the phrase, "can do so before a race takes place or any charges are laid" means the police are going to go around checking every car to see if it is modified for racing.

What I think the phrase is in there for is so that if the cops show up on some kind of Fast & the Furious style get together where it's pretty obvious that some racing is going on they can destroy all the cars there even the ones that haven't had their turn to race yet. Make it so that even going to some obscure road where street racing is happening can be punished.

so are you going to bust every meeting of a classic sports car group? a stock '69 Charger could smoke many heavily tuned imports in a drag race. or why not just save some time and take your mobile car crusher to every car show? lots of fast cars there

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by arsenal

That brings up something else. What about car clubs? If you see 20 people with muscle cars outside of a drive-in, uh oh, crush them all, they are racing!!!

damn, too slow

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Burninator

A bunch of cars grouped together "on an obscure road" is now a crime?

Apparently it now is (or will be) in Nottinghamshire:

Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottinghamshire Police applied for the injunction from the county court. It prevents five or more vehicles from "congregating, driving in convoy, or racing" in the county.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/defa...?storyId=16378

I'm guessing this is their way to curb the boy racers...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

What else is "the Ontario Way"? I don't get where you're coming from.

Pitbull Ban. Also a little known law about local historical societies designating buildings including people's houses 'unique and or historical' without the owner even knowing. If the owner wants to make modifications to, or demolish the building then they have to prove in court that their building or house is not 'unique or historical'. Unlawful modifications or demolision of the building comes with a $1 Million fine. It used to be up to the historical society to prove that the building is unique or historical now the duty is on the owner. Guilty until proven innocent.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Pitbull Ban

Oh. I thought you meant more driving type stuff.

I'm a huge animal person, but I find the pitbull ban hard to argue with.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i also own a Mazda 3 and have put a little bit of money into it (cold air intake, full exaust, new rims) but i have no interest in street racing. i simply like the added power for highway driving and i wanted the rims so that my car didn't look like every other thousand or so 3's in this city now. so if i drive to Ontario, am i going to have my car destroyed simply because it looks like it fits the stereotype of a street racer, even though i have never nor will never do such a thing? unless this law is a little more specific than it seems, it'll be struck down as soon as someone challenges it. government idiocy at it's finest

It'll be car discrimination!

I've done some minor things to my 3 to set it apart from the crowd. And I also have some new rims coming in. And I would not be happy if I was getting pulled over all the time to see if my car was a street racing car.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Oh. I thought you meant more driving type stuff.

I'm a huge animal person, but I find the pitbull ban hard to argue with.

Why? Just because someone wants to own a Pit Bull, doesn't automatically make it bad dog. It's the owner that makes it bad dog. Hell, you could make a Chitzu an attack dog.
It's not the dog, it's the owner.

It's a matter of the government "Protecting us from ourselves" because we obviously aren't able to.
Or the over-protective parent that doesn't allow their child to experience anything in life, becuase they "might" get hurt.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This has kinda been the 'Ontario Way' of late. Ie outright banning things despite the reprecussions on the totally innocent.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Pitbull Ban. Also a little known law about local historical societies designating buildings including people's houses 'unique and or historical' without the owner even knowing. If the owner wants to make modifications to, or demolish the building then they have to prove in court that their building or house is not 'unique or historical'. Unlawful modifications or demolision of the building comes with a $1 Million fine. It used to be up to the historical society to prove that the building is unique or historical now the duty is on the owner. Guilty until proven innocent.

So how does a pitbull ban (like has been done in many places) make it the "Ontario Way"?

As for the deeming people's homes "heritage buildings" without the owner's knowing, I think you need to back up that statement. It sounds like FUD to me.
To get you started, here's a link to the Ontario Ministry of Culure website

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

As for the deeming people's homes "heritage buildings" without the owner's knowing, I think you need to back up that statement. It sounds like FUD to me.

I've seen it come up on home reno shows like Holmes on Homes- and he films in the GTA. (Or maybe it was the other HGTV show with the two buddies who wanted to flip houses- "The Big Flip" maybe?)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

So how does a pitbull ban (like has been done in many places) make it the "Ontario Way"?

As for the deeming people's homes "heritage buildings" without the owner's knowing, I think you need to back up that statement. It sounds like FUD to me.
To get you started, here's a link to the Ontario Ministry of Culure website

This happened to a family member of mine whose house was designated 'Heritage' without their approval. This renders their house useless for resale as it is in an old area with a lot of large houses. It's value is derived from the ability to knock the house down and to build a large mansion in it's place. We're talking about a home built in the 1960's and it hasn't housed anyone famous. As far as I've heard from them the onus was on them to prove it wasn't worthy of designation as opposed to the local society to prove that it is. I apologize for the 'without owners knowing.' Their story sounded that way.

In my mind this is a serious violation of property rights as they were depending on their property value for financial planning purposes and need that money. It's rather rediculous that control of their own house can be ripped away from them.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

This happened to a family member of mine whose house was designated 'Heritage' without their approval. This renders their house useless for resale as it is in an old area with a lot of large houses. It's value is derived from the ability to knock the house down and to build a large mansion in it's place. We're talking about a home built in the 1960's and it hasn't housed anyone famous. As far as I've heard from them the onus was on them to prove it wasn't worthy of designation as opposed to the local society to prove that it is. I apologize for the 'without owners knowing.' Their story sounded that way.

In my mind this is a serious violation of property rights as they were depending on their property value for financial planning purposes and need that money. It's rather rediculous that control of their own house can be ripped away from them.

While I tend to agree with you here, it is actually a pretty common occurence. Usually to put in a road or other public facility. Check out info on Expropriation or Eminent Domain. There have been a number of cases that will make any sane person's blood poil. (here are a few US cases from wikipedia)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

While I tend to agree with you here, it is actually a pretty common occurence. Usually to put in a road or other public facility. Check out info on Expropriation or Eminent Domain. There have been a number of cases that will make any sane person's blood poil. (here are a few US cases from wikipedia)

There's a world of difference between expropriation and listing something as a Heritage building. 1) Expropriations usually occur with a compensation factor as part of the process (I know there can be disputes as to whether or not the compensation was fair but still compensation non the less) 2) Expropriation usually happens in order to build a road, school, Government building, etc.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't buy it. You want to punish people, they have to do something wrong before you can punish them.

I wonder if it was put in so that "known racers" can have their cars impounded even if they weren't caught in the act of racing....

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

There's a world of difference between expropriation and listing something as a Heritage building. 1) Expropriations usually occur with a compensation factor as part of the process (I know there can be disputes as to whether or not the compensation was fair but still compensation non the less) 2) Expropriation usually happens in order to build a road, school, Government building, etc.

You didn't click on the link I gave.

But you can still sell the property. It isn't like a heritage designation drops a building's value to zero. If your relatives contested the designation it will be listed on the conservation review board site. Which property is it?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I wonder if it was put in so that "known racers" can have their cars impounded even if they weren't caught in the act of racing....

If the police have real evidence that someone was racing then I could understand. But this law seems to be merely based on modifications done to the car that insinuate guilt.

[bobrick]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

It always the poor sap like me, on his way home from work to see his two kids, that gets killed by street racers. I say crush the cars right in front of the offenders with a Sherman tank.

Here is what you are talking about!!!!

http://www.vord.net/friends/skoda/skodamail.html