An Ontario Provencal court judge today ruled the stunting law to be unconstitutional.

Yay awesome.

all the info I have at the moment and I haven't found anything online - I just was relayed this by a friend who is in the know.

 

Took them this long to realize it? At least its good news.

thewird

 

From one of my old professor's blog. I'll post up the actual case when I get my hands on it.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2...itutional.html

Friday's (September 4) decision from Napanee from Ontario Court of Justice Judge G J Griffin in R v Raham, 2009 ONCJ 403 holds the stunt racing by excessive speed law to be unconstitutional. This decision has been eagerly awaited.
The decision is unreported and I do not have an electronic copy -- I have a rather poor photocopy and that was not easy to obtain -- and so I will describe the decision in some detail.

The decision is clear stunt driving by excessive speed contrary to s 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and O Reg 455/07 fails.

The reasoning is that the excessive speed section of the definition of stunt (the 50 km/hr over the speed limit) is an absolute liability offence. No mental element is required to find guilt and no due diligence defence will avoid guilt. This conclusion, which differs from many Justice of the Peace decisions, is based largely on the language of O Reg 455/07 which refers to intention in regarding several ways a stunt can occur but not with regard to speed.

Considering a possible due diligence defence the Court held any such defence was implausible and that suggested absolute liability.

In other cases speeding, in the sense of breaking the speed limit, has been found to be an absolute liability offence.

The Court reviewed the traditional tests to distinguish absolute and strict liability and found stunt driving by excessive speed to be absolute liability.

The Court noted that the provision in question, while called stunt driving and punished potentially by jail, might more properly be called driving at extremely excessive speed. In effect the offence was one of super speeding.

As a matter of constitutional law, an absolute liability offence tied to a potential prison sentence breaches s 7 of the Charter. The principles of fundamental justice forbid imprisonment without some mental element -- some wrongful mens rea, even if limited to being able to avoid conviction by showing due diligence.

Here the Court, noting that stunt driving can lead to jail time, found a breach of s 7 of the Charter.

Surprisingly, perhaps, the Crown acknowledged that if there was a breach of s 7 of the Charter such breach could not be saved by s 1 of the Charter.

Hence, the stunt driving law, as to speed, fails.

 

I do not like the law but it a definite attempt in the right direction. If this fails they need to bring something back that carries a very stiff penalty. *Now*I will be the first to admit I have exceeded 50+km/hr on MANY occasions. I am not trying to pretend like I am some angel but there is a place and time for driving that fast and that is not the streets.

Oh well, what can you do?

So who wants to have a race on the 401? =)

 

why does this need a very stiff penalty in the first place?

I still don't see the point of victimless crimes being punishable at all, especially not with "very stiff penalties".

We're talking about such a tiny fraction of the accidents on the highways here, one could argue that operating the radio while driving or getting into an argument with your S.O. behind the wheel is far more dangerous yet those aren't punished?

 

Unfortunately Dan, speeding is only a victimless crime if no one gets hurt. You slip up and put your car nose first into another and hurt/kill the driver, then not only is he a victim, but his entire family, and even the taxpayers, because we then have to pay for his medical treatment as well as the cost of prosecution and anything that results from it. But even if the law were to keep one person per year from dying because two jackasses in their Civics couldn't take it to the track, then it would be worth it. On the other hand, speeding is speeding, nothing more, nothing less, and so each case should be treated as such. There is no reason that crossing some meaningless number automatically means your racing/stunting/whatever. I could be going 50 over on some traffic free back road with a pointless 60KM/h limit and I would still be traveling at a lower speed than I drive on a freeway. So how can I be racing on that road but going faster on the 401 just cruising and that's nothing at all?

Again the biggest issue with this law in my opinion is the road side seizure of your license and car. No trial, no defense. Officer so and so is having a bad day and then pays it forward to you. The only reason that should be OK is in the case of obvious impairment, because you are not fully capable of controlling a vehicle at speed in those cases and pose a tremendous risk to the public. Even then I think the suspension is only a couple days for a first offense. At high speed I am focusing on nothing but the traffic and road conditions, which is more than I can say for a good portion of the people I pass on my drive to work.

Government sucks, and it's nice to see the **** getting thrown back in their faces just a little bit.

 

Quite so, and glad to hear at least part of that rubbish bit of legislation has been struck down. I think I posted a while back an opinion piece from the Calgary Sun, which looked at the mania for speed enforcement, versus what the government's own statistics, garnered primarily by the police, say are the main causes of accidents. They were Alberta stats, but I seriously doubt Ontario or anywhere else in North America is significantly different.

Driver error was cited as the primary cause of ~90% of accidents - failure to obey traffic control devices, distractions, and just plain dumb and or illegal driving behaviors. Speed, on the other hand, was cited as the primary factor in 6% of accidents, and a contributing factor in 26%, about the same as impaired driving (of course, "contributing" is rather subjective - arguably, if the vehicles never left the driveway, there'd never be accidents). Yet the vast majority of tickets written are speeding tickets, and most of them are written on highways or urban freeways, while most accidents happen at urban and rural intersections, or on roadways with 60km or lower limits.

Why so much enforcement effort should be directed to what the government's own statistics show as the one of the lesser factors in accidents and fatalities of course raises uncomfortable questions. There's the obvious cash-cow argument, which is blatantly obvious here, at least, because ticket revenues come back to both the local government and police, effectively encouraging the police to write their own paychecks. And speed enforcement is the low-hanging fruit of police work - easy, profitable pickings, versus more time and manpower being needed to catch other poor driver behaviors, let alone other crimes.

 

I entirely agree. I wish I could find the link to the data, but I had a link to data from Montana, which for the longest time had no posted speed limits on their freeways. It was interesting to examine the stats from a long period of time, which clearly demonstrated a dramatic increase in collisions after speed limits were put into place. The state's studies revealed that many collisions were caused by 'driver error', but it was the specific problem that was interesting.

People were having collisions because their driving habits had become lax. Lane discipline all but disappeared, because there was essentially no chance of having a vehicle cream you from behind at 100mph. Speeding enforcement is strictly a way for the government to 'tax' drivers, and has very little to do with ensuring public safety. And it doesn't work.. if it did, the # of people charged with speeding infractions would be going down, not up. It's asinine, but it's not likely to change.

Matt

 

Check out Stats Canada:

• 40% of fatalities occur at 60kph or less
• Street racing is not mentioned in stats (I analyzed US data for 2001 and street racing was cited as the cause for less than 1/2 of 1% of the fatalities that year)
• 76% of people admit to speeding - more evidence that "speeding" is not the cause of collisions
• Fatalitiy rate for Ontario is 6 per BILLION kms
• 34% of fatalities were not wearing seat belts - take these people's cars, please - or classify them as suicide and not traffic fatalities
• 35% were impaired

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2005/page7.htm

Of course, many speed limits are set via political pressure, as opposed to engineering design, so the definition of speeding is in itself poorly defined.

I disagree with 90% driver error, I believe it is 100% since poor maintenance is a human error and mechanical failures are statistically insignificant.

Here's an interesting link re an NHTSA report:
http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...y-5-of-crashes

I think we need tougher driver testing and that it should be repeated every 5 to 8 years.

I believe the racing law is a self-promotion project for the police - it gives them great media and allows them to get more funds for more police and toys like planes and helicopters.

The policemen that I have known flaunt the rules and regularly drive impaired. We live near a police station and see the cruisers run red lights and butt into traffic and even block intersections in heavy traffic.

[end of my rant]

 

I'm a huge advocate for harder, more comprehensive driver training. Over in European countries people start their training in their early teens, and it's not some **** defensive driving course like we have here. It's serious vehicle control training where they learn things like driving on ice, controlling spins, high speed obstacle avoidance, etc. That can cost thousands of dollars and take a number of years to earn a license. No wonder they have roads like the autobahn. They are capable of driving in **** weather or at "excessively" high speeds. If we had an autobahn here I would have absolutely no problem dropping a ton of money to get my license. At the very least re-testing every 5 years would ensure that drivers keep up on their abilities and would prevent unsafe drivers from retaining their licenses, keeping the accident risks due to poor driving to a minimum.

 

I don't even need to respond because the points have been made so accurately above here.

What we need to do is protest at the Ontario Parliament buildings and make our message clear - none of us want to live in a police state!

I just don't think it's worth losing freedom to gain some safety. And it's easy to argue that it's not even a gain.

 

I'd also propose that drivers be trained to properly maintain their cars.
I.E be forced to replace worn parts. I don't know how many people I see running around with near-bald tires in a car that's less than 6 y/o.

 

we definitely need harder driving tests, especially for seniors, in this past summer, i almost got into two accidents from seniors making left turns out of plazas while i was going at least 65kmph, had to full brake both times, almost gave me a heart attack, and they just turn pass me like i'm not even there

 

You guys all have valid points, while some of the facts might be arguable. I think we all agree with a few key points.

-The over turn is not a bad one.
-Their are better ways to deal poor driving habits.

 

^ That's right. Writing a ticket does not improve the drivers skill level. It just makes them more careful about getting caught next time. I know because I've had two speeding tickets in my car, and now I really only "speed" above my usual crusing speed in areas I've never seen police vehilces. It helps that I live in London and EVERYONE speeds here. 20 over is the norm and police cruisers routinely pass me. The only real fix is training, and lots of it. Otherwise we are doomed to be stuck in traffic trying to find a way around the idiot in the left lane with his left turn signal on going 90.

 

In some countries, that is a signal to the cars in front that you want to go fast so they should move out of the way...

thewird

 

yeah we need a tuner car protest like the truckers and farmers!!! you have to Obstruct traffic to prove your points in Ontario

 

That may be the last thing we need. When we consider the average age and maturity level of the people offended by these laws, such a protest is certainly going to result in plenty of reasons why the laws should be strengthened and not abolished.

Also I don't agree with the farmer/trucker protest. While they have the right to protest (under the Charter) I personally don't believe they have the right to close the busiest highway in North America, causing a few billion dollars in damage, for their cause.

 

^^Agreed. Protests that **** off large numbers of other people tend to be self-defeating. Natives get away with it because while they **** off loads of non-natives, their beef is with the government and the government is afraid to say their $#|7 stinks just like anyone else's. Apart from that a blockade protest is just likely to unite the police, government, and large numbers of the public in antipathy to tuners and car enthusiasts, who will just come off looking like the hooligans they've been trying to portray us as anyway.

 

I also am amazed at how there is a complete lack of accountability on the part of the driver's qualification system. It's amazing how some people are able to obtain and retain their driver's license.


You mean like countless U.S. states and countless other countries? No way, that doesn't make sense at all.

You would think they would have realized by now how much money could be made by instituting recurring safety inspections. I've always wondered why we have bi-annual emissions testing but no inspection of the parts of the vehicle which actually determine its occupants fate...

 

I don't think a protest that involves blocking traffic is a good idea, but a march on ontario parliament doesn't sound bad to me. Something still needs to get done. This is a great first step but it hasn't gone far enough yet. Victimless crimes being punished with jail time, property being seized without trial, I'm sorry but it's just far too police state for me.

 

[QUOTE=Terrh;9486272]

I just don't think it's worth losing freedom to gain some safety.QUOTE]

I agree completely. And to add to that, it's usually only a perceived sense of safety, an illusion. People need to realize they can do whatever the Hell they want and there will still never be a sterile world free of all unpleasant things. So in the meantime we should slow down on the damn totalitarian BS and at least have a somewhat free life. Look what the US has done: eroded its constitution with its DHS and the oh-so-inaccurately-named "Patriot Act". Again--a ridiculously exaggerated risk of actually being victimized by terrorism, a created boogey man, all to enforce bullshit that wouldn't stop terrorism anyway. And their country is ruined.

 

Again, I agree. I started a facebook group opposing this law months ago, but I had no takers. I kind of did it in the spirit of the kids who knocked down other proposals against young drivers. They got tonnes of members and presented it to the gov't, and struck down the ideas. We need BIG numbers if they are to care at all. Remember, we'd be up against the snivelling soccer mom in mini-vans with pouty little stories about feeling unsafe with her kids on the road. Being a bunch of male car enthusiasts, we'd be hard-pressed to sway the compassion our way. But, yes, something needs to be done. These f'n laws have made me want to leave Ontario at times.

 

I agree with those who say we need to totally overhaul the driver education system, and it has been something I have trumpeted for years.

We need far more mandatory education (skidpads, car control, evasive maneuvers, etc) and this stuff needs to be tested more then once. Bi-yearly tests involving a written test (can you believe how many people out on the road don't know what standard road signs mean?!) and then a driving simulator where several random events are thrown at the driver. Fail? Busted down to G1! Simply raise the cost of licensing to cover the new expenses. Mandatory tests for anyone over the age of 70 every year and a multi-tier system like Oz where new drivers are limited to the types of vehicles they can drive.

Oh, and remove the bullshit called "no fault insurance".

Notice that nowhere here did I mention any new laws or enforcement, because that flat out doesn't work and just screws with the people who take driving seriously.

 

^^ some good points there