CPS supports Seizing vehicles of speeders

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

Umm yeah, that's the idea.

awesome input, thanks for you contribution.

[Daradon]

Wouldn't the best solution be to suspend the person's license?

There is something that doesn't feel right about seizing someones property. If you really want them off the road, just take their license. Throw in some jail time if you have to. Treat them like a drunk driver. I agree excessive speed (50-60+ kms) is very dangerous and stupid. There's no need to do it. But I don't know if taking away the car is the answer.

As for an increase of fines, too much of what the CPS does nowadays revolves around bringing in income. They are a police service, not a taxman. Just because they want to throw away large amounts of their budget on two state of the art copters, the second of which is not needed, doesn't mean we should be subsidizing it.

And is it just me, or does it seem like an exaggeration by the officer who said they 'regularly' see drivers exceeding 200 km/h? Most factory cars cut out at 180.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Nyah

I was refering to the civil liberties of innocent people on the road. Y'know...sarcasm?

The capitalization lead me to believe you were referring to the actual group, not the populace in general.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Do not support.

Instead of treating a symptom (speeding), why not address the cause? Why are people going that fast? A person generally won't go faster than they feel is safe or reasonable, and that does not necessarily mean "at or under the speed limit". I don't drive beyond my abilities, the capabilities of my vehicle, or the conditions of the roadway on which I'm traveling (including traffic density and weather). You're always going to have the outliers who exceed that point and this will do nothing to stop them.

How about we review the speed limits and see if there's a possibility that they're too low for the highway? We're driving vehicles with 21st century technology, abiding by speed limits from the 60s. How about we produce more competent drivers by enhancing our driver licensing and training programs?

The risk of fines and punishments don't solve a thing.

Well you sound like a reasonable and responsible person, unfortunately there is a segment of the population that does not fit that description. Upping limits may be needed, and I definitely support more training, but there is a point where severe punishments are needed.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

What do you think will happen if a car is seized? Get a bubble bath and play with new friends in a park? All abandoned and seized vehicles go through the police action. I've bought a car there before.

Actually the article does say that the length of the seizures would have to be worked out, so I'm not sure they are talking about permanent seizures. Either way I'm still against it, obviously more so if you are right in your interpretation.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Wouldn't the best solution be to suspend the person's license?

There is something that doesn't feel right about seizing someones property. If you really want them off the road, just take their license. Throw in some jail time if you have to. Treat them like a drunk driver. I agree excessive speed (50-60+ kms) is very dangerous and stupid. There's no need to do it. But I don't know if taking away the car is the answer.

The problem is, many people will still drive without a licence.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Easy, big boy, it was a question?

You honestly believe they will take the vehicle never to return it?

Should I have used a smiley?

Of course they would sell it and then you'd have to suck up to Valo403 by fetching him 10 dollar coffees to help you get it back... Just sayin'.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

The problem is, many people will still drive without a licence.

Well that's why I said throw them in jail if need be.

If someone is caught driving without a license and has something like that on their record, they SHOULD be in the slammer.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I get the meaning of you post, but the catastrophic effects of excessive speeding are likely great than those of not yielding.

are there stats out there showing the fatality rate of 50+ speeders vs others?

In the article it states that they gave out 89 tickets in July, a mere 0.21% of all speeding tickets given out. They are making it sound like this is a major concern but at those numbers it barely registers as a problem. There are many times I could see easily going 150 on #2, or even stony trail. I don't but I can usually cruise at 130-140 with no problem.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well you sound like a reasonable and responsible person, unfortunately there is a segment of the population that does not fit that description. Upping limits may be needed, and I definitely support more training, but there is a point where severe punishments are needed.

Actually, heavy fines and temporary restrictions on a license is a good idea. Like going back to a beginner operator license for a year and a 80% passing a very strict safety course.

[para transit fellow]

i could agree to on-the-spot impound but seizure has potential for miss use. There is low need for actual proof in these seizure actions as they are done as civil litigation instead of criminal court. (Criminal court apparently has a higher burden of proof)

I'm not comfortable with the cop on the scene making those decisions alone. I would be comfortable if the decision was made by the traffic court judge.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Actually the article does say that the length of the seizures would have to be worked out, so I'm not sure they are talking about permanent seizures. Either way I'm still against it, obviously more so if you are right in your interpretation.

I'd imagine they would follow the lead of BC, which has a civil forfeiture law that allows vehicles to be seized and sold.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Actually, heavy fines and temporary restrictions on a license is a good idea. Like going back to a beginner operator license for a year and a 80% passing a very strict safety course.

I'd say that confiscating a vehicle would be a pretty heavy fine, but I agree that driving restrictions would also be a good idea along with further training.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Actually the article does say that the length of the seizures would have to be worked out, so I'm not sure they are talking about permanent seizures. Either way I'm still against it, obviously more so if you are right in your interpretation.

"They would have to be worked out" is cryptic. Being that it is not specific, and if the situation is calling for seizure and sale, then I'm not for it at all.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Swarly

are there stats out there showing the fatality rate of 50+ speeders vs others?

In the article it states that they gave out 89 tickets in July, a mere 0.21% of all speeding tickets given out. They are making it sound like this is a major concern but at those numbers it barely registers as a problem. There are many times I could see easily going 150 on #2, or even stony trail. I don't but I can usually cruise at 130-140 with no problem.

From Transport Canada:

• In 2002-2004, more than 700 people were killed and more than 3,500 were seriously injured annually in speed-related crashes.
• Speeding is a factor in about 25% of deaths from vehicle crashes.
• Eighty percent of speeding drivers in fatal crashes are under the age of 45 years.
• Forty percent of speeding drivers in fatal crashes are aged 16-24 years.
• Speeding is increasing faster among drivers over 45 years of age than among drivers younger than 45 years.
• Most drivers killed in speed-related crashes were themselves speeding.
• Eighty percent of young adult passengers who were killed in a speeding crash were in the vehicle with a speeding driver of similar age.
• An increasing number of middle-aged motorcyclists are getting into speed-related crashes, especially in urban areas.
• Single-vehicle crashes accounted for more than 50% of speeding deaths and serious injuries.
• One in three speeding drivers involved in a fatal crash had been drinking.
• Urban roads at night are the primary location for fatal crashes involving young adult drivers, speed, and alcohol.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'd say that confiscating a vehicle would be a pretty heavy fine, but I agree that driving restrictions would also be a good idea along with further training.

I'm Scottish, $20 is a heavy fine.

[East Coast Flame]

Come on, they are not going to sell your car, so lets just get over that. Your car will be impounded until the fines or whatever are cleared up.

I can only find one case in BC of them selling a car, and in that case the car was sold "with mutual consent from the owner".

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...t-racing-case/

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'd imagine they would follow the lead of BC, which has a civil forfeiture law that allows vehicles to be seized and sold.

Is this if they are abandoned by their owners, or is it a blanket policy on all seizures?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by East Coast Flame

Come on, they are not going to sell your car, so lets just get over that. Your car will be impounded until the fines or whatever are cleared up.

I can only find one case in BC of them selling a car, and in that case the car was sold "with mutual consent from the owner".

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01...t-racing-case/

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/sports-car-seiz...ights-1.694558

Not sure where this is now, but the permanent forfeiture angle is definitely happening.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well you sound like a reasonable and responsible person, unfortunately there is a segment of the population that does not fit that description. Upping limits may be needed, and I definitely support more training, but there is a point where severe punishments are needed.

My next sentence in the quote addresses this exact point - you are always going to have outliers who are going to drive too fast for their abilities, their vehicle, or conditions. But additional training will make the roads overall safer and reviewing the speed limits will help us bring the limits in line with the 85th percentile speed.

Speed on its own rarely poses a problem. Differential of speed between vehicles in traffic is where you start seeing the real issues.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Those are interesting talking points, thank you.

I do a fair bit or rural driving, and I often see old "10 + yrs" vehicle on the road, flying. Perhaps we should think about controlling the age of vehicle son the highway.

I agree technology has increase, but a large number of the roads were built in "60's" line of sight is often an issue, and greater speeds reduce the re-action time.

I don't know that I'm necessarily concerned about vehicle age so much as I am about vehicle upkeep and maintenance. I've heard vehicles that were two years old at the most with brakes squealing like fingernails on a chalkboard. I'll take a ten year old car with good brakes and suspension over a two year old car that's 20,000 KM past its last service date.

I agree with the line of sight comment to a point, but consider the roads where people are traveling at such high speeds, namely Hwy#2 and Hwy #1. Neither of these highways suffer from problems with line-of-sight being limited. They're flat, straight (or very slightly curved) divided highways with excellent sight-lines. As for reaction time, also agreed, but I notice people have a tendency not to look ahead when driving. Something I learned when being taught to drive (and suspect most people were at least told) was to look well ahead of the traffic in front of me to determine potential hazards and changes to the road conditions. While reaction time can't necessarily be improved with driver training, driving defensively can lessen your reliance on reactionary driving.