I think the impoundment law is as stupid as you do, but I don't think it's fair to blame the law for Buster's screw up in this case.

What I'm more concerned about was the story I heard on the news this morning about the kid who was doing 160 on the Pat Bay in his mom's car. Now his mom is without a car and has to suffer punishment for a crime she had no involvment in.

I know someone's going to say "Serves her right for trusting her kid with her car" or "She obviously raise the kid right if he's doing those speeds when driving" or "Shouldn't lend out your car blah blah blah". Screw that Bullshit.

I want to see Mike De Jong's kid get his car impounded on him. That would be so great.

I'd be much happier if excessive speeding carried an instant month long driving ban rather than impoundment. Then only people involved in the crime would be punished.

Back when my car was new, I was paying $1900 here to insure it. At the same time I did the online quote generator for insurance in Edmonton. The quotes were between $3500-$6000. Remember, people drive much more safely due to the photo radar system, so you'd think the insurance would be cheaper.

Just wait until the civil forfeiture office catches wind of the incident. They'll want to jump all over that ;)

Yeah no doubt.

There's no good way to enforce the ban, people just drive anyways. Some of the eastern provinces setup road blocks just to check for valid license/insurance cause it is such a problem.

Its not BS. If your kid screws up the law allows the victim to go after their parents for damages. If you don't like it, don't have kids, or beat them so they know the toughest punishment will be waiting at home if they screw up.

I'm curious, would you be this vehement about the accuracy of parking enforcement officers' watches if gars' scenario was the case? Let's see how this reads:

Seems to me there's MUCH higher chance of an error in impounding the car in this case... so why aren't you crusading against cars being towed for parking illegally? There are probably 10 times as many cars towed from no-stopping zones in rush hour in Vancouver alone, every day than there are for excessive speed/DUI in a week.

She gave the kid the keys. How was she not involved?

Towing in all but the most extreme cases is theft in my books.

:rolleyes:

Yeah and as he was heading out the door she told him "And make sure you go 160 down the pat bay!!! Love you son"

:bullshit:

"theft (θɛft)

— n
1. criminal law the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession"

Seeing as there's nothing dishonest about any of these tow-aways, and certainly no intention of permanently depriving the owner of the car, none of these circumstances fit the definition... except maybe in your world of "fairy tales and pixie dust".

You try driving down Broadway anywhere between Granville and Main St. around 4pm on a weekday, and just see if the car left parked in the right lane there since before 3pm doesn't warrant being towed away.

Somehow, I can't imagine this is the first time the kid ever broke the speed limit... or that the mother didn't know her kid had a lead foot. At that age, she's still legally responsible for his behavior.

As far as I can tell, only in small claims court, where property damage or loss has occurred.

Part 2 — Parent's Liability and Bringing an Action

Parent's liability
3 Subject to section 6 and Part 3, if a child intentionally takes, damages or destroys property of another person, a parent of the child is liable for the loss of or damage to the property experienced as a result by an owner and by a person legally entitled to possession of the property.

Small Claims Act
4 An action under this Act must be commenced under the Small Claims Act.

Parental Responsibility Act


:seriously:

She would have known this how? By speeding tickets he may or may not have received? I'm sure he would have shown them all to her.

Parental responsibilty aside, the law does not punish the perpetrator, it only serves to maximize revenue through the highest fines. By law, if a thief is caught excessively speeding in a stolen vehicle, the vehicle will be impounded at the owners expense.

Yes a parent has a responsibility to ensure their child is being responsible, but how can you justify that the parent or car owner or car lender should be held MORE culpable for the "misbehavior" than the actual perpetrator
Posted via RS Mobile

I love Busters Image.

Its no different than if he caused an accident by driving like an idiot and the parent loses usage of the car for the time it takes to repair it, or usage for awhile if insurance rates go sky high and they cannot afford to continue insuring it. Its the risks of giving your kids your car, hell a lot of private insurance companies have pamphlets outlining this.

If you give keys away, especially to a younger inexperienced driver, you gotta slightly assume you might not get the car back in one piece and have to find alternative transportation.

This is the only situation which I think the law should have a clause for, where the usage of your car was beyond your control.

icbc offered him $1300... which is $1300 more than i just paid for a 91 tercel from the original owner, in prestine condition, with a rebuilt engine, new clutch and a clean title with zero accidents...

While the mother granted the son permission to drive the car, it is the son's responsibility to operate it according to the law. The mother had no control over how the car was driven while under the care and control of the son.

It'd be kind of like the son taking one of the mother's kitchen knives, stabbing someone and then trying to hold the mother criminally responsible for having the knives accessible in the kitchen. That would be pretty absurd, this situation isn't a whole lot different to me.

I don't think the Mom should be held responsible for her son's actions. But that doesn't exempt the car from being impounded should the son be caught drinking or driving, or excessively speeding. Unless of course, the son took the vehicle without her permission - in which case - he essentially stole the vehicle.

Let's see. Son takes the knife and stabs someone with it. Son get's arrested and the knife is taken as evidence.

In this case, son takes the car and does something stupid with it. Car is impounded.

Both cases the mom loses the use of an item.

No one said the mom is criminally responsible for the son speeding, but she does lose the use of her car. No different than if her son crashed the car. She too would be out of a car to use.

Stop living in a land of fairy tales. My insurance works the same way, it punishes me, the owner, regardless of whomever I toss the keys to if they have an accident.

Replace knife with gun and you'd have a much better example. Guns requires registration and licensing to use... kinda like... wait for it... a car! :facepalm: