Senior Charged Under Street Racing Law

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by Locke

You destroy a street racer's car and a lesson is taught.

You destroy a drunk driver's car and he'll just go out and buy another POS $500 beater.

I'll argue both these statements are BS. The kind of ###### that street races is not the kind of person to learn his lesson.

Taking a drunk's car will make it more difficult for him to do it again. Period.

In neither case is the punishment 0 nor 100% effective.

On topic, I have an issue with a 76 year old driving at all.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I have no problem with them impounding his car. It isn't like they do it for 10 clicks over. Or 20. Or 30. Or 40. It was 50 over the limit. I think 50 K is more than generous.

For one - the purpose of the law is to remove vehicles that are souped up for street racing off the roads. This is a misapplication of the law. Excessive speeding? Yes. No doubt. But that doesn't give the right for the government to take personal property.

And two (and this point is very vague and will find few sympathetics on this board), Toronto drivers drive fast. 30 over is the norm. The 400 going north it is normal to be driving 140 - and I am talking 3 lanes of people. So I don't see this speeding incident as grossly innapropriate as some. Stupid? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. Have I seen driving actions that are far more dangerous and involve even less intelligence? Definitely.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Flames89

For one - the purpose of the law is to remove vehicles that are souped up for street racing off the roads. This is a misapplication of the law. Excessive speeding? Yes. No doubt. But that doesn't give the right for the government to take personal property.

And two (and this point is very vague and will find few sympathetics on this board), Toronto drivers drive fast. 30 over is the norm. The 400 going north it is normal to be driving 140 - and I am talking 3 lanes of people. So I don't see this speeding incident as grossly innapropriate as some. Stupid? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. Have I seen driving actions that are far more dangerous and involve even less intelligence? Definitely.

I know the 400 very well. Hwy 515 near Pembroke is nothing like highway 400. 515 is a secondary highway south of Algonquin - to compare that with a 400 series highway is misleading.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I know the 400 very well. Hwy 515 near Pembroke is nothing like highway 400. 515 is a secondary highway south of Algonquin - to compare that with a 400 series highway is misleading.

ACk! Yes. You are right.

What I am trying to say is that exceeding the speed limit by 50km/h may not be as heinous an act around the GTA as it is on these boards. Way too fast and stupid? yes. Worthy of a ticket? Yes. But I bet the average speed on the 515 is at least 20kms over.

Anyway, that point was not effective. So, back to square one: One count of excessive speeding should not give the right for government to take personal property. The law that was invoked in this case was enacted to reduce street racing, and remove dangerous cars from the road.

[The Fonz]

Which of the two puts his wife's life at the greatest risk:

1: Missing a non-emergency doctors appointment

OR

2: Sitting passenger in a vehicle traveling 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, with a 76 year old man behind the wheel



?





Anyway, officers shouldn't take any excuses for why a persons speeding. If they started doing this, everyone would have a few good excuses saved up. "My dog ate my speedometer"

[tvp2003]

Taking into account the natural effects of aging, I would guess a 76-year-old doing 130 is like a 25 year old doing at least 150...

[REDVAN]

Although there are numerous threads about speeding, and I am a person who speeds all the time, I still think that if you get caught at that speed over you have to pay the consequences. No leniency. Old people think they are the safest drivers in the world. Slower does not mean safer. Faster does not mean safer. You break the law (and get caught) then you need to live with the results.

And I hope he was in the left lane, but since I doubt anyone was passing him no matter what lane he is in, then it's all good. Also I hope he wasn't passing on the right or else that's big trouble.

[Dan02]

I'm may be a speeder but 50 over is just downright excessive. I don't think i've ever gone 50 over to pass another vehicle, and if it was true it would seem to me most cops would take that into consideration, had a cop let a friend off a ticket for 30 over because he was passing, i would assume most cops are reasonable in that situation.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

I'm just glad he wasn't going to a farmers market.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

I'll argue both these statements are BS. The kind of ###### that street races is not the kind of person to learn his lesson.

Taking a drunk's car will make it more difficult for him to do it again. Period.

In neither case is the punishment 0 nor 100% effective.

On topic, I have an issue with a 76 year old driving at all.

So many generalizations here. Lots of people learn their lesson, be it with a DUI or Street Racing. The argument about effectiveness is bang on, but then nothing is perfect.

Anyways, the law exists not to target Street Racers, but to remove dangerous drivers from the roads, sure it may have been initiated because of street racers, but thats likely just the straw that broke the camel's back. But thats why its called the "Safer Roads Act" and has a wide list of infractions.

Dude doing 130 = Dangerous Driver as described in the act.

Who cares how old Gramps is? He broke a very reasonable law and I hope they crush his 1977 Buick LeSabre while he is forced to watch.

David Suzuki will throw the switch on the compactor while emitting a hilariously high-pitched cackle and dancing a jig.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Locke

David Suzuki will throw the switch on the compactor while emitting a hilariously high-pitched cackle and dancing a jig.

yeah right that compactor will use tons of energy contributing to global warming, obviously he's going to summon Chuck Norris to crush it in the palm of his hand.

[iggypop]

Originally Posted by Locke

A street racer places intrinsic value in his car, for a drunk driver it is merely a means of transport.

You destroy a street racer's car and a lesson is taught.

You destroy a drunk driver's car and he'll just go out and buy another POS $500 beater.

Originally Posted by Locke

So many generalizations here. Lots of people learn their lesson, be it with a DUI or Street Racing. The argument about effectiveness is bang on, but then nothing is perfect.

Anyways, the law exists not to target Street Racers, but to remove dangerous drivers from the roads

Wait what? Locke I was just about to say there was so many generalizations in your first post, but then I read your second.

Hold on so you think all street racers "place intrinsic value in [their] car"? So the moment you go 50 over, you instantly have this innate love for your car?

And, what(?) every drunk driver, sports a $500 beater?

Secondly though, you agree that the law is there to remove dangerous drivers, but not target street racers? Im lost man.

Honestly Im really not trying to discredit your opinion at all, I just think you're contradicting yourself here. I just have never understood why street racers are targeted and their cars are impounded, while drunk drivers who kill thousands of more people, are not subject to the same treatment.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by tvp2003

Taking into account the natural effects of aging, I would guess a 76-year-old doing 130 is like a 25 year old doing at least 150...

I agree completely, although your numbers may be a little conservative...

Considering that it's legal for a 76-year old to drive a loaded semi truck at 100kph on the Deerfoot, a 25-year old in a sports car with giant brakes and good suspension should be able to drive at least 150kph with the same level of safety.

Speed laws here aren't based very much on safety, they're based on convenience of enforcement and profitability (which is complete [Mod edit- removed]).

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Speed laws here aren't based very much on safety, they're based on convenience of enforcement and profitability.

. We should have more of a problem with this guy being 76 (old = slow reaction time) and probably driving a Buick (the mechanicals of this car is not capable of handling the speed safely) rather than harping about the speed. He could've been going 80 and it'd still be dangerous if he can't react to situations on the road in a timely manner.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by iggypop

Wait what? Locke I was just about to say there was so many generalizations in your first post, but then I read your second.

Hold on so you think all street racers "place intrinsic value in [their] car"? So the moment you go 50 over, you instantly have this innate love for your car?

And, what(?) every drunk driver, sports a $500 beater?

As for Street racers valuing their cars:

I have a Mustang that I've invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours in, so yes I place intrinsic value in that vehicle. For people who race their cars, it is the act of driving that they enjoy.

The "the second they go 50 over they magically transmogrify into a street racer" argument demonstrates inherently flawed logic. This is not a "Street Racers Only" law. Its a dangerous driving law.

In comparison to someone who drinks and drives, a car, any car will do, the $500 beater analogy was hyperbole to drive that point across. And while that philosophy also applies to street racers, they value driving, and therefore their car, be it in the blue book value or just personally. For drinkers it is the act of drinking that they value, driving home is just a convenience and a cab seems inconvenient.

Thats their call.

Secondly though, you agree that the law is there to remove dangerous drivers, but not target street racers? Im lost man.

Honestly Im really not trying to discredit your opinion at all, I just think you're contradicting yourself here. I just have never understood why street racers are targeted and their cars are impounded, while drunk drivers who kill thousands of more people, are not subject to the same treatment.

What I said, was that the law exists to remove dangerous drivers. Do street racers fall into this category? Absolutely.

What I was inferring was that this law does not exist to target street racers and street racers only. This guy wants off the hook because he got nailed by a law that is painted as "Street Racers Only, get them off the roads!" and he feels, that not being a 'street racer' by definition this law does not apply to him.

And the simple fact of the matter is that this is simply not true. Street racers are but one mere demographic that this law encompasses. It is not specific to them and them alone.

Why are street racers targeted and not drunk drivers? I dont know. Ask your Alderman.

[ken0042]

OK, I've never been charged with DUI- but I seem to recall hearing that they do indeed impound your car.