BC Impounds Excessive Speeders Vehicles

[bc-chris]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I guess I know who all the strugglers are on the highway whenever I'm in BC that slowly pass in the rare passing lanes so only like two cars can get past the guy doing 15 under pulling a 40' trailer with a Honda Civic. They are CPers.

What many in this discussion here are missing is the common sense component of passing - do it quickly to get back in your lane as soon as you can and so many people can pass a slow vehicle or string of vehicles when a passing opportunity presents itself. Of course you aren't technically supposed to exceed the speed limit when passing, but that is impractical and unrealistic in the real world, which is precisely why this policy of stealing people's cars is so outlandish. Cops have always offered leeway and people should be able to reasonably expect it when passing.

It's just like when you're in a left turning lane on a solid green. You wade out into the intersection and if there is a lot of oncoming traffic you have to wait until the oncoming traffic stops before you can go. This is when your light is yellow or red - either way it is illegal to run a yellow or red (both mean stop; the clear the intersection line you hear regarding a yellow isn't true...yellow means stop, too). So everyday most of us break the law by running a yellow/red in this scenario, but how often do you see cops enforcing this law? Never, because although you are technically in violation of the law, it's understood that is the only practical way to get through the intersection safely. It's the same with passing - overtaking somebody quickly is much safer than passing somebody within the speed limit.

As for the "doing 40 over in the mountains is nuts!" crowd, it depends on the stretch of road. A passing lane will have two lanes versus one, and will be straight. People will also be expecting passing so should be more alert. Say I'm passing you in this situation doing 130 for a brief 30 seconds even though the speed limit is 90, that's hardly the dangerous situation some of you are pretending it is. Have any of you even been in a modern car? Why do you think family cars have 300 and 400 horsepower now? My old minivan had 270 horsepower ffs. They have are powerful - in part - to make passing on the highway faster and safer.

i can't find the actual law, however, as far as i recall....

if you enter an intersection when the light is green, you can leave the intersection legally when it is safe, regardless of the traffic-light color. if you wait behind the white line when the light is green, and it turns yellow or red, legally you must stay there, and you may be there all day

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Ha? Then why can you take a speeding ticket to court and fight it?

I agree about him going 60 over being a ridiculous speed to pass someone that is going well below the limit according to him.

I doubt the passing lanes had anything to do with this case but a convenient excuse to make him not look as bad in the media.

because its a summary offence and you have the right to challenge it.....

Do you know the difference between a summary offence and indictable?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

So...they are wasting resources by being there and ticketing people...and not wasting resources by sitting there in the car hoping folks see them and slow down...

I am probably not articulating it well enough. I think deterring the act of speeding is a lot better of a policy than simply punishing the act after it has been done. Of course ticketing people is a deterrent, as well if the people crossing that area are familiar with it. Still if the police thought speeding was a serious enough offense, they wouldn't put other drivers at risk by allowing it to happen and then punishing it after the fact.

Maybe an unrelated parallel would be if police just waited around while somebody poured gasoline on your house and set it on fire, and then arrested the culprits. Wouldn't it have been better if the police maintained a presence that prevented the arson in the first place?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But thats not important to the holier than thou group.

I simply dont get how anyone is OK with being prosecuted without ever having a hearing/trial, losing your property without any impartial arbitration where PROOF has to be presented....it goes againt the very grain of freedoms in this country.

What are your thoughts on someone getting their car towed because they parked in front of a fire hydrant? Violation of the Charter?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What are your thoughts on someone getting their car towed because they parked in front of a fire hydrant? Violation of the Charter?

When your car is towed for a parking violation it isn't impounded for 7 days.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What are your thoughts on someone getting their car towed because they parked in front of a fire hydrant? Violation of the Charter?

No. You can go get your car immediately and then go fight the ticket on the day indicated in court.

In the above scenario...you are without your car for a week in the middle of the mountains without any recourse whatsoever, and have to shell out 2000 bucks after waiting that week in a hote (more expense)l or after travelling home and then back to BC at your own (more expense). Then if you want to fight the ticket itself...you have to back yet again.

Really not even close comparables.

[19Yzerman19]

^I imagine that even if someone were to challenge that law under the charter and it was found to be contrary to s.11 it would be held to be justifiable under s.1 given the relatively small inconvenience and the need to preserve the public's interest in not being immolated in a fire.

You have to understand that it's what the law effectively does. Perhaps it provides me with what I'm technically entitled to - i.e., I can go to court and contest the charge. However, if in reality, it will take me 8 months to do so and I'm without my car for a significant period and my 2000 bucks for the entire interim, the punishment has effectively already been meted out and the eventual determination of innocence or guilt is a moot point.

If I get a speeding ticket I can just not pay it and go contest it instead. Practically speaking, this law - even though it's still a traffic offence and still addresses the same sort of behaviour - is an entirely different ball of wax.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No. You can go get your car immediately and then go fight the ticket on the day indicated in court.

In the above scenario...you are without your car for a week in the middle of the mountains without any recourse whatsoever, and have to shell out 2000 bucks after waiting that week in a hote (more expense)l or after travelling home and then back to BC at your own (more expense). Then if you want to fight the ticket itself...you have to back yet again.

Really not even close comparables.

What about seizing open liquor? Seizing firearms after after a domestic dispute? Impounding a car for impaired driving. Are those charter violations? Those are instances where "punishment" is meted out without an independent bodies judgement. You're upset with the semantics of the situation, being Munsoned out in the sticks. If it happened in downtown Calgary would you be as upset?

Should the police be leaving a family roadside in the middle of nowhere? Absolutely not. I would hope they would give the family a ride to a suitable location (rest stop, campground, nearest town) or try to arrange a ride as best they could. After all, they have to protect the publics safety and I don't believe that's being done by leaving someone in the middle of nowhere.

However, the fact remains that there is law in BC that states your vehicle will be impounded for excessive speed. It's not a hidden law, anyone can look it up on the government website. If you want to speed excessively, you assume the risks.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Have any of you even been in a modern car? Why do you think family cars have 300 and 400 horsepower now?

Family vehicles have gotten significantly bigger and heavier. More drivers with small penis syndrome as well. Hell, families have only gotten fatter and larger as well. Need all that horsepower just to be able to get all that mass rolling.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by ken0042

On a 10 hour trip; let's call it 900 km at 90km/h. That would be 10 hours. At 130 km/h, that same trip would take you just under 7 hours. So it wouldn't save you 5 minutes, it would save you 3 full hours.

I find it interesting that people (in general) are willing to race an extra 40 km/h to save a few hours - but yet delude themselves about living in suburbia and their actual commute times. You'd easily lose that 3+ hours being an extra 10 minutes further away in suburbia after living there after only2 weeks.

[ken0042]

Oh don't worry. I save all that time while driving to and from work by using that time to get caught up on my email and text messages.

Seriously, what I was getting at is there are a number of good reasons why people shouldn't speed. However the arguement comes up that going 40% faster only gets you there 1% sooner; and that logic is flawed.

Like I said before, in a case like this instead of addressing why people find themselves in a position to excessively speed, we focus on punishing those who did speed. Often that person isn't a habitual speeder; they just needed to go that fast for a brief period. I would say that the attention should be spent on the strugglers of the road. The guy who has to slow for a gentle curve, and then yields at the next merge sign.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No. You can go get your car immediately and then go fight the ticket on the day indicated in court.

In the above scenario...you are without your car for a week in the middle of the mountains without any recourse whatsoever, and have to shell out 2000 bucks after waiting that week in a hote (more expense)l or after travelling home and then back to BC at your own (more expense). Then if you want to fight the ticket itself...you have to back yet again.

Really not even close comparables.

I think a better comparable is when charged with serious crimes you go to jail, wait for a bail hearing, shell out for a lawyer, and then dispute the charges.

I'd be ok if they just arrested people on the spot, and maybe that would solve the debate.

I see no difference between excessive speeding and drunk driving. I'm old now, so have no sympathy for hyper aggressive drivers who roll the dice with people's lives. We've all done it, and I still get a lead foot on occasion, but there is no rationalizing it IMO.

[chemgear]

^ I don't disagree and if people are going 40 km/h under the speed limit they better be getting ticketed as well. But I find that some people lose their minds if other drivers are going 5 or 10 km/h under the "limit".

Doesn't seem like the end of the world or needing to go all the way to 40 km/h over the limit to get past them if desired.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I think a better comparable is when charged with serious crimes you go to jail, wait for a bail hearing, shell out for a lawyer, and then dispute the charges.

I'd be ok if they just arrested people on the spot, and maybe that would solve the debate.

I see no difference between excessive speeding and drunk driving. I'm old now, so have no sympathy for hyper aggressive drivers who roll the dice with people's lives. We've all done it, and I still get a lead foot on occasion, but there is no rationalizing it IMO.

This guy was excessively speeding for about 5 seconds in a controlled manner to get past slower traffic...an impaired driver is impaired the entire time they are behind the wheel in any particular instance.

Nothing alike at all

Again, this isnt about the act itself, its about the punishment being meted out before any ability is presented to defend oneself.

I have 1 speeding ticket in the last 15 years i believe it is, so this law has little affect on me, and i just finished well over 3000KM in BC the last 5 weeks or so. In fact i drove past that horrifying wreck in Rogers pass on Saturday...one in which this law is supposed to help negate apparently. Trouble is, there was no avoiding that wreck regardless of speed in reality as one guy just simply lost track of where he was on a newly paved road without lines and drifted into the wrong lane.

The law is both far to harsh in its penalty and completely unconstitutional IMO. Much like the .05 law, this will eventually be ruled as such and all those who have been affected will have no recourse as they have already lost all that time and money.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Oh don't worry. I save all that time while driving to and from work by using that time to get caught up on my email and text messages.

Seriously, what I was getting at is there are a number of good reasons why people shouldn't speed. However the arguement comes up that going 40% faster only gets you there 1% sooner; and that logic is flawed.

Like I said before, in a case like this instead of addressing why people find themselves in a position to excessively speed, we focus on punishing those who did speed. Often that person isn't a habitual speeder; they just needed to go that fast for a brief period. I would say that the attention should be spent on the strugglers of the road. The guy who has to slow for a gentle curve, and then yields at the next merge sign.

I get ypu point but think you are making a leap. You are getting there only slightly faster if all you are doing is occasionally speeding to pass a slowpoke, which is entirely different than far exceeding the limit constantly. IMO what you are really saying is you should have the right to go 40% (or more!) faster than what someone has figured is the safe limit for a road.

Agreed that slow timid drivers are a PITA and some are downright dangerous. I don't think anyone has the right to risk accidents and injury so they can drive however they feel comfortable. Too slow or too fast.

[WCan_Kid]

Originally Posted by chemgear

^ I don't disagree and if people are going 40 km/h under the speed limit they better be getting ticketed as well. But I find that some people lose their minds if other drivers are going 5 or 10 km/h under the "limit".

Doesn't seem like the end of the world or needing to go all the way to 40 km/h over the limit to get past them if desired.

I drive Hwy 3 west 35-40 times a year for reference and you're right in saying that you shouldn't need to hit 140-150km/h to pass, but that person going 10km/h under the speed limit is often slowing to 30-40km/h under the speed limit every time they see a corner while accelerating to 120-125 every passing lane. It's not unusual to see dozens of cars piled up behind them creating an even more dangerous situation.

After being pinned in between an impatient semi truck and a jacked up 4x4 that squeezed in between me and the car in front after a pass way too many times, I find it hard to fault someone who hits 150km/h in a passing lane to get away from that disaster zone. I drive out there often enough to be in the mindset of just leaving room and enjoying the scenery, but it gets pretty tough to leave a comfortable space when the car at the front of the pack is varying their speed by 30-35km/h constantly and the person behind is right on your bumper.

It's not quite as cut and dried as some are making it out to be, sometimes the excessive speed is actually the safer move (scary as that is).

[speede5]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Agreed that slow timid drivers are a PITA and some are downright dangerous. I don't think anyone has the right to risk accidents and injury so they can drive however they feel comfortable. Too slow or too fast.

Slow drivers are not in anyway dangerous. What's dangerous is how people act around them. Impatience and matting it to scream by some guy who wants to go 80 or 90 is dangerous.

I have seen a few drivers who are incredibly slow and take forever to get around, but they are not putting themselves or anyone else in harms way.

We are talking about speed limits, not minimums. There is nothing illegal or wrong with going 80-90 on a 100KM limit highway. If anything, driving 80-90 when your towing a trailer or driving an RV is safe behavior.


I'm not trying to attack you or your post, btw, I am just seeing this attitude seeping through the thread and don't really agree. I liked this from your previous post

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I see no difference between excessive speeding and drunk driving. I'm old now, so have no sympathy for hyper aggressive drivers who roll the dice with people's lives. We've all done it, and I still get a lead foot on occasion, but there is no rationalizing it IMO.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by speede5

Slow drivers are not in anyway dangerous. What's dangerous is how people act around them. Impatience and matting it to scream by some guy who wants to go 80 or 90 is dangerous.

I have seen a few drivers who are incredibly slow and take forever to get around, but they are not putting themselves or anyone else in harms way.

Once again, I don't think many people have an issue with the person who wants to so 80 or 90. What most people have an issue with is somebody who does 80 or 90 when there is no chance to pass, then speeds up to 110 or 120 in the passing zone.

Going slow is alright, just don't take away people's chances to pass you.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This guy was excessively speeding for about 5 seconds in a controlled manner to get past slower traffic...an impaired driver is impaired the entire time they are behind the wheel in any particular instance.

Nothing alike at all

Again, this isnt about the act itself, its about the punishment being meted out before any ability is presented to defend oneself.

I have 1 speeding ticket in the last 15 years i believe it is, so this law has little affect on me, and i just finished well over 3000KM in BC the last 5 weeks or so. In fact i drove past that horrifying wreck in Rogers pass on Saturday...one in which this law is supposed to help negate apparently. Trouble is, there was no avoiding that wreck regardless of speed in reality as one guy just simply lost track of where he was on a newly paved road without lines and drifted into the wrong lane.

The law is both far to harsh in its penalty and completely unconstitutional IMO. Much like the .05 law, this will eventually be ruled as such and all those who have been affected will have no recourse as they have already lost all that time and money.

So what's the difference between that and being arrested and taken off to jail for suspicion of a crime? Isn't the only difference the act itself and how serious we consider it? If someone goes 200k in a playground zone I don't want them to simply get a ticket and get sent on their way. I they are going 10k over a ticket and a fine feels Ok. I dunno where I draw the line, but to me there is a line there somewhere.

If to you it's never ok then fair enough.

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's just like when you're in a left turning lane on a solid green. You wade out into the intersection and if there is a lot of oncoming traffic you have to wait until the oncoming traffic stops before you can go. This is when your light is yellow or red - either way it is illegal to run a yellow or red (both mean stop; the clear the intersection line you hear regarding a yellow isn't true...yellow means stop, too). So everyday most of us break the law by running a yellow/red in this scenario, but how often do you see cops enforcing this law? Never, because although you are technically in violation of the law, it's understood that is the only practical way to get through the intersection safely .

SOLID YELLOW LIGHT:
[IMG]file://edm-goa-file-5/user$/jerry.pawluk/UDrive/WebDev/doctype45/images/41d.jpg[/IMG]
When a green light changes to yellow,
it warns that the light will change to red
immediately and drivers must prepare
to stop or clear the intersection. Drivers
approaching an intersection with a solid
(not flashing) yellow traffic control light must
bring their vehicles to a complete stop
before the stop line or crosswalk, unless a
point has been reached at the intersection
where stopping cannot be done safely. If
there is no stop line or crosswalk, vehicles
must stop before the intersection.
Drivers already in the intersection
and facing a yellow light must safely clear
the intersection

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/1935.htm