BC Impounds Excessive Speeders Vehicles

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

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?

Uh, yeah, which is why one type of offence is listed in the Criminal Code and can only be enacted by Parliament while the other is in the Motor Vehicle Act and can be enacted by a provincial legislature.

In any case, things are allowed to be unconstitutional as long as they pass s.1 muster:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Maybe this gets over that hurdle, but it's a tough pill to swallow and I want to hear some courts say so, and tell me why, before I'm prepared to do so.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

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.

The reason that people don't follow speed limits is because they believe, and often quite rightly, that the speed limit is not the safe limit for the road.

If the road is straight, dry, and you can see to the horizon and you're not too close to other cars, it's possible to travel safely at speeds far higher than 110 km/h.

Heck, when there's no other cars around you might be safest driving in the middle of two lanes, but the law says you should be in a lane and thus you will, which means the law is actually a danger to you.

If it were me, the guys who would be getting the big tickets are the guys who tailgate. They are far more dangerous than the people who speed when it's safe but slow down when the curves, road conditions, or traffic conditions require it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

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

Thanks for finding that, but now I'm so pissed off. I fought a yellow light ticket in court one time and the officer and I both agreed that I was in the intersection when the light turned yellow and that the light was still yellow when I left the intersection. I thought it was a slam dunk for me, but the judge said a yellow means stop and nothing else. In the least lippy way I could muster, I asked why there wasn't just a red then since yellow and red apparently mean the exact same thing. Guilty was the verdict. Poor little 19 year old me was bullied by the man.

[Reggie28]

Veh C 21656: On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Note that this says NOTHING about the speed limit. If the "normal flow of traffic" is higher than the speed limit, it is still illegal not to pull over if there are five or more following vehicles. It is also a better idea, and safer, to pull over if there are ANY following vehicles.
Source(s):

35+ years as a criminal defense attorney



If BC and other Canadian provinces brought in this law, it would make the roads safer and more efficient. Essentially, if there are people behind you, and you can't keep up with traffic you must pull over. There is nothing more frustrating than one or two camper trailers holding up a mile of traffic.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Uh, yeah, which is why one type of offence is listed in the Criminal Code and can only be enacted by Parliament while the other is in the Motor Vehicle Act and can be enacted by a provincial legislature.

In any case, things are allowed to be unconstitutional as long as they pass s.1 muster:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Maybe this gets over that hurdle, but it's a tough pill to swallow and I want to hear some courts say so, and tell me why, before I'm prepared to do so.

Time to apply the Oakes test, which is prescribed as follows:

1. There must be a pressing and substantial objective
2. The means must be proportional
   • The means must be rationally connected to the objective
   • There must be minimal impairment of rights
   • There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

So is preventing deaths by speeding a pressing and substantial objective? It certainly is. However, is this of sufficient importance to limit one's Charter rights? I don't believe so, since speeding is only a regulatory offense, not an indictible one. But let's move to part 2 anyways.

Does impounding one's vehicle stop them from speeding. Sure in that vehicle at least so this provision seems to be rationally connected to the objective.

Is there minimal invasion of one's rights when their vehicle is impounded? I would say so, especially since property rights are not guaranteed under the charter (if they were I might feel differently). Remember only a piece of property is being seized, one isn't losing one's freedom for this breech.

Finally, is there proportionality between the infringement and objective? In R v. Oakes, Chief Justice Dickenson states " there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of sufficient importance." I do not believe there is proportionality in one excessively speeding (especially for a brief period of time) and having one's property impounded. Furthermore, as stated earier, I do not believe stopping excessive speeding is of sufficient importance to limit a Charter right.

[V]

I think the only time I felt it was necessary to drive 61 km/h over the speed limit was when I was a punk arse kid and wanted to pass a row of 15 cars through Jasper.

This was a full grown man with kids in the car. What a delta bravo.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by Reggie28

Veh C 21656: On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists, in order to permit the vehicles following it to proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.

Note that this says NOTHING about the speed limit. If the "normal flow of traffic" is higher than the speed limit, it is still illegal not to pull over if there are five or more following vehicles. It is also a better idea, and safer, to pull over if there are ANY following vehicles.
Source(s):

35+ years as a criminal defense attorney



If BC and other Canadian provinces brought in this law, it would make the roads safer and more efficient. Essentially, if there are people behind you, and you can't keep up with traffic you must pull over. There is nothing more frustrating than one or two camper trailers holding up a mile of traffic.

Your interpretation makes no sense. You are saying this trumps another law - the speed limit? If I'm travelling the posted speed limit and you and 4 other vehicles come speeding up behind me & can't pass then I'm breaking a law? Don't buy it.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by DFO

Your interpretation makes no sense. You are saying this trumps another law - the speed limit? If I'm travelling the posted speed limit and you and 4 other vehicles come speeding up behind me & can't pass then I'm breaking a law? Don't buy it.

I don't think he is implying that it trumps another law but rather that if this law were enforced it would reduce the situations where one would be required to use excessive speed to pass.

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by DFO

Your interpretation makes no sense. You are saying this trumps another law - the speed limit? If I'm travelling the posted speed limit and you and 4 other vehicles come speeding up behind me & can't pass then I'm breaking a law? Don't buy it.

I think this is the key to the law:
"As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."

If you are obstructing traffic, out of common courtesy, you should pull over to let others pass. In some jurisdictions it is illegal if you don't.

I have done this on the #1 (albeit during a snowstorm) and it is common, if not required on most industrial roads.

I find it frustrating following behind camper-trailers at 80K, then seeing the big puffs of black diesel as they floor it during passing areas. Some people are good, and some people do not want to be passed.

[speede5]

Originally Posted by SebC

The reason that people don't follow speed limits is because they believe, and often quite rightly, that the speed limit is not the safe limit for the road.

If the road is straight, dry, and you can see to the horizon and you're not too close to other cars, it's possible to travel safely at speeds far higher than 110 km/h.

I don't agree. Driving far higher than the speed limit is safe if your in the desert and no one is around, sure, but on any average road you become a hazard when you decide to impose your own higher limit. Other drivers on the road, and particularly drivers attempting to turn onto, merge, or cross said road make decisions based on your assumed speed. if you are going 40% faster than the limit for the road you could easily cause an accident, I've seen several at a #1 crossing I use daily.

Your reaction to any variable that is introduced is greatly influenced by the speed you are travelling and your braking distances increase exponentially.

I'm all for raising the limit to 120 on divided highways, but people who think it's safe to go 40% higher than surrounding traffic are decieving themselves.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

If it were me, the guys who would be getting the big tickets are the guys who tailgate. They are far more dangerous than the people who speed when it's safe but slow down when the curves, road conditions, or traffic conditions require it.

I take my foot off the gas when someone tailgates me. Granted, it likely results in worsening an already unsafe situation, but I'm a petty man...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by speede5

I don't agree. Driving far higher than the speed limit is safe if your in the desert and no one is around, sure, but on any average road you become a hazard when you decide to impose your own higher limit. Other drivers on the road, and particularly drivers attempting to turn onto, merge, or cross said road make decisions based on your assumed speed. if you are going 40% faster than the limit for the road you could easily cause an accident, I've seen several at a #1 crossing I use daily.

Your reaction to any variable that is introduced is greatly influenced by the speed you are travelling and your braking distances increase exponentially.

I'm all for raising the limit to 120 on divided highways, but people who think it's safe to go 40% higher than surrounding traffic are decieving themselves.

I clearly stated that I'm talking about when you have sufficient distance from other drivers (to which I'll add or intersections where you're unable to see if there's other drivers). Nowhere did I say that high speeds are safe all the time, what I said was almost exactly the opposite.

If you are speeding in a place where you have a free lane on either side and adequate space in front of you, you have a far greater margin of error than if you are going the speed limit but you're boxed in.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by speede5

I don't agree. Driving far higher than the speed limit is safe if your in the desert and no one is around, sure, but on any average road you become a hazard when you decide to impose your own higher limit. Other drivers on the road, and particularly drivers attempting to turn onto, merge, or cross said road make decisions based on your assumed speed. if you are going 40% faster than the limit for the road you could easily cause an accident, I've seen several at a #1 crossing I use daily.

Your reaction to any variable that is introduced is greatly influenced by the speed you are travelling and your braking distances increase exponentially.

I'm all for raising the limit to 120 on divided highways, but people who think it's safe to go 40% higher than surrounding traffic are decieving themselves.

This is a cardinal sin of driving, assuming what others should or should not be doing on the road. When merging or turning into/across traffic, one should be able to assess the spped of traffic fairly accurately. There aren't many things I hate more than when someone turns in front of me and I have to slam on the brakes (even when I am driving the speed limit).

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by speede5

I don't agree. Driving far higher than the speed limit is safe if your in the desert and no one is around, sure, but on any average road you become a hazard when you decide to impose your own higher limit. Other drivers on the road, and particularly drivers attempting to turn onto, merge, or cross said road make decisions based on your assumed speed. if you are going 40% faster than the limit for the road you could easily cause an accident, I've seen several at a #1 crossing I use daily.

Your reaction to any variable that is introduced is greatly influenced by the speed you are travelling and your braking distances increase exponentially.

I'm all for raising the limit to 120 on divided highways, but people who think it's safe to go 40% higher than surrounding traffic are decieving themselves.

Drivers are supposed to judge the speed of vehicles approaching, not apply an approximate speed before pulling out. That is plain and simple poor driving habits.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by DFO

Your interpretation makes no sense. You are saying this trumps another law - the speed limit? If I'm travelling the posted speed limit and you and 4 other vehicles come speeding up behind me & can't pass then I'm breaking a law? Don't buy it.

There's no "trump". They're consistent, you have to obey both. I'll call the "you must pull off the road and let cars pass" law the "Reggie Law".

Example A: R/V is driving along at 75KPH. Speed limit is 90KPH. It has 10 cars behind them. A turn-out rest stop area comes up. The R/V ignores this and continues driving.

Example B: Same as Example A, but R/V is driving 95KPH. Again, the R/V ignores the rest stop area and keeps driving with the line of cars behind it.

Example C: Same as Example A, except the R/V pulls out into the rest stop area and lets the cars behind it pass.

Example D: Same as Example B, except the R/V pulls out into the rest stop area and lets the cars pass.

Example A: R/V has obeyed the speed limit law, but not the Reggie Law.
Example B: R/V has not obeyed the speed limit law and has not obeyed the Reggie Law.
Example C: R/V has obeyed both laws.
Example D: R/V has not obeyed the speed limit law but has obeyed the Reggie Law.

How does one "trump" the other? They're separate inquiries - whether I obeyed the speed limit has nothing to do with whether I obeyed Reggie's law.

[TurdFerguson]

When I'm passing, especially on a 2 lane road I generally pass that person as quickly as I can. The sooner they are behind me, the sooner they are of no concern to me. So yes, I'd say I regularly hit 140 or 150 while passing, however that lasts all of 3-4 seconds. I could pass the same car going 10km faster then they are traveling but that seems more dangerous to me as I am now hanging out in a lane with potentially oncoming traffic for a longer period of time, not to mention leaving less road for both cars to manuever in the event of a animal or road hazard etc.. Factor in busier roads, some short passing opportunities etc and I think the case for a quick and swift pass make sense.

[DuffMan]

Having driven out to the island for holidays this summer, I can only say, I feel lucky to still have my car, after reading this.

[DFO]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

There's no "trump". They're consistent, you have to obey both. I'll call the "you must pull off the road and let cars pass" law the "Reggie Law".

Example A: R/V is driving along at 75KPH. Speed limit is 90KPH. It has 10 cars behind them. A turn-out rest stop area comes up. The R/V ignores this and continues driving.

Example B: Same as Example A, but R/V is driving 95KPH. Again, the R/V ignores the rest stop area and keeps driving with the line of cars behind it.

Example C: Same as Example A, except the R/V pulls out into the rest stop area and lets the cars behind it pass.

Example D: Same as Example B, except the R/V pulls out into the rest stop area and lets the cars pass.

Example A: R/V has obeyed the speed limit law, but not the Reggie Law.
Example B: R/V has not obeyed the speed limit law and has not obeyed the Reggie Law.
Example C: R/V has obeyed both laws.
Example D: R/V has not obeyed the speed limit law but has obeyed the Reggie Law.

How does one "trump" the other? They're separate inquiries - whether I obeyed the speed limit has nothing to do with whether I obeyed Reggie's law.

What about,

If the "normal flow of traffic" is higher than the speed limit, it is still illegal not to pull over if there are five or more following vehicles ?

[19Yzerman19]

You don't need that. It's already true under the prior wording (which is apparently from California). The speed limit is irrelevant.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I take my foot off the gas when someone tailgates me. Granted, it likely results in worsening an already unsafe situation, but I'm a petty man...

Now why would someone be tailgating you?