Speeding does not belong in the same category as break and enter, impaired driving or assault. Having the same burden of proof as an indictable offence is frankly idiotic. If you had your way the entire legal system would grind to a halt, have some common sense.
It sucks the guy had his vehicle impounded. But I have a hard time understanding why a guy needs to do 60 km over the limit to pass another vehicle.
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.
if we both left for a 300 km drive and you drove @125 km/h you'd arrive in 2.5 hrs approximate
If I drove 95 km'h I'd arrive in 3.15 hrs. I have found very few things that I need to be there 45 minutes "faster" I just leave earlier
Especially with your kids in the car
Yeah. I used to stress about getting to Lake Windermere in as close to 2.5 hours as possible. Involved a fairly high speed and a lot of passing. Now, I just accept 3 hour trip at a reasonable speed (passing sparingly on the 93) and the ride is much more relaxing and enjoyable. The impound rule was a very effective deterrent for me. Given the dangerous behavior and excessive speeding that so common on this highway (I saw a fatal head-on about 12-13 years ago there) I fully support this law.
__________________
Trust the snake.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
The unfair aspect is that they're wasting resources by being there and ticketing drivers that they know will be speeding in that area. Public safety is served by them acting in a preventative fashion to pour cold water on any thoughts of gunning it to 140kph in the passing lane (having a marked police car parked along the side of the road leading up to the passing lane would be an example).
Me, driving through there at 140kph, and getting ticketed and losing my car is no deterent to any future drivers who come through that section of road. So, I fail to see how the police are helping anybody.
gets you off the road, helps me out right there
They are being preventative, they are taking dangerous speeders off the road ... so what if they know they are going to be there, it's no different from them setting up in other locations.
The fact that you still have people who do the 40km/h or higher over speed limit in known speed traps shows that you do need the cops to patrol that area.
This thread came to mind tonight on my way to an appointment. I caught myself doing 120 at the pace of a few other vehicles on glenmore.
Thinking about my trips to BC it got me wondering, is there really any point that shouldnt be 100km/hr? Is speed really the issue on these highways or is it people who start drinking before getting to their cabin, consuming drugs or truckers over their driving limit that are the real problem?
No question that the law is the law and whether we like it or not, a rule is in place so abide by it. That said, I wish there were more studies on the main causes of accidents to warrant such a severe penalty towards people who speed.
Im the first to admit that I am guilty of hitting a open stretch of road with no traffic and hitting the gas for a moment to give myself a rush. That said I guarantee their are plenty of drivers much more dangerous than I on these roads yet the police hours are focused on me because it is more common and easier to catch than finding the impaired driver which poses a much higher risk to public safety!
__________________ OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300
They are being preventative, they are taking dangerous speeders off the road ... so what if they know they are going to be there, it's no different from them setting up in other locations.
The fact that you still have people who do the 40km/h or higher over speed limit in known speed traps shows that you do need the cops to patrol that area.
I just think that it is better policy to make all drivers paranoid that they'll get busted, as a means to prevent dangerous speeding in the first place.
If you tell drivers that there is a speed trap along a dangerous stretch of road, they won't speed. I think that is much more preferable over just letting them speed in the first place and potentially causing an accident for the sake of generating some ticket revenue.
I just think that it is better policy to make all drivers paranoid that they'll get busted, as a means to prevent dangerous speeding in the first place.
If you tell drivers that there is a speed trap along a dangerous stretch of road, they won't speed. I think that is much more preferable over just letting them speed in the first place and potentially causing an accident for the sake of generating some ticket revenue.
Except that is not true, I was heading out to the ferries with a friend and I even said to the guy multiple times, "the stretch after Sidney, after the traffic lights the cops will be there" .. so we reach that part of the road and I look further up the highway and see the cop and even say "cop cop cop" and he doesn't slow down, and gets pulled over.
He was doing just over 120 km/h in the 80 zone and the cop just gave him a speeding ticket and didn't knock on the excessive speeding.
And there is a reason that cops always go back to the same spots over and over, they are known to be there a lot by almost everyone, but people still speed despite that.
Except that is not true, I was heading out to the ferries with a friend and I even said to the guy multiple times, "the stretch after Sidney, after the traffic lights the cops will be there" .. so we reach that part of the road and I look further up the highway and see the cop and even say "cop cop cop" and he doesn't slow down, and gets pulled over.
He was doing just over 120 km/h in the 80 zone and the cop just gave him a speeding ticket and didn't knock on the excessive speeding.
And there is a reason that cops always go back to the same spots over and over, they are known to be there a lot by almost everyone, but people still speed despite that.
Ive always been amazed seeing people speed in known zones. When I take deerfoot onto anderson I triple check my speed regardless of the detector going off or not as its a coin toss as to whether cops will be sitting around the corner. Same goes for up 16th ave from deerfoot!
__________________ OFFICIAL CP REALTOR & PROPERTY MANAGER
Travis Munroe | Century 21 Elevate | 403.971.4300
The unfair aspect is that they're wasting resources by being there and ticketing drivers that they know will be speeding in that area. Public safety is served by them acting in a preventative fashion to pour cold water on any thoughts of gunning it to 140kph in the passing lane (having a marked police car parked along the side of the road leading up to the passing lane would be an example).
Me, driving through there at 140kph, and getting ticketed and losing my car is no deterent to any future drivers who come through that section of road. So, I fail to see how the police are helping anybody.
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...
Thinking about my trips to BC it got me wondering, is there really any point that shouldnt be 100km/hr? Is speed really the issue on these highways or is it people who start drinking before getting to their cabin, consuming drugs or truckers over their driving limit that are the real problem?
Not too sure about the parts outside of the parks, but I thought the limit being 90 in the parks was due to wildlife and trying to reduce the number of collisions with animals.
However I find that kind of funny when Banff pretty much has a fence along both sides of the highway and the animal overpasses.
But on the plus side that lower limit does make for good fuel economy.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by calumniate
Nice, people defending going 40 over to save five minutes on a ten hour trip. Enjoy the bus!
I understand your point, but when you use such flawed math it really takes away from what you are trying to say.
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.
However this story isn't about somebody trying to shave hours off their trip, it was about somebody trying to pass another vehicle. The roads department spend a lot of money to try and make passing safer, why are the police not doing something about the people creating the road hazzards that others are trying to pass?
And yes, somebody who is unable to maintain their speed due to limited driving ability is a hazzard on the road. I'm not talking about the guy pulling a trailer or a transport truck driver; most of those people will allow people to pass on a passing lane. I'm talking about the guy who was afraid to overtake another slow person on a 2 lane passing zone, or somebody who had to slow down to go around gentle curves. (Ones not marked with a speed reduction.) Those are the ones who try to "make up time" by speeding up in that nice long straight section.
And ironically it is those people who speed up during the 2 km passing zone are the ones worthy of your scorn, as speeding up during those 2 km will only shave seconds off their trip.
Of course speeding and speed limits are black and white, that's why it's considered a regulatory offense (aka quasi-criminal law); either you do it or don't. The point is that section 11(d) guarantees us the right to the presumption of innocence, regardless of how blatant or obvious the offense. Getting a simple ticket for speeding doesn't violate this principle, you can still contest the ticket if you wish. However, if your vehicle is impounded, the punishment is more or less being handed out before your guilt is proven. Furthermore, most people cannot afford to let their vehicle sit in an impound lot for the length of time it could take for your trial to be heard (My wife took 19 months to have her trial heard in BC).
Quoting for emphasis. Exactly this. There's no way this should be constitutional, imo.
You cannot mete out the punishment without giving the person accused of the offense a chance to assert their innocence. The only difference between a "black and white" offense like this and any other is that there is no need for the Crown to prove your intention. They must still prove that you committed the impugned ACT itself. Even if that seems utterly obvious (we've got witnesses and a radar gun!) basic, fundamental principles of justice still require that they PROVE it.
I would add that given the severity of the punishment (having a significant amount of property seized and being stranded on a highway in the boonies) is significant enough that there's probably at least an argument - perhaps not a terribly good argument but an argument nonetheless - that this offense is criminal in nature. In which case B.C. isn't allowed to implement it and it wouldn't be absolute liability.
If I got hit by this, I'd be making myself as big an inconvenience to the BCAG as humanly possible because it's utter BS.
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.
This is one of the rare threads where I agree with both sides. Posters from both sides have made great points to why it's a good law and why it's a bad law.
I'm probably going to lean on good law just because I hate when these losers go crying to the media. But the unconstitutional defence is pretty intriguing. Handing out punishment before proof of guilt is worrisome.
I just think that it is better policy to make all drivers paranoid that they'll get busted, as a means to prevent dangerous speeding in the first place.
If you tell drivers that there is a speed trap along a dangerous stretch of road, they won't speed. I think that is much more preferable over just letting them speed in the first place and potentially causing an accident for the sake of generating some ticket revenue.
i disagree with this. i'm pretty sure the red light/speed on green intersections are all marked in calgary. following your logic, they should generate the city zero dollars. however....
Quote:
Intersection cameras, and income accrued from photo radar, has garnered a revenue surplus for city police.
From January to May 2012, there was an additional $3.2 million — over what was anticipated to be gleaned — from speed on green and red light cameras as well as photo radar, police said.
...
Red light numbers have dipped from 17,064 in 2011 to about 12,000 year-to-date.
At the same time, speed on green numbers are on the rise from 99,258 last year to 102,421 year-to-date.
This is one of the rare threads where I agree with both sides. Posters from both sides have made great points to why it's a good law and why it's a bad law. I'm probably going to lean on good law just because I hate when these losers go crying to the media. But the unconstitutional defence is pretty intriguing. Handing out punishment before proof of guilt is worrisome.
The unconstitutional defense invalidates everything good about the law, though. This is absolutely basic. If it's unconstitutional it's unconstitutional and the only way that you get around that is to have a court go through a s.1 analysis. The practical, "in any given case probably what will happen" argument is utterly moot.
Take a scenario. Mr. Smith is driving along the Crowsnest highway doing 85 in an 80 zone. Officer Joe, for whatever reason, decides he's going to get Mr. Smith. He pulls Mr. Smith over, claims he caught Mr. Smith driving at 150, and orders the car impounded. Mr. Smith is stranded 80 clicks outside of bumtown, nowhere.
No matter how unlikely it may seem, our system of laws is set up to make the above impossible. Before Mr. Smith's car is impounded he must be able to go in front of a judge and say, "Officer Joe is full of crap. I was going 85, not 150, and I should not be subjected to the punishment the law provides". The judge then needs to assess his credibility and Joe's, and come to a conclusion. There is no way to prevent a wrong ultimate decision, but this is the level of safeguard that Canadian law affords everyone so that there's some independent adjudicator double checking everything. Then you have the appeal process to review that adjudication.
If you have punishment meted out without a right to deny your guilt at trial, you've immediately violated fundamental principles of justice. And effectively, that is what we have here.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 19Yzerman19 For This Useful Post:
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
Speeding does not belong in the same category as break and enter, impaired driving or assault. Having the same burden of proof as an indictable offence is frankly idiotic. If you had your way the entire legal system would grind to a halt, have some common sense.
It sucks the guy had his vehicle impounded. But I have a hard time understanding why a guy needs to do 60 km over the limit to pass another vehicle.
Nice.
I guess wanting a day in court where an impartial arbiter makes a decision is in your world, not using common sense then?
Mind boggling.
I can go and fight a 15 dollar parking ticket, but in BC if a cop "says" he clocked me going 40 over, it will cost me well over 2000 dollars without ever getting a chance to rebut his claim.
I guess that is "sensible" to you, but I will stick with my definition thanks very much...the one where i am guarenteed to face an accuser and let someone else figure it out, not some roadside cop who may have had a really bad day or didnt like the looks of me, and decides to strand me and those with me in the middle of the Purcell mountains. Very logical allright.
