Ontario speeding law change to Highway Act
#1
10-08-2007, 08:47 PM
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ontario speeding law change to Highway Act
I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion on the new changes to Ontario's Highway act that gives the police the power to suspend your license, tow and impound your vehicle, all without a trial. After conviction, you face a maximum of $10,000 fine, and if you are convicted again, a suspended license for 10 years.
I'm normally a law abiding citizen, but does anyone think that penalties far outweigh the crime? I'm extremely bothered by the fact that there are penalties handed out without trial, and there is no appeals process. You are at the mercy of the traffic cop.
There is a lot of media attention to the 50 km/h over the posted speeding limit and 'street racing', but I wanted to point out that any bit of aggressive driving can get you this punishment. What is troubling, all other violations are based on the subjective opinion of the police officer.
- Chirping your tires at a light (perhaps your foot slipped off the clutch pedal)
- 'cutting someone off' (perhaps you thought you were clear, or they accelerated)
- Changing lanes to get ahead in traffice (who hasn't done this)
- Accelerating a little faster than the car in the other lane at a red light so you can make a turn half a block later (who hasn't done this)
If you read below, all of the above violations can get your car impounded and immediate 7 day suspension of your license based on how the cop interprets what he/she saw or wanted to see.
I'm all for making the roads safer, through higher monetary fines, perhaps less 'deal making' in the courts, and driver education, but for god sakes, not at the expense of my right to due process.
Below is word for word some of the violations you or I could be up against:
Highway Traffic Act
Ontario Regulation 455/07
"race" and "contest"
2.(1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.
(2) In this section, "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
"stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.
I'm normally a law abiding citizen, but does anyone think that penalties far outweigh the crime? I'm extremely bothered by the fact that there are penalties handed out without trial, and there is no appeals process. You are at the mercy of the traffic cop.
There is a lot of media attention to the 50 km/h over the posted speeding limit and 'street racing', but I wanted to point out that any bit of aggressive driving can get you this punishment. What is troubling, all other violations are based on the subjective opinion of the police officer.
- Chirping your tires at a light (perhaps your foot slipped off the clutch pedal)
- 'cutting someone off' (perhaps you thought you were clear, or they accelerated)
- Changing lanes to get ahead in traffice (who hasn't done this)
- Accelerating a little faster than the car in the other lane at a red light so you can make a turn half a block later (who hasn't done this)
If you read below, all of the above violations can get your car impounded and immediate 7 day suspension of your license based on how the cop interprets what he/she saw or wanted to see.
I'm all for making the roads safer, through higher monetary fines, perhaps less 'deal making' in the courts, and driver education, but for god sakes, not at the expense of my right to due process.
Below is word for word some of the violations you or I could be up against:
Highway Traffic Act
Ontario Regulation 455/07
"race" and "contest"
2.(1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.
3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.
(2) In this section, "marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.
"stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.
#2
10-09-2007, 01:07 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mississauga,Ontario,Canada
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny enough i was about to post the act .
Also it was passed by mcginty and his liberals who he named the transport minister to replace the last guy who i really liked but had a scandal .
I WILL NOT vote liberal for anything.
Take my basic freedoms to be twisted by a cop having a bad day and be judge ,jury and executioner without any recourse from me if i prove him wrong !!!!!! by being found innocent.
The law has some good points and is a good idea but without proper details to make it work without power trips. I guess after the first snow fall there will be no cars on the road as everyone will have their cars impounded and have no licence from there tires spinning on ice . Why not mandate snow tires then. Get hand guns out of the country they serve no purpose than kill which is the unfortunate conclusion they are trying to avoid in less than 1% of incidences of street racing. Last time i checked every person ever shot by a gun said "OW , that hurt" or they are dead.
Build a track at downsview to let people have kick in their car safely.
Stupid people making stupid decisions , Good bye Dalton you Jackass.
I won't reward you by voting ad giving you a job another 4 years.
Also it was passed by mcginty and his liberals who he named the transport minister to replace the last guy who i really liked but had a scandal .
I WILL NOT vote liberal for anything.
Take my basic freedoms to be twisted by a cop having a bad day and be judge ,jury and executioner without any recourse from me if i prove him wrong !!!!!! by being found innocent.
The law has some good points and is a good idea but without proper details to make it work without power trips. I guess after the first snow fall there will be no cars on the road as everyone will have their cars impounded and have no licence from there tires spinning on ice . Why not mandate snow tires then. Get hand guns out of the country they serve no purpose than kill which is the unfortunate conclusion they are trying to avoid in less than 1% of incidences of street racing. Last time i checked every person ever shot by a gun said "OW , that hurt" or they are dead.
Build a track at downsview to let people have kick in their car safely.
Stupid people making stupid decisions , Good bye Dalton you Jackass.
I won't reward you by voting ad giving you a job another 4 years.
Last edited by SKperformance; 10-09-2007 at 01:14 AM.
#3
10-09-2007, 02:13 AM
Not to mention, this past sunday. There was a track/car show event, CSCS (Canadian Sports Compact Series) in Cayuga. This is to encourage people to take it to track and not do anything illegally.
However...
Why was there blitz and speed traps and multiple cop cars along the route to Cayuga?
Why was there plenty of modified cars pulled over, simply because they are modified?
I could go on...
All these car enthusiast came to CSCS to enjoy a good car show full of time attack, drag races, drifting, etc done LEGALLY on TRACK. All of sudden, there's blitz'es right next to track discouraging people to go to the track which totally defeats the purposes of having these events at all.
Some more information on from this post http://www.torontonissan.ca/forums/s...54&postcount=9
If you can't view it, here's the copied pasted version of the post, posted by "pcpoa":
Here's the original thread:
http://www.torontonissan.ca/forums/s...ead.php?t=3050
However...
Why was there blitz and speed traps and multiple cop cars along the route to Cayuga?
Why was there plenty of modified cars pulled over, simply because they are modified?
I could go on...
All these car enthusiast came to CSCS to enjoy a good car show full of time attack, drag races, drifting, etc done LEGALLY on TRACK. All of sudden, there's blitz'es right next to track discouraging people to go to the track which totally defeats the purposes of having these events at all.
Some more information on from this post http://www.torontonissan.ca/forums/s...54&postcount=9
If you can't view it, here's the copied pasted version of the post, posted by "pcpoa":
Just as a heads up guys. I heard there will be a big Police Blitz at this event.
The blitz will probably be to take "unsafe" vehicles off the road and to ticket for missing or faulty emissions equipment.
My friends seem to think that this will take place at the beginning of the event (in the morning) however a blitz is supposed to be something peaceful to the environment and surrounding businesses/parties, therefore it is likely to happen AFTER the even. Which means, on your drive out of the event at the end, Cops will barricade the facility to capture all leaving parties.
Reason it will probably happen after the event is because of this:
1. If police Blitz incoming cars, someone that's just been blitz'd will call their friend that is on their way and tell them not to come or they will be captured. If there are less people attending, that will mean there are less potential people for the cops to catch, AND the monitored event will not receive as much business (NOT peaceful to the surrounding business)
2. If they blitz after the event, the event has made their money (peaceful to the business) but this will also give opportunity to the blitz Plain clothed cops (Undercover) to view the potentially unsafe cars. They will also be able to catch ALL the vehicles streaming out of the event at the same time. Sure there may be some people leaving early that avoid it, but the payoff to the cops will be significant with the ones that they do catch.
This is honestly ridiculous. Everyone is pushing for a racetrack in Toronto to move racing from the streets, but the few tracks that are there are hard pressed by the Police to capture cars that are trying NOT to race on the street, but just have the potential. It really doesn't make any sense to me.
Why do I know about this? My car has been Blitzd before and removed from the streets. When I was preparing everything to fight the emissions ticket that they gave me in court, I did some research on Blitzing. Good luck guys. I hope the tips that I've received are incorrect. I however will probably not attend this event.
The blitz will probably be to take "unsafe" vehicles off the road and to ticket for missing or faulty emissions equipment.
My friends seem to think that this will take place at the beginning of the event (in the morning) however a blitz is supposed to be something peaceful to the environment and surrounding businesses/parties, therefore it is likely to happen AFTER the even. Which means, on your drive out of the event at the end, Cops will barricade the facility to capture all leaving parties.
Reason it will probably happen after the event is because of this:
1. If police Blitz incoming cars, someone that's just been blitz'd will call their friend that is on their way and tell them not to come or they will be captured. If there are less people attending, that will mean there are less potential people for the cops to catch, AND the monitored event will not receive as much business (NOT peaceful to the surrounding business)
2. If they blitz after the event, the event has made their money (peaceful to the business) but this will also give opportunity to the blitz Plain clothed cops (Undercover) to view the potentially unsafe cars. They will also be able to catch ALL the vehicles streaming out of the event at the same time. Sure there may be some people leaving early that avoid it, but the payoff to the cops will be significant with the ones that they do catch.
This is honestly ridiculous. Everyone is pushing for a racetrack in Toronto to move racing from the streets, but the few tracks that are there are hard pressed by the Police to capture cars that are trying NOT to race on the street, but just have the potential. It really doesn't make any sense to me.
Why do I know about this? My car has been Blitzd before and removed from the streets. When I was preparing everything to fight the emissions ticket that they gave me in court, I did some research on Blitzing. Good luck guys. I hope the tips that I've received are incorrect. I however will probably not attend this event.
http://www.torontonissan.ca/forums/s...ead.php?t=3050
#4
10-09-2007, 08:24 AM
#5
10-09-2007, 08:28 AM
#6
10-09-2007, 09:27 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there's been so many of these laws popping up, it's rather scary, mostly because so much is left to the discretion of the officer. if we're going to have laws like this, i want the offenses clearly defined, with no room for abuse.
i'd also like a bit of respect. since respect always works best when it's mutual, some respect back would be nice, appropriate speedlimits on the highways for example, a change in tactic from targeting speeding, to targeting inconsiderate drivers, who for example don't use their indicators.
who's more dangerous? a driver doing 130 on an empty highway, or someone changing lanes without indicating in heavy but flowing traffic, or cutting across 2 lanes without indicating?
my favorite solution is to make the driving exam stricter, including an IQ test, social responsibility, and a personality profile, and have to do it every renewal period: basically, get the stupid, socially irresponsible people off the road, as well as those who aren't stable enough to stay responsible.
then leave the rest of us alone...
i'd also like a bit of respect. since respect always works best when it's mutual, some respect back would be nice, appropriate speedlimits on the highways for example, a change in tactic from targeting speeding, to targeting inconsiderate drivers, who for example don't use their indicators.
who's more dangerous? a driver doing 130 on an empty highway, or someone changing lanes without indicating in heavy but flowing traffic, or cutting across 2 lanes without indicating?
my favorite solution is to make the driving exam stricter, including an IQ test, social responsibility, and a personality profile, and have to do it every renewal period: basically, get the stupid, socially irresponsible people off the road, as well as those who aren't stable enough to stay responsible.
then leave the rest of us alone...
#7
10-09-2007, 10:56 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to legislate behaviour (it seems to be the trend) is more than just a bit oppressive.
I agree that it's a social problem, on both sides. We're in the middle of a "cars are cool" phase, kids continue to be kids, and for some reason the government feels the need to discipline everybody. It's a bandage solution.
Originally Posted by pjames
including an IQ test, social responsibility, and a personality profile, ... basically, get the stupid, socially irresponsible people off the road, as well as those who aren't stable enough to stay responsible.
then leave the rest of us alone...
then leave the rest of us alone...
Trending Topics
#8
10-09-2007, 06:22 PM
I drive Hwy 50 everyday and today got to see first hand the area where this most recent accident occured. Not a pretty site to say the least, you can see some debris still around and all the police spray paint on the road marking out tire marks, etc. etc. Just knowing a couple of women actually died there on Saturday is a chilling thought.
Not to mention I have had my share of close calls near there myself, most recently a pick-up truck swerved to miss the rear end of a tractor trailer ended up coming right at me as he swerved into on coming traffic right in front of me. He skidded sideways and just passed me, close enough that I had rubber from his tires on my windshield.
This new law has done nothing as far that I can see, in fact seems the new speed limit on the 407 lately has been 140-145 kph, just under the 50 over law. I guess people think 45 over and a few hundred $$ is cheap compared to car impounded and fined $2000.
Not to mention I have had my share of close calls near there myself, most recently a pick-up truck swerved to miss the rear end of a tractor trailer ended up coming right at me as he swerved into on coming traffic right in front of me. He skidded sideways and just passed me, close enough that I had rubber from his tires on my windshield.
This new law has done nothing as far that I can see, in fact seems the new speed limit on the 407 lately has been 140-145 kph, just under the 50 over law. I guess people think 45 over and a few hundred $$ is cheap compared to car impounded and fined $2000.
Last edited by G-Force; 10-09-2007 at 06:25 PM.
#9
10-09-2007, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by G-Force
I drive Hwy 50 everyday and today got to see first hand the area where this most recent accident occured. Not a pretty site to say the least, you can see some debris still around and all the police spray paint on the road marking out tire marks, etc. etc. Just knowing a couple of women actually died there on Saturday is a chilling thought.
Not to mention I have had my share of close calls near there myself, most recently a pick-up truck swerved to miss the rear end of a tractor trailer ended up coming right at me as he swerved into on coming traffic right in front of me. He skidded sideways and just passed me, close enough that I had rubber from his tires on my windshield.
Not to mention I have had my share of close calls near there myself, most recently a pick-up truck swerved to miss the rear end of a tractor trailer ended up coming right at me as he swerved into on coming traffic right in front of me. He skidded sideways and just passed me, close enough that I had rubber from his tires on my windshield.
#10
10-09-2007, 08:55 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: t dot dot dot
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 50 over doesn't really bother me, but as some of you pointed out, it's the fact that it's pretty much your word vs a cop that might be having a bad day for lane changes, chirping tires, etc.
Just going to the gym tonight, I saw a cop car turn left without signaling, another chirping his tires on a u-turn, and a ttc bus going 60-65 in a 40 zone up Royal York (as some of you may know, a bus going that fast on a small street like that is dangerous) ...
I don't know, this whole thing stinks! Seems like they are trying to take an easy way out of a complicated problem? Some extra $$$ for the government salaries? In bed with the insurance companies? Trying to get more people to use public transportation?
Troy (the conspiracy theorist)
Just going to the gym tonight, I saw a cop car turn left without signaling, another chirping his tires on a u-turn, and a ttc bus going 60-65 in a 40 zone up Royal York (as some of you may know, a bus going that fast on a small street like that is dangerous) ...
I don't know, this whole thing stinks! Seems like they are trying to take an easy way out of a complicated problem? Some extra $$$ for the government salaries? In bed with the insurance companies? Trying to get more people to use public transportation?
Troy (the conspiracy theorist)
#11
10-10-2007, 08:29 AM
Originally Posted by BigG
The 50 over doesn't really bother me, but as some of you pointed out, it's the fact that it's pretty much your word vs a cop that might be having a bad day for lane changes, chirping tires, etc.
Just going to the gym tonight, I saw a cop car turn left without signaling, another chirping his tires on a u-turn, and a ttc bus going 60-65 in a 40 zone up Royal York (as some of you may know, a bus going that fast on a small street like that is dangerous) ...
I don't know, this whole thing stinks! Seems like they are trying to take an easy way out of a complicated problem? Some extra $$$ for the government salaries? In bed with the insurance companies? Trying to get more people to use public transportation?
Troy (the conspiracy theorist)
Just going to the gym tonight, I saw a cop car turn left without signaling, another chirping his tires on a u-turn, and a ttc bus going 60-65 in a 40 zone up Royal York (as some of you may know, a bus going that fast on a small street like that is dangerous) ...
I don't know, this whole thing stinks! Seems like they are trying to take an easy way out of a complicated problem? Some extra $$$ for the government salaries? In bed with the insurance companies? Trying to get more people to use public transportation?
Troy (the conspiracy theorist)
#12
10-10-2007, 09:06 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this referendum on MMP goes through, the government's going to need a lot of extra cash to pay for all those new MPPs, their support staff, etc, etc. I think the new law is just the government's way of trying to get those additional funds out of the citizenry in a creative way.
How's that for conspiracy theory?
How's that for conspiracy theory?
#13
10-10-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by kamalster
If this referendum on MMP goes through, the government's going to need a lot of extra cash to pay for all those new MPPs, their support staff, etc, etc. I think the new law is just the government's way of trying to get those additional funds out of the citizenry in a creative way.
How's that for conspiracy theory?
How's that for conspiracy theory?
hope everyone gets a chance to vote tonight !
#15
10-10-2007, 10:22 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new law is just par for the course for Dalton McGuinty's nanny state. And yes, it's already come into effect as of Sept. 30 and apparently since then the cops have been impounding cars across the province at a rate of one every 25 minutes or so. If you figure an average fine of $5,000 per incident (somewhere between the $2k min and $10k max), that's additional revenues for the government of $288,000 PER DAY.