I think I found the problem right here......show me where I called YOU a dumbass? I specifically said "some of the dumbass posts". If you're a post, then that old saying "dumb as a ....." applies.luv2fress said:
Read it........sign it please
- Thread starter luv2fress
- Start date
Tboy
it has nothing to do with what the is called, it has to do with what we aere told the law was intended for, and what it is actually used for.
As for gun owners, they DO NOT HAVE THE right to lend them out, so yes hold them responsible, BTW that wasn't the point of the gun issue I brought up.
So you lend your car to your neighbour while his it at the dealer. He jumps a green light by turning left a half second before it turns green and the people going straight have a chnace to get going. The cop sees this and charges him under this law, you loose your car for a week, or he is simply doing 110 in an 80 across a street like Major Mackenzie near Dufferin were it suddenly turns to a 50 and before he gets its down below 100 he gets pulled over. Poof, your car is gone. And yes, the law has been and will be used for these type of situations, I was personally threatened with something similar re the green light a few weeks ago where the cop told me "You know I can take your car away".
We should not be held accountable for others actions in reference to highwway traffic acts.
Get over it, its just wrong.
it has nothing to do with what the is called, it has to do with what we aere told the law was intended for, and what it is actually used for.
As for gun owners, they DO NOT HAVE THE right to lend them out, so yes hold them responsible, BTW that wasn't the point of the gun issue I brought up.
So you lend your car to your neighbour while his it at the dealer. He jumps a green light by turning left a half second before it turns green and the people going straight have a chnace to get going. The cop sees this and charges him under this law, you loose your car for a week, or he is simply doing 110 in an 80 across a street like Major Mackenzie near Dufferin were it suddenly turns to a 50 and before he gets its down below 100 he gets pulled over. Poof, your car is gone. And yes, the law has been and will be used for these type of situations, I was personally threatened with something similar re the green light a few weeks ago where the cop told me "You know I can take your car away".
We should not be held accountable for others actions in reference to highwway traffic acts.
Get over it, its just wrong.
So they IMPOUND your car for a week. You still have your license, go and rent a car for week.
90+ in a 40, 110+ in a 60, 150+ in a 100... If you're going 50+ over the limit they should be impounding the car for more than seven days, how about 30 days, or 1 day for each km over the limit so we start at 50 days and go up from there. If you're loaning your car to someone who drives it that fast maybe you need to think twice about who you're letting drive your car. If it's your kid driving that fast in your car, I would think they just lost their priveledge to drive any family vehicle, and paying to rent a vehicle for a week for your use will surely put a hole in their allowance fund/bank account/paycheck.
90+ in a 40, 110+ in a 60, 150+ in a 100... If you're going 50+ over the limit they should be impounding the car for more than seven days, how about 30 days, or 1 day for each km over the limit so we start at 50 days and go up from there. If you're loaning your car to someone who drives it that fast maybe you need to think twice about who you're letting drive your car. If it's your kid driving that fast in your car, I would think they just lost their priveledge to drive any family vehicle, and paying to rent a vehicle for a week for your use will surely put a hole in their allowance fund/bank account/paycheck.
Tboy
LOL, the dumbass didn't insult me, and I apologize for reading it wrong.
As for all you republicans who are simple minding and think the law stright up is OK and "shoot them on the side of the road" you should move to the U.S. and live under the patriot act! You obviosly don't know the difference, can't read english properly, or perhaps don't understand English.
An out right racing law is a good thing..............but this wide open to interpretaion law has no place here unless it is fixed to protect due process and indivdual right.
Most of you are more likley than not terrible drivers who have no basic understanding of what a left lane is for.
Flame away...........but learn to drive.
LOL, the dumbass didn't insult me, and I apologize for reading it wrong.
As for all you republicans who are simple minding and think the law stright up is OK and "shoot them on the side of the road" you should move to the U.S. and live under the patriot act! You obviosly don't know the difference, can't read english properly, or perhaps don't understand English.
An out right racing law is a good thing..............but this wide open to interpretaion law has no place here unless it is fixed to protect due process and indivdual right.
Most of you are more likley than not terrible drivers who have no basic understanding of what a left lane is for.
Flame away...........but learn to drive.
Fress...if you read the posts here you'll see that most people (myself included) don't see this as a law designed to decrease "street racing" but one to decrease speeding 50 km/hr or more. If you're the idiot that jumps the green to turn left ahead of other cars, that's on par with going 50 km/hr. It's just stupid. Is your life so important that you get to put yourself above everyone else?
You can call going 50 over whatever you want. Street racing, extreme speeding, whatever. The point is that it's stupid and if you want to do it then take lessons and come to Mosport.
I haven't heard anyone complain about impaired drivers having their cars impounded. Same deal applies. If you're going to do something so blatantly stupid, you deserve to lose your car for a period of time.
As for making it personal and telling us that we're "terrible drivers"....bring it on. Let me know when you'd like to meet at Mosport. Just don't speed on your way there!
You can call going 50 over whatever you want. Street racing, extreme speeding, whatever. The point is that it's stupid and if you want to do it then take lessons and come to Mosport.
I haven't heard anyone complain about impaired drivers having their cars impounded. Same deal applies. If you're going to do something so blatantly stupid, you deserve to lose your car for a period of time.
As for making it personal and telling us that we're "terrible drivers"....bring it on. Let me know when you'd like to meet at Mosport. Just don't speed on your way there!
E
enduser1
luv2fress said:
I agree with you but it looks like we are outnumbered. The government will get away with this injustice as long as they can and that looks like a long time.
EU
AH now we get to the root of your problem: you did something wrong and were warned by a police officer for it.luv2fress said:
Might I suggest you DON'T BREAK THE FRICKEN LAW AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM? Or is that too complicated for you?
As for jumping the green, do you realize how dangerous that is? What if a pedestrian is starting to cross? What if a guy in the right lane of the oncoming traffic has the same idea? and to put the nail in the coffin: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHILE TURNING LEFT!!!!
Furthermore, I think you had selective reading when the law was first introduced. Any information I read on it emphasized excessive (repeat EXCESSIVE) speeding as a major part of the law and why it was being implimented.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that you have nothing to worry about if you don't break the laws? It sure sounds to me like you're trying to get them to change the laws so when you break them, you won't be punished......
Let me put it another way:
DON'T BREAK THE LAW AND YOU WILL HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!
While I'm not sure how much responsibility you have legally, yes if the person you loaned your car to does something that causes it to be taken by the cops then perhaps you should have exercised better judgement in who you loaned your car to.luv2fress said:but how can someone by themselves be called a racer?
I suspect rally racers would call themselves racers.
Have you never tried to "beat" your (or someone else's) best time to get from point A to point B? That's racing, even though it's just you in the car.
What if you lend your car to someone? Now you ar responsible for their actions and loose your personal property for their actions.........Ha ha.
I have to chime in with t-boy. While street racing was often mentioned when the new law came out, by no means was it the only thing mentioned. I heard of it being the 'excessive speed law' before I heard "racing" mentioned (not by much I will admit tho').
Personally had I had the opportunity to write the law I would have worded it: "If you are caught going more than 150% of the posted speed you would be charged under the new law". I say this because I believe going 100 in a 50 to be more dangerous than 150 in a 100 zone.
anonemouse said:
I agree with the impaired part of your statement as well , drinking and driving (or drive at excessive speed) its just as bad.
I'm all for a zero tolerance law when it comes to alcohol.you shouldn't be allowed any alcohol in your blood if you're going to be driving.
if this law wasn't about money, then they should just revoke your licence if you're speeding(or drinkin') permanently.
wouldn't that be the best deterrent, and it would prove its not about the money.
Too many people clearly show by their actions on a daily basis that they are incable of policing themselves by driving appropriately and this is not limited to speeding. I also include unsafe lane changes, weaving in and out, not stopping at stop signs, running red lights, tailgating, talking on cell phones, shaving, applying make-up and who knows what else!
As far as I'm concerned, a 1 week seizure is not enough, depending on the violation.
Regardless of how you define going 50+ KM over the limit, it is just stupid behaviour. The only time I would think going that speed is remotely acceptable is on road trips where you are sticking to one lane and there is little/no traffic on the road.
I have no problem with people injuring themselves through stupidity - just don't involve the rest of us.
As far as I'm concerned, a 1 week seizure is not enough, depending on the violation.
Regardless of how you define going 50+ KM over the limit, it is just stupid behaviour. The only time I would think going that speed is remotely acceptable is on road trips where you are sticking to one lane and there is little/no traffic on the road.
I have no problem with people injuring themselves through stupidity - just don't involve the rest of us.
I agree.islandman4567 said:
Unfortunately as history shows, losing your license doesn't necessarily stop you from driving. How many times do we hear the news item that says something like "so and so was stopped for driving without a license for the x time, having lost if for doing something stupid."islandman4567 said:
Besides every bit of money that gets collected via the "stupidity tax"
is money that the government won't have to raise my taxes to get.Well Luv..I guess I'm one of those Simple minded people who dared to disagree with you so lets see if I have this right...luv2fress said:
If Tboy was to imply (which he didn't) that you were a dumbass, that just wasn't fair.
But when the vast majority don't agree with you, suddenly we are all simple minded, illiterate republican facists who can't drive. Does that kinda make us all Dumbasses??
Well that's just fine cause I'll pick Dumbass over Arrogant Bigot any day!
E
enduser1
Moraff said:Besides every bit of money that gets collected via the "stupidity tax"
That is my reason for opposing the law.
EU
Wait, so you're saying you WANT your taxes to go up if they don't collect it from speeders?enduser1 said:
Hey, we found one person who wants to pay MORE TAX!!!! (or are you being paid by the government?)......
please note: i never type in caps...iamme said:
I FULLY AND WHOLE-HEARTEDLY ENDORSE THIS APPROACH.
I ENCOURAGE OUR POLITICIANS TO ADOPT THIS TACTIC.
thank you.
Uff !!! Finished the whole thread
And I am terrified how many of the posters are so brainwashed and influenced by politics and police propaganda.
So many voices: Kill the Speeders !
Now let me ask you a question: how many people really died or got seriously injured on the road as a direct result of speeding ? I emphasise: direct result of speeding under otherwise normal circumstances. Not drunk, not drugged, not a teen without license, not malfunctioning car. If you put some effort into it you will find that the statistics does not support the concept that speed kills. Reckless driving kills, stupidity kills, a Chinese driver going 70 km/hr on the left line on 401 - that is dangerous.
It is mentioned above about 5000 drivers caught. So in other words those 5000 have been driving dangerously around for a while. Where are those deadly, terrible results of their driving ?
This legislation is unacceptable because you are guilty before convicted. So if you speed 49km above limit you go to court, defend yourself and in case you win nothing happens. If you go 50+ even if you win, that does not mean anything since the cop already made a decision for the judge. In my opinions it is ridiculus. And dangerous as well - it violates your civil rights. Think about it. Today it is about speeding it sound so good, for all of us, for our wellbeing, etc. Tomorrow what next: the cop will cut off your hand before you are convicted of stealing (figuratively speaking) ?
I come from a country were this was a norm: prove that you are not guilty, until then you are guilty by default. Results are unimaginable for most of you. I run away from this system and now the system caught up with me in Canada. How ironic.
And I am terrified how many of the posters are so brainwashed and influenced by politics and police propaganda.
So many voices: Kill the Speeders !
Now let me ask you a question: how many people really died or got seriously injured on the road as a direct result of speeding ? I emphasise: direct result of speeding under otherwise normal circumstances. Not drunk, not drugged, not a teen without license, not malfunctioning car. If you put some effort into it you will find that the statistics does not support the concept that speed kills. Reckless driving kills, stupidity kills, a Chinese driver going 70 km/hr on the left line on 401 - that is dangerous.
It is mentioned above about 5000 drivers caught. So in other words those 5000 have been driving dangerously around for a while. Where are those deadly, terrible results of their driving ?
This legislation is unacceptable because you are guilty before convicted. So if you speed 49km above limit you go to court, defend yourself and in case you win nothing happens. If you go 50+ even if you win, that does not mean anything since the cop already made a decision for the judge. In my opinions it is ridiculus. And dangerous as well - it violates your civil rights. Think about it. Today it is about speeding it sound so good, for all of us, for our wellbeing, etc. Tomorrow what next: the cop will cut off your hand before you are convicted of stealing (figuratively speaking) ?
I come from a country were this was a norm: prove that you are not guilty, until then you are guilty by default. Results are unimaginable for most of you. I run away from this system and now the system caught up with me in Canada. How ironic.
Well when you are doing those other stupid things it's alot easier to survive them if you aren't doing 50 over the speed limit, so I would say speed is a factor in many of those accidents. If you weren't going so fast perhaps your drunken, drugged, unlicensed body wouldn't have lost control of your broken car, or at least the amount of damage would be considerably lessened.Rob said:
A little ironic that you are complaining about the cop having the right to take the 50+ speeder's car away when all the other accident-causers you mention also have pretty much the same result. Get caught drunk, drugged up or without a license and unless there is someone who can drive your car with you it gets towed away from ya. Why aren't you complaining about this "violation of our civil rights"?
5000 arrests and not one hue and cry of an improper decision made by the police officers. Doesn't sound like they are abusing the law at all to me.Rob said:
Barring being a black belt, your thieving hand isn't a deadly weapon. Again I'll say it, a cop wouldn't let you keep a gun, knife, sword, lead pipe (from China? lol) .... while the courts debated whether you were guilty of what you were charged with, removing your car from your control is no different IMO.Rob said:
Guess it's time to move again eh?Rob said:
