Busters crushes wrong car by mistake

[Great68]

Originally Posted by sebberry

It's a pretty big cock-up. Someone needs to be fired for it. The only reason this hasn't sparked more outrage is because the car is 20 years old.

They don't make what I drive anymore. Most of the used ones available aren't in good shape. Finding a replacement for my car would be damn near impossible.

I'd be beyond pissed if there was a radar gun/ASD error, my car got impounded as a result and subsequently crushed. I've never been one to seek revenge, but that would put me pretty damn close.

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.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by taylor192

My parents pay less than $1000 for 4 vehicles in Ontario, cause they are 60 with very long clean driving records.

My little brother paid $3000 in Ontario for motorcycle insurance his first year, while I paid $1200 in BC on similar bikes (my bike is actually larger displacement) with similar ages and driving records.

I was paying $1200 for full coverage on my car in Ontario, even with an at-fault accident in the last 5 years. The lowest quote I found in BC added up to $1800.

Thus it is all relative, hard to generalize across the board.

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.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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

[Great68]

Originally Posted by sebberry

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

Yeah no doubt.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by gars

The thing is - a mistake was made by Busters. The same mistake could have been made if he had parked illegally and had his car towed. Should the towing of illegally parked cars be questioned if that were to happen?

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'd be beyond pissed if there was a radar gun/ASD error, my car got impounded as a result and subsequently crushed. I've never been one to seek revenge, but that would put me pretty damn close.

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:

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'd be beyond pissed if the meter maid's watch was 10 minutes fast, my car got impounded as a result and subsequently crushed. I've never been one to seek revenge, but that would put me pretty damn close.

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.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by taylor192

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.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

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.

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

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Soundy

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

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"

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

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

"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.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Great68

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"

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.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by taylor192

If your kid screws up the law allows the victim to go after their parents for damages.

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

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.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Soundy

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.

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.

[Bainne]

Originally Posted by Soundy

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

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

[MWR34]

I love Busters Image.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Great68

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"

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.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Bainne

By law, if a thief is caught excessively speeding in a stolen vehicle, the vehicle will be impounded at the owners expense.

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.

[narfy]

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...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by taylor192

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.

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.

[Great68]

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.

[gars]

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.

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

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.

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.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Great68

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.

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!