How will officers differentiate between "race" and "pass"

[sebberry]

"race" means circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the highway, traffic, visibility and weather, the driver or operator of a motor vehicle is driving or operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual by doing any of the following:

(a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;

(b) preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing;

(c) driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles;

Pretty simple question - since according to these regulations, a "street race" doesn't necessarily require two participants to actively agree on and engage in an act that involves a start and finish line, the simple act of passing appears to fall under the new legal definition of racing.

What criteria must be met in order to establish that a race is taking place?

[sho_bc]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What criteria must be met in order to establish that a race is taking place?

Not to be too much of a smart-ass, but you answered your own question. The definition and criteria needed is answered in your own quote. As mentioned at the beginning, varying circumstances will dictate whether or not it is considered a "race". Just like in the situation of "drive without due care", there is no one right answer for this and depends on the totality of circumstances.

*note* you mentioned "street race" in your post, however this law is not about street racing specifically and as such there isn't any mention of "street racing" in its wording.

[stevo911_]

The part I find interesting is that they can assume your intentions/motivations

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

Not to be too much of a smart-ass, but you answered your own question. The definition and criteria needed is answered in your own quote. As mentioned at the beginning, varying circumstances will dictate whether or not it is considered a "race". Just like in the situation of "drive without due care", there is no one right answer for this and depends on the totality of circumstances.

*note* you mentioned "street race" in your post, however this law is not about street racing specifically and as such there isn't any mention of "street racing" in its wording.

You didn't come off as a smart-ass. I suspected that such vague and open wording would form the framework of what officers have to base their decision to impound on.

I can't believe that someone is at risk of losing their car due to their natural tendency to speed up when the car next to them is also speeding up to pass.

Something with such harsh and immediate consequences with no chance of a fair legal fight really should be governed by much a more detailed set of regulations.

Heck, even looking at this from the other way around - based on what is written in the act, how can I tell specifically what constitutes "racing". For how long do I have to appear to be preventing another car from passing?

What if I am speeding up to the speed limit while another vehicle attempts to pass? Does that make me a racer?

If I do feel like I am at risk for being considered "racing", how many seconds do I have to abort whatever it is that I am doing in attempt to avert the developing situation before my car is taken away from me?

The problem I have with this law is the vagueness of the wording combined with the immediacy and duration of the punishments. If it was something like running a red light, well that's pretty cut and dry.

"Attempting to outdistance or attempting to prevent someone from passing"... no officer will stand at the roadside listening to some young driver's explanation that he wasn't "attempting" to do anything.

[BallPeenHammer2]

So here's a question.

Imaginary scenario:

I'm driving down the road going, iono, 60-65 k in a 60 zone.

Cop pulls me over/waves me down. Dings me with excessive speeding (maybe he had a bad day, maybe he didn't calibrate the gun, misread/judged it, whatever).

My car gets impounded. License taken away, etc the whole 9 yards. Get fined and pay a bunch of money, etc.

I dispute the ticket. I win. What now? Do I pay a bunch of money and get inconvenienced for someone else's mistake? Or do I get all that money back?
Who will pay me for my lost time, or even worse, if I lose my job over it?

Just wondering, although this may be an extreme example.

[MWR34]

Originally Posted by BallPeenHammer2

So here's a question.

Imaginary scenario:

I'm driving down the road going, iono, 60-65 k in a 60 zone.

Cop pulls me over/waves me down. Dings me with excessive speeding (maybe he had a bad day, maybe he didn't calibrate the gun, misread/judged it, whatever).

My car gets impounded. License taken away, etc the whole 9 yards. Get fined and pay a bunch of money, etc.

I dispute the ticket. I win. What now? Do I pay a bunch of money and get inconvenienced for someone else's mistake? Or do I get all that money back?
Who will pay me for my lost time, or even worse, if I lose my job over it?

Just wondering, although this may be an extreme example.

Police officers are human beings, and if your driving like a dick, except the shaft.

If they see you putting along a steady pace, passing a car or two most of the time they wont do anything. Signal, keep your distance, and drive safe.

if your going 60 - 65, in a 60 zone, as your example mentioned.. how would 0-5kms over the limit result in a excessive speeding ticket? let alone impounding and fee's.

[sho_bc]

I think he was reaching into a far, far away hypothetical "what if" place.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

I think he was reaching into a far, far away hypothetical "what if" place.

But I wasn't. I would still like to know what technically constitutes a race.

[sho_bc]

Again, you already have your answer in your original post. The rest is going to be bound by officer discretion/case law.

If you want to interpret it literally, any "Drive Without Consideration" or "Drive Without Due Care" ticket falls under that definition of "race".

[gars]

people like to complain that laws are too absolute sometimes. As in, they think that speed should be relative, and people should only be ticketed if they're deemed a danger to other drivers.

on the other hand - they complain that this law is too vague - because it will leave it up to the driver to determine if they were racing...

[Soundy]

The real question is, how will sebbery differentiate between a million responses, and what he considers an "acceptable" answer? Doesn't matter what you say, sho_bc; doesn't matter how black-and-white the law; he'll find a way to have a problem with it.

[BallPeenHammer2]

Originally Posted by sho_bc

I think he was reaching into a far, far away hypothetical "what if" place.

Precisely.

This is highlly improbable to happen, but what if it does, since Sho mentioned that it was up to the discretion of the officer.

I know burnaby RCMP will have to laser a vehicle to consititue it, and must be over 40kph (stated to me by an officer of burnaby rcmp).

I've had a case of a pullover where I was going down the street, the officer on the other direction. Pull a u-turn, stop me, and told me I was going 90 in a 60 zone. (I wasn't. it was 2am, and I was 3 blocks from my old place, slowly puttering home)

I ended up winning the dispute, with the officer threatening me before the start of the hearing. I knew at that time I was going to win, because I was actually driving 55. but still, a powertrippin cop pulled me over and thought she could get away with it. Or maybe her equipment was malfunctioning.

Either way, no one paid for my day's lost wages on that.

[Soundy]

You could come up far-flung, far-fetched maybes and what-ifs and hypotheticals all day long to illustrate POSSIBLE ways a law could be misused or mis-applied or just plain mistaken... doesn't mean it isn't a good law that won't be effective or beneficial 99% of the time.

[BallPeenHammer2]

We'll see.

And read my post again. It's already happened to me before, albiet quite a few years ago.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You could come up far-flung, far-fetched maybes and what-ifs and hypotheticals all day long to illustrate POSSIBLE ways a law could be misused or mis-applied or just plain mistaken... doesn't mean it isn't a good law that won't be effective or beneficial 99% of the time.

We already had laws to deal with aggressive and dangerous drivers.

Now if a "race" ticket was a disputable $400 fine and no immediate impoundment, that might be better. Officers are people and people make mistakes in judgement all the time. And as BPH2 has proven, the mistakes can be quite big but they shouldn't lead to an immediate, non-disputable and irreversible impoundment.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

We already had laws to deal with aggressive and dangerous drivers.

And yet we still have issues with aggressive and dangerous drivers, don't we? Obviously some people weren't getting the message. Just look at the other threads related to this... one poster sped all he wanted and just considered the occasional $400 ticket to be the cost of doing business, easily shrugged off. How do you get through to someone with that mentality?

Now if a "race" ticket was a disputable $400 fine and no immediate impoundment, that might be better.

That was already an "excessive speed" ticket. "Racing" by definition adds an aggressiveness and "selfishness" to that, which necessarily requires a stiffer penalty.

Doesn't matter what you do, that "x-factor" of cops being human will always be there... the idiots you're targeting are also human, though, and at some point you have to put the x-factor aside and just get on with it, as something needs to be done to deal with idiots.

But you still haven't answered MY question. Instead of just constantly finding problems with things, how about coming up with some usable solutions?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

And yet we still have issues with aggressive and dangerous drivers, don't we? Obviously some people weren't getting the message. Just look at the other threads related to this... one poster sped all he wanted and just considered the occasional $400 ticket to be the cost of doing business, easily shrugged off. How do you get through to someone with that mentality?


That was already an "excessive speed" ticket. "Racing" by definition adds an aggressiveness and "selfishness" to that, which necessarily requires a stiffer penalty.

Doesn't matter what you do, that "x-factor" of cops being human will always be there... the idiots you're targeting are also human, though, and at some point you have to put the x-factor aside and just get on with it, as something needs to be done to deal with idiots.

But you still haven't answered MY question. Instead of just constantly finding problems with things, how about coming up with some usable solutions?

The current laws targeting aggressive drivers weren't being enforced. I have never seen anyone get pulled over for "following too closely". They even make laser guns that can calculate following distance and alert the operator if it is too close. I wonder if those are in use here?

Usable solutions? I've always said that aggressive driving should be enforced. If it was, we wouldn't need these ridiculous racing laws and associated penalties.

As for the $400 tickets being a "cost of business" for excessive speeders and street-racers.. impoundment will also be a "cost of business" for those who will continue to drive aggressively. People will still take the risk, and innocent people will end up being caught and penalized for nothing.


The mere fact that an appeals process for reimbursement of impound and other expenses exists shows that there WILL be innocent people forced to deal with the inconvenience and embarrassment or immediate roadside suspensions.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

As for the $400 tickets being a "cost of business" for excessive speeders and street-racers.. impoundment will also be a "cost of business" for those who will continue to drive aggressively.

Yes, but at some point they'll run out of cars. Even taking their license for an extended period won't STOP them from driving (although it will greatly increase the penalties if they're caught). However, cost or not, if they don't have a ride, they can't speed, and they're no longer a danger.

The mere fact that an appeals process for reimbursement of impound and other expenses exists shows that there WILL be innocent people forced to deal with the inconvenience and embarrassment or immediate roadside suspensions.

Well then aren't you glad that the possibility of this was recognized and addressed in advance?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Well then aren't you glad that the possibility of this was recognized and addressed in advance?

You're ok with innocent people having their cars taken away?

[6793026]

it's a very "subjective" assessment so that's why police are enforcer of the law and the judge has a different role.

we had cops pull people over with two cars, car 1 was the bf's car, car 2 behind it was gf. going the same speed one behind each other and we were questioned where we are going. Destination was the bf's house and the police officer said, since you two looked like you were speeding and driving and going to the same destination, I could've given you a ticket for illegal street racing... anyhoo... he only gave us speeding tickets in the end but how "because we are going to the same destination = street racing" was beyond me.

[sebberry]

A good example of why officers should not be the judge, jury and executioner.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You're ok with innocent people having their cars taken away?

Something extreme needed to be done to address the REAL issue. I'm NOT okay with sitting back and doing nothing about it just because there's a very slim chance that in a very few cases someone will get the short end of the stick. There's an appeal process to deal with that.

The opportunity for mistakes and/or abuse or anything in between exists with any way you choose to deal with any crime. I'm okay with the fact that this VERY REMOTE possibility was considered and addressed in advance.

If our system worked on your kind of thinking, first-degree murder would still be legal, while lawyers sat around tossing out far-flung situations where an innocent person might be convicted. Would you prefer that sort of society?

Sure, sometimes an innocent person gets convicted of murder too... and there's an appeal process to deal with that too. And there's a compensation and repayment process to go with it, if the person is later found innocent.

I'll live with the possibility that one or two innocents might get tagged with this, if it means a couple dozen dangerous assholes are off the road in the process.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

I'll live with the possibility that one or two innocents might get tagged with this, if it means a couple dozen dangerous assholes are off the road in the process.

The way I look at it, the chance that I will be mis-labelled as a racer is just as good, if not better than my chance of being hit by a real racer.

I'm not happy with those odds. I don't have a second car to drive while mine sits and rusts in an impound lot somewhere.

What's wrong with delaying the impoundment until after a court hearing determines that the driver was in fact racing?

And no, I would not have murder legal in the off-chance someone innocent is convicted.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The way I look at it, the chance that I will be mis-labelled as a racer is just as good, if not better than my chance of being hit by a real racer.

And what about the chance of anyone else being hit by a racer?

The point is to get them off the road, BEFORE they hit someone.

What's wrong with delaying the impoundment until after a court hearing determines that the driver was in fact racing?

Doesn't really have the same impact as seeing your car hauled away leaving you standing on the side of the road, does it? I expect a lot more wannabe-Schumachers will be watching their speed after the first time that happens.

And no, I would not have murder legal in the off-chance someone innocent is convicted.

Not intentionally, maybe... it would just get caught up in your red-tape-wrapped "what ifs".

Founding Father: "Hey, this killing another person thing is pretty bad, we should have some really harsh laws against it."
Sebbery: "Yeah, but what if a cop is having a bad day and wrongfully arrests someone for murder? You should let everyone accused of murder just walk around loose until their trial, just in case they're actually innocent!"

[sebberry]

Hey, I'm not the one comparing murder to "intent to attempt to prevent someone from getting somewhere before me"...