dang... that's pretty crazy. At least the proceeds go back to the drivers and not like Ontario where they crush cars.

highly doubt there parents really cares if there kids get the cars impounded bet you all that they have a back up porsche in the back yard or a maserati or others luxury cars. 7 days is just too easy for them. Most parents who let their kids drive ferrari and luxury cars ask them not to die and try not kill others ( speeding is known the first point given the keys to them.) SPEED @ A TRACK !!!

so you're saying you've never sped before? We all have...


they were doing it in a resonable area... at least it wasn't in the city or something.


I think the article and the whole situation is being WAY over exaggerated.......


"bullshit asshole no one likes the tuna here"

I've got to agree that what has taken place here is extremely unjust.

It's one thing to impose tough penalties where everyone is subject to the same punishment, as in if you're doing 40kmph over the speed limit, regardless of whether you're in a Civic or a Ferrari, it's the same excessive speeding ticket...

But for this totally arbitrary rule to seize and force the sale of your vehicle, and keep a PERCENTAGE of the amount? That's a whole other story. Why does the person speeding in a Civic only get penalized like what may amount to $3000, but the person speeding in the Ferrari get penalized $47000? Makes absolutely zero sense. They both committed the exact same crime.

thank you poke ur mom master

its like any sports. nba..nhl....gotta make an example out of the player. they got the book thrown at them

i think its silly that a sizeable portion of the sale goes back to the driver; i can see why they did it but meh a suiting punishment would be 0% goes to the owner

Besides #2, all of the reasons would be valid in pretty much any type of speeding + driving without due care (which is a subjective matter as determined by the officer) situation.

I didn't know I could get money back on something I forfeited. They should just give all the money to CHARITY.

50% of the vehicle's "owner" was 100% innocent.

Even #2 is subjective, as the key word is "ESTIMATED"

No, you're not reading it correctly. Its only a loss of $50g.

I forgot which country it was, but it was somewhere in Europe. Their speeding tickets are based on your [family] wealth/ income.
So a high-school kid, working at McDonald...speeding 10km/h over the limit vs. Bill Gate's son speeding 10km/h would be fined differently...
I guess in a way, it makes sense. A $167 speeding ticket might be a big number to some of us. However...to some people, its just a matter of loose change.

The govt has no right to seize and dispose of the property while keeping a percentage of proceeds. There would be a difference if there were 3rd party injuries or deaths involved and there was a civil judgement against the drivers for compensation. Then it is between the insurance companies and the defendent to come up with the $$. Here there has been no damage to society.

These bozos need better lawyers!

no no i got that but the other 50% is split 30/20 with 30 going to the driver and 20 to the govt.

i'm assuming if it was 1 owner 80% would go to the owner and 20 to the govt



the govt has every right actually; whether you feel its right or wrong is another matter your so called "rights" can be suspended in cases like these etc

if they were to contest this law and won the govt could still override it (google "notwithstanding clause")

I think the key point here is THEY WERE GOING 200KM/H and nearly hit a woman and her kids along with breaking the other rules. Does the reasoning and such seem strange? Yes. Do the end results (for the most part) seem just to me? Yes.

Personally, I like the idea of basing a ticket on a person/families income (see above). And I definitely think this is a good way to sink the message in for some of those rich fuckers who don't care about a regular speeding/excessive speeding ticket. Does it suck for the owner/co-owner of the car? Yes, but you should watch who you loan your car too.

Side thought: The "owner" could be the guys dad, and "co-owner" his mom. Just sayin.

Would it make you feel better if the seize was after a injury/death occured? By then, it would be too late. Even if it was a fine of $250, 000.... that would not be enough to bring back a life of a loss one.

I don't get the system though.

On the Ferrari, 50% of the proceed will go to the other co-owner. So, does that mean that the loophole here is that you should never streetrace a car under your own name? And what if the car was "borrowed"?

Unless the gov't still takes 30% despite who the owner is, I think there's a big hole here.

^mmmm, that's somewhat of a good point, I was gonna disagree, but after a second longer thinking, it's like being an accessory, the other person should pay the 30% penalty as well... Consider though that the Ferrari is worth twice as much as the M6, the line between just and unjust can be protested more aggressively the larger the sum of cash that you're making people pay.

Yeah, I know about system where your fine is proportional to your income... but even that makes more sense than what occurred here.

In this case, it is strictly based on what vehicle was used, which is dumb.

What if the Civic driver is a billionaire, but the Ferrrari driver spent all his money on the car? Billionaire gets fined $3000, but Ferrari guy loses $47000?

Oh, here's a good one. What if the Ferrari wasn't even owned, but leased? Whats the government going to do then?

It's such a ridiculous rule.

Someone wrote "The moral of the story is... if you're going to go 200kmph, make sure it's in a stolen vehicle."

^whole new mentality of " drive it like you stole it " then =.=

exactly, any exotic pedal to the metal is gonna be fucking loud as hell. Hell anything revs 9000rpm will be loud, any sport bike will be loud because they rev 15,000rpm.
A civic with buddy club 3 full exhaust will be loud as fuck, are they doing 200km? no, more like 100km down the street. Idiot by stander gonna say GEE that sound slike 120db they must be traveling faster than the speed of sound wave. :rolleyes:

fine $50g, the point is it should've been a fucking $1500 ticket not $50g. IN this case they are lucky motherfuckers because $50g loss to them is pocket change since they drive ferrari, more than you can afford pal. What if its some regular joe, driving s2k, E46 m3, G35, STi blasting down? should they take a $50g loss too? or $25g loss? which is still quite a load of bullshit either way it goes down the drain

who cares. is not our ferrari, and i think most of us on RS won't be as stupid as this guy to drive 2x over the speed limit.

totally agree, i guess just because they are the goverment they think they can claim and % of the total value and call it a day? :bullshit:
street racing or speeding kills what? 10% of the traffic fatality? does it happen every single day? every minute? no

idiot dumbass who runs red light, not turning when they are suppose to, tailgating causing people road rage does way more damage

This would only apply to people who earn their money responsibly in Canada. But when people actually earn enough money to afford a car that can easily hit 200km/h (ferrari,lambo etc), they ought to be smart enough to know not to drive at that speed anywhere but a track.

I think the issue most people have here are the 18-21 year old N drivers with their nice cars and the need for speed. Unfortunately many of these people, their family or main moneymaker is overseas and are only asset heavy but very little income in Canada. Thats something for the CRA to do, nor does ICBC/Police have the right to go over someone's family's income in China or another part of the world because of a speeding ticket.

agreed. especially on a ferrari; a head turner. you're so much more likely to get caught.