[originalhypa]

You'd lose that argument. Speeding IS against the law... just not the Criminal Code. Something doesn't have be in the Criminal Code for it to be illegal.

Did you know that in BC, it's illegal to kill a Sasquatch?
Also, it's a federal offense for a citizen to publicly remove bandages.
In Victoria, it's illegal for street entertainers to give kids balloon animals.


So in effect, your argument is moot since there are some asinine laws still on the books... Or do you still blindly follow the letter of the law regardless of what your common sense tells you?

[donjalapeno]

why would they just take the cars and sell them? isnt it private property? so if i commit a crime in my house would they come in and arrest me and sell my house?.....they should of just taken away their license for like 2 years and a juicy fine

[Phat_R]

if you get caught doing 200 in a 60 the penalty should be roadside castration

that would stop speeding without fines or any of this seizure bs

[johny]

why would they just take the cars and sell them? isnt it private property? so if i commit a crime in my house would they come in and arrest me and sell my house?.....they should of just taken away their license for like 2 years and a juicy fine

goggle Bruce montague. he purposely let his gun license expire so he could fight the gun laws in court. the Ontario gov. arrested him (which he wanted so he could challenge the laws) then seized his house, because he was a criminal, so he couldn't use the equity towards lawyer fees. because the gov didn't want anyone beating them in court.

[penner2k]

goggle Bruce montague. he purposely let his gun license expire so he could fight the gun laws in court. the Ontario gov. arrested him (which he wanted so he could challenge the laws) then seized his house, because he was a criminal, so he couldn't use the equity towards lawyer fees. because the gov didn't want anyone beating them in court.

So the guy is in jail?
That would have been funny if a lawyer that is against the whole gun laws thing decided to take on the case free of charge. Or someone with a bunch of money just paid for his lawyer fees so he could fight it.

[Soundy]

goggle Bruce montague. he purposely let his gun license expire so he could fight the gun laws in court. the Ontario gov. arrested him (which he wanted so he could challenge the laws) then seized his house, because he was a criminal, so he couldn't use the equity towards lawyer fees. because the gov didn't want anyone beating them in court.

Sounds like another Marc Emery - intentionally thumb your nose at the law and then act all put-upon when it bites you in the ass.

[johny]

apparently another car was seized on Vancouver island yesterday??...

[johny]

edited

[StylinRed]

why would they just take the cars and sell them? isnt it private property? so if i commit a crime in my house would they come in and arrest me and sell my house?.....they should of just taken away their license for like 2 years and a juicy fine

u mean like grow op homes? yes they get seized (started happening a few years ago, and there was a huge uproar and appeals in courts but the govt. won)

but i think you probably mean another type of crime...

[dangonay]

goggle Bruce montague.
If you Google him, all you get are these idiotic sites trying to put their spin on his case by intentionally leaving out key details. There's a lot more to his case than "I don't want to register my gun - OK we're going to take your house".

It's like trying to research 9/11 and only reading information from the conspiracy sites.

[zulutango]

apparently another car was seized on Vancouver island yesterday??...


Yup...the whole story here...

Island District
205 km/hr in a 110 km/hr zone
Share | File # North Island IRSU 2010-611 / South Island IRSU 2010-633
2010-11-24 15:19 PST
Excessive Speeding "et al" Highway 19, south of Campbell River BC 2010-11-24 @ 1000 hours


The Roving Canine Patrol of the Island District RCMP Integrated Road Safety Unit, observed a motor vehicle traveling at an excessive rate of speed on Highway 19 south of Campbell River, B.C. This alleged offending motor vehicle was captured on police radar traveling at 205 kilometers per hour in a 110 kilometer per hour zone.

The Roving Canine Patrol did not take pursuit of this speeding motor vehicle due safety concerns inherent and complicated by icy and snow covered road conditions present at the time. However did report observations and details related to this apparent offending motor vehicle to other members of the IRSU team.

Subsequently other members of the IRSU unit set up a police road check in order to safely apprehend the alleged offending motor vehicle. This apprehension occurred moments later north of Courtenay BC where the alleged offending motor vehicle was observed to be traveling at 160 kilometers per hour in a 110 kilometer per hour zone.

The alleged offending vehicle and driver were apprehended by police without incident in a road check set up for this purpose. The alleged offender was found to be of a New Driver Designation and on police system to serve a Notice of Driving Prohibition. This driver (20 year old male from Campbell RIver) has also been charged with Excessive Speeding, Failure to Display New Driver Designation and Failure to Produce a Driver's License. The related motor vehicle was impounded by police under the new Administrative Driving provisions

[originalhypa]

Sounds like another Marc Emery - intentionally thumb your nose at the law and then act all put-upon when it bites you in the ass.


Did you know that in BC, it's illegal to kill a Sasquatch?
Also, it's a federal offense for a citizen to publicly remove bandages.
In Victoria, it's illegal for street entertainers to give kids balloon animals.


So in effect, your argument is moot since there are some asinine laws still on the books... Or do you still blindly follow the letter of the law regardless of what your common sense tells you?



Still waiting for an answer here...
Or does your ignorant belligerence not allow you to reply to logic?

[underscore]

205km/h in the winter? wtf?

[!Yaminashi]

ferrari is like.....a step down of god

:thumbsup:

...what? :confused:

[freakshow]

This driver (20 year old male from Campbell RIver) has also been charged with Excessive Speeding, Failure to Display New Driver Designation and Failure to Produce a Driver's License. The related motor vehicle was impounded by police under the new Administrative Driving provisions

Was it impounded? or forfeited?

[InvisibleSoul]

Was it impounded? or forfeited?

Forfeiture doesn't come immediately... if it happens, it'll be weeks before it does.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

...what? :confused:




scale i meant, not step
:D

[Black240Sx]

This story does 2 things... it scares your average sane person and forces them to think twice about speeding, and it makes idiots run. Next time a guy in a 200K car is doing 200km/h and sees a cop hes going to go even faster, drive like even more of a retard and likely kill someone. Harsh laws turn Canada into the USA. Get ready to see more high speed pursuits. Years ago I wouldn't have concidered running in a millions years, now.. maybe.

[Black240Sx]

205km/h in the winter? wtf?

This was in Sept brah.

Edit. NM you're talking about the island dude :)

[Marco911]

Here's the point that most of you apathetic morons are missing:

It doesn't matter whether you think the Ferrari/BMW drivers deserved their punishment due to their behavior. The issue here is one of civil rights.

The fact of the matter is that anyone charged with street racing can have their vehicle eventually forfeited by the government. Since the govt goes after your vehicle using civil means, the burden of proof is lower, which means that your vehicle can be forfeited even BEFORE you are convicted in a criminal court of street racing.

We all know that there is considerable leeway to the term "street racing," which could include excessive speeding. The BC government seems to have placed no protection of civil rights in enacting these new regulations.

I think that New Brunswick's protection measures of only seizing assets that are used in an "ongoing criminal activity" is a good one. If a drunk driver gets caught repeatedly driving his/her vehicle drunk, that becomes an ongoing criminal activity and then the vehicle may be forfeited. The way the new law is written, they can pursue forfeiture of the vehicle even if you were caught driving drunk once because you placed other road users at risk, which is a fairly low standard.

[Marco911]

Yet if they let things like this go UNTIL someone dies, then everyone gets mad and wonders why it took someone getting killed for change to happen. I side with the option that removes people using public roadways in a ridiculous manner, and saves a life.

What do you mean by "remove people using public roadways"? If you mean, suspending their driver's license, then I agree with you. If you mean the same harsh penalties such as prison, or abolishment of private property rights as if you HAD killed someone then I disagree.

We live in a society where the penalties/punishments are supposed to be in line with the severity of the offense. Get caught driving drunk, and you get X penalties. Get caught driving drunk and happen to kill another road user and you get a much harsher penalty.

[Marco911]

And this sort of attitude is exactly WHY the new penalties are so harsh. Once upon a time, most people followed the speed limit, just because that was the law, not because of the penalties imposed. Now the "me me me" mentality has gotten to the point where the law no longer matters; people do whatever they want and as long as nobody else gets hurt, they think everything is fine, regardless of the POTENTIAL for harm they present.

You can only push the boundaries so far, before the pendulum starts to swing back the other way... and now it has. The drastic response wouldn't have been necessary if such a large segment of the population didn't feel it necessary to flaunt the rules in a wild pursuit of their "rights".

Komrade, you need to move to a police state like North Korea. Those of us who still care about civil rights and liberties recognize this law as being unjust and flies in the face of our charter rights.

[gars]

Another point though, why should someone who is very rich, compared to someone who is very poor, speeding at the same rate, be punished the same? The issue is, that there are too many very rich people here, who don't care about the fines, because to them, the fine is just a drop in the bucket.

Let's say we reverse this, say there is somebody who was driving a shitbox, worth $500. But this is the car he uses to drive to work at 2 full time jobs, making minimum wage, just to support his family. And if he gets caught speeding, and gets his car taken away and forfeited, it would not make nearly as big a splash across the media. But most likely, the guy who had his shitbox taken away will be hurt way more, financially speaking.

Obviously, because this is a car enthusiast forum, there is quite a lot of backlash towards this. But at the same time, I sort of agree with a punishment that is in line with your income. I understand the issue behind civil rights though, and I'm not sure what my exact opinion of that is. But I personally think that driving at 200+ km/h on a road like that is very irresponsible. I've walked around that area on some of the trails, and I don't think that people should have to cross the road in fear that a ferrari might come around the corner and smoke them, even after looking both ways.

[Marco911]

Another point though, why should someone who is very rich, compared to someone who is very poor, speeding at the same rate, be punished the same? The issue is, that there are too many very rich people here, who don't care about the fines, because to them, the fine is just a drop in the bucket.

Because the law is supposed to apply equally. For a rich person, it's not the money that matters but he/she still has to deal with the demerit points and possible license suspension, which is the same for everyone.



Let's say we reverse this, say there is somebody who was driving a shitbox, worth $500. But this is the car he uses to drive to work at 2 full time jobs, making minimum wage, just to support his family. And if he gets caught speeding, and gets his car taken away and forfeited, it would not make nearly as big a splash across the media. But most likely, the guy who had his shitbox taken away will be hurt way more, financially speaking.

I suspect, the BC civil forfeiture office only goes after assets which have a significant market value. So if you drive a shitbox, I doubt they are going to spend the legal resources to come after your pile.

But I personally think that driving at 200+ km/h on a road like that is very irresponsible. I've walked around that area on some of the trails, and I don't think that people should have to cross the road in fear that a ferrari might come around the corner and smoke them, even after looking both ways.

The issue is whether the govt should be allowed to take and sell your car if you are charged (but not convicted) of street racing. I'm sure there are many more people who are charged with this offense who are not driving 200 km/h.

[MindBomber]

In many European countries fines are based on the perpetrators annual income, in some situations net worth is also a factor I believe. If a similar law were introduced in Canada, I‘m certain the government wouldn‘t have any trouble finding support for it.


Next time you’re in Switzerland driving down a windy village road at the foothills of the Alps, you may want to make sure you’re either very mindful of the police or very poor.

If you decide you want to speed your way through Switzerland, be warned there is no such thing as a standard fine for driving say, 35 mph over the limit. No, no, no. If you’re caught speeding in the land of fine watches and neutrality and you have a lot of money, you better hope you’ve kept your money stashed somewhere the Swiss can’t find it (a Swiss bank account?).

A 53-year-old man learned that lesson after receiving a record-setting fine of nearly $290,000 for driving 85 mph in a 50 mph zone through the small town of St. Gallen. Adding insult to injury, he was driving a car worth a fraction of the fine — a Ferrari Testarossa.

Why the hefty fine for a mere 35 over the limit?

In 2002 Swiss voters approved replacing prison terms for some offenses, including speeding, with fines based on your income. According to Tages Anzeiger, the lead-footed driver has an annual income of more than $820,000 and is worth well over $20 million. (Here’s the English translation of the story.)

And another tip if you are caught and given a hefty fine in Switzerland: Don’t make any big claims to try and get out of the ticket. The Testarossa driver was initially fined a little less than $90,000 by the local jurisdiction. That was raised to $145,000 by the next court after the driver claimed diplomatic immunity, saying he is diplomat from the Republic of Guinea-Bissau. That didn’t sway the court, which boosted the fine to $290,000.

“The accused ignored elementary traffic rules with a powerful vehicle out of a pure desire for speed” the court said.

On the upside, apparently he has to pay only half of the fine now. The rest is deferred and will be eliminated for good behavior.

[R33Vspec]

The government has no right to take your property.

I also saw the news story on channel 11 on thursday, the police officer said the new honda civic was doing 205 km/h when there was tons of snow on the road. what a load of crap, news sell stories for rating, most of the content is all bs.

i am pretty sure there is no way a civic was doing anything close to 200.

It's great that here in Canada we are loosing more and more basic rights for the greater good bs, they literally rape you at airport now in the name of "terrorism"

[MindBomber]

Your right, the government has no right to seize property if you break the law. If I murder someone, I should be allowed to keep the gun! If they “must” take it away, as a matter of “public safety” they should pay me for it.

And your right! Cops always set up fake news stories about speeding Hondas, just to remind us all how good a job their doing. What are the chances a 20 year old kid with an N and a suspended license would do 200kmp at 3am on the highway, pretty slim I’m sure.

Oh, and don’t worry if a terrorist boards my plane with a bomb, I’ll jump on him and make him say sorry to all the other passengers.

[Vale46Rossi]

Your right, the government has no right to seize property if you break the law. If I murder someone, I should be allowed to keep the gun! If they “must” take it away, as a matter of “public safety” they should pay me for it.

And your right! Cops always set up fake news stories about speeding Hondas, just to remind us all how good a job their doing. What are the chances a 20 year old kid with an N and a suspended license would do 200kmp at 3am on the highway, pretty slim I’m sure.

Oh, and don’t worry if a terrorist boards my plane with a bomb, I’ll jump on him and make him say sorry to all the other passengers.


Guns are illegal.

[Anjew]

In many European countries fines are based on the perpetrators annual income, in some situations net worth is also a factor I believe. If a similar law were introduced in Canada, I‘m certain the government wouldn‘t have any trouble finding support for it.

for some reason i can see a lot of $0 dollar income and networth idiots causing a problem with this :(

[Black240Sx]

Your right, the government has no right to seize property if you break the law. If I murder someone, I should be allowed to keep the gun! If they “must” take it away, as a matter of “public safety” they should pay me for it.

And your right! Cops always set up fake news stories about speeding Hondas, just to remind us all how good a job their doing. What are the chances a 20 year old kid with an N and a suspended license would do 200kmp at 3am on the highway, pretty slim I’m sure.

Oh, and don’t worry if a terrorist boards my plane with a bomb, I’ll jump on him and make him say sorry to all the other passengers.

Driving a fast car down a desserted road at high speeds would be the equivilent to shooting a gun in the middle of no where. The government wouldnt take your gun if you were using it safely, and there is a certain safety factor involved in any kind of speeding. Doing 70 in a school zone is terrible, but doing 140km/h down the no. 1 between Abbotsford and Langley is a walk in the park and by no means endangers anyone if the road is clear.

Yes the government will take your gun if you kill someone, and by all means take my car and throw me in jail if it kills someone, but if someone is operating a vehicle safely and in no way threatening the lives of others, it is completely unfair to take their personal property because of a legal technicality. Talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than excessive speeding in many cases and they arent impounding cars for people texting (they should though.)

As for the whole terrorist topic, its a total joke. By implimenting deliberate screening processes you're merely showing the terrorist where the target is. They understand the process and they will use the false sense of security to exploit the system. Once they know they're using body scanners, they'll shove a couple lbs of C4 up their butts, walk through the scanner and right onto a plane.

[dangonay]

Because the law is supposed to apply equally.
A person with deep pockets can go into a trial with a top flight legal team, as many expert witnesses as they need and can have independent lab testing of evidence done. They can afford to hire numerous private investigators to go around and conduct interviews and gather any additional evidence that may that also means it's easier to get off a criminal case. They can even dig into the past of the other parties to try and discredit witnesses or to challenge experts (for example, finding out an expert witness for the Crown has a personal bias against certain people).

The standard to prove a criminal case is higher than a civil case. However, that also means that it's easier to avoid conviction in a criminal case. All you need to do is introduce "reasonable doubt" and you will be found innocent. Those with money can easily afford to create that "doubt" with their "team" of experts.

On the other hand, a poor person who can't afford a lawyer will get stuck with one provided by legal aid. Legal Aid lawyers don't have access to big budgets to conduct detailed investigations. Hell, they couldn't even hire an expert witness to help them out.


The end result is for similar types of cases the conviction rate for the wealthy is far lower than for the poor.


So I find it really funny when people talk about how the law should apply equally for the rich and poor. It should, but the reality is it doesn't. So when someone who's "rich" gets screwed over (like these guys losing their cars) it shouldn't surprise anyone to read so many comments like "it's good for them" or "daddy couldn't buy you out of this problem, could he". It's just backlash for all the other stuff wealthy people seem to get away with that pisses a lot of people off.


Personally this case doesn't bother me. I could care less if they were rich or not. The only thing I'm glad about is someone who was way over the top in terms how badly they were driving got screwed over. In my mind, driving this aggressievly constitutes criminal behaviour. And using your vehicle criminally means it can be forfeited.

Sure the civil rights people will be screaming and yelling over this and bringing up the old "slippery slope" argument, but I don't see it going this way. I think forfeitures will be a very rare event saved only for the most severe of offenders. I doubt even one single person on RS will ever have their car forfeited over the years, even though many will talk like this is going to be a regular event.


If we start seeing a lot of regular speeders losing their cars then I'll change my mind, but at this point I don't see a problem with this. Hell, the guys didn't even go to court to stand up for themselves. What does that tell you?

[SumAznGuy]

If we start seeing a lot of regular speeders losing their cars then I'll change my mind, but at this point I don't see a problem with this. Hell, the guys didn't even go to court to stand up for themselves. What does that tell you?

I can't wait to see if the government try to sell the bikes from those 2 HA guys. :Popcorn

[MindBomber]

Guns are illegal.

Owning a gun is completely legal.

Driving a fast car down a desserted road at high speeds would be the equivilent to shooting a gun in the middle of no where. The government wouldnt take your gun if you were using it safely, and there is a certain safety factor involved in any kind of speeding. Doing 70 in a school zone is terrible, but doing 140km/h down the no. 1 between Abbotsford and Langley is a walk in the park and by no means endangers anyone if the road is clear.

Yes the government will take your gun if you kill someone, and by all means take my car and throw me in jail if it kills someone, but if someone is operating a vehicle safely and in no way threatening the lives of others, it is completely unfair to take their personal property because of a legal technicality. Talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than excessive speeding in many cases and they arent impounding cars for people texting (they should though.)


Having a gun seized after murdering someone was a deliberate hyperbole, because a dangerous driver is equally capable of killing someone with his car as with a gun. There's a comfort zone built into our speed limits, aside from school and park zones, which make speeding, to a degree, safe. Traveling at 140km/p between Langley and Abby in good conditions does fit within that comfort zone, traveling at 200km/p in a Civic while it snows does not.
The driver could easily have lost control and killed himself or a fellow motorist due to his negligence, so he should be punished appropriately. Seizing his car seems appropriate, because creating the significant possibility of killing someone is almost equal to committing the act itself.

[Black240Sx]

I agree with you, but if a digwadd cop was sitting on the side of the highway and you passed him doing 141 in the dry, late at night, alone on the highway, he could take your car for a week and press to have it permanently seized. Not saying it would be, but under the new laws you could atleast kiss your car goodbye for a week and you'd be out atleast 4 digits. I commute from Abby to Surrey 5 days a week and I know first hand that 140+ is extremely common on the highway with experienced commuters. Hardly criminal activity.

[Marco911]

Your right, the government has no right to seize property if you break the law. If I murder someone, I should be allowed to keep the gun! If they “must” take it away, as a matter of “public safety” they should pay me for it.

Look up search and seizure laws:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


And your right! Cops always set up fake news stories about speeding Hondas, just to remind us all how good a job their doing. What are the chances a 20 year old kid with an N and a suspended license would do 200kmp at 3am on the highway, pretty slim I’m sure.

What's reported in the media is not necessarily what actually occurred.

[Marco911]

So I find it really funny when people talk about how the law should apply equally for the rich and poor. It should, but the reality is it doesn't. So when someone who's "rich" gets screwed over (like these guys losing their cars) it shouldn't surprise anyone to read so many comments like "it's good for them" or "daddy couldn't buy you out of this problem, could he". It's just backlash for all the other stuff wealthy people seem to get away with that pisses a lot of people off.

My statement was about how the law applies when people get charged with a crime. Rich or poor, it shouldn't matter what charges are brought up against you. I don't really see anything wrong with the rich being able to afford a better defense than the poor. Being rich still does not guarantee being found innocent.


Personally this case doesn't bother me. I could care less if they were rich or not. The only thing I'm glad about is someone who was way over the top in terms how badly they were driving got screwed over. In my mind, driving this aggressievly constitutes criminal behaviour. And using your vehicle criminally means it can be forfeited.


I disagree. In a free society, the government has to follow due process and fair standards no matter how heinous the offense. A bullet to Pickton's head might have been economic justice, but our charter rights guarantee he gets his day in court. If the govt wants to go after the Ferrari and M6, I would expect them to be fair and go after EVERY vehicle whose drivers are charged with the same offenses as they did.


Sure the civil rights people will be screaming and yelling over this and bringing up the old "slippery slope" argument, but I don't see it going this way. I think forfeitures will be a very rare event saved only for the most severe of offenders. I doubt even one single person on RS will ever have their car forfeited over the years, even though many will talk like this is going to be a regular event.

That is not justice if the govt only goes after expensive cars, or the most extreme of cases. Fact of the matter, if you break the same law, the charges and penalties you face should be the same as anyone else. The govt should not be in the business of suing in civil court and picking and choosing who they go after. That is the slippery slope.

Hell, the guys didn't even go to court to stand up for themselves. What does that tell you?

They negotiated a settlement, which they probably felt gave them the best economic outcome. That is why they got to keep a portion of the sales proceeds. If I had a Honda Civic, and the govt was coming after that, you'd better believe I would fight it.

[Marco911]

Some things you might not know:

The people who work for the civil forfeiture office get compensated from the assets that they seize. The rest of the money can be used to compensate "victims" or public safety programs. Do you think it is worth their time and legal resources to seize someone's crappy car?

[CanadaGoose]

Some things you might not know:

The people who work for the civil forfeiture office get compensated from the assets that they seize. The rest of the money can be used to compensate "victims" or public safety programs. Do you think it is worth their time and legal resources to seize someone's crappy car?

Then that is systemic discrimination, and the entire system is flawed.

[MindBomber]

for some reason i can see a lot of $0 dollar income and networth idiots causing a problem with this :(

A law where financial penalties are based on income would never pass if it did not account for this scenario, there would need to be a minimum penalty that escalates with the perpetrators income. A ticket could have an $80 minimum, with an additional 1% of net annual income added to that.

Look up search and seizure laws:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and Warrants shall not be issued, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I'm familiar with search and seizure laws, if you read the post above mine you will understand what I was responding to in my post. In a sarcastic way, I was saying the government has a right to seize property if its owner uses it to endanger others.



What's reported in the media is not necessarily what actually occurred.

I agree, but theres a grain of truth to every story even if it naturally grows each time it's retold. A media organization would not risk its credibility publishing a completely falsified story and the police have no incentive to falsify this one.

[Dtox89]

god i hate icbc so much

[dangonay]

I disagree. In a free society, the government has to follow due process and fair standards no matter how heinous the offense. A bullet to Pickton's head might have been economic justice, but our charter rights guarantee he gets his day in court. If the govt wants to go after the Ferrari and M6, I would expect them to be fair and go after EVERY vehicle whose drivers are charged with the same offenses as they did.
That is not justice if the govt only goes after expensive cars, or the most extreme of cases. Fact of the matter, if you break the same law, the charges and penalties you face should be the same as anyone else. The govt should not be in the business of suing in civil court and picking and choosing who they go after. That is the slippery slope.
How do you know they won't go after every driver/vehicle who drives as aggressively as these guys? You're making a huge assumption that the government is only going to seize cars from wealthy people and ignore people who drive less expensive cars. Especially since this is the first case of its kind and there's no track record to go on. This is why your argument is flawed - you're arguing about what might happen, not what actually is happening.



They negotiated a settlement, which they probably felt gave them the best economic outcome. That is why they got to keep a portion of the sales proceeds. If I had a Honda Civic, and the govt was coming after that, you'd better believe I would fight it.
Still, the fact is they settled. Which means they don't give a damn about civil rights or standing up for what they believe in. They made a decision that cost them the least amount of money, which means they only think about themselves. You want to support someone like this who had a chance to challenge a law that's unjust and simply took it up the ass 'cuz that was the least painful route for them?

I hate people who bitch about things that happen to them and don't do anything about it. How often has someone come on RS and complained about something that happened to them, people tell them how to correct it (file a lawsuit or report to the police) and they don't even bother. If you won't stand up for yourself then you deserve whatever happens to you, IMO.

[Marco911]

How do you know they won't go after every driver/vehicle who drives as aggressively as these guys? You're making a huge assumption that the government is only going to seize cars from wealthy people and ignore people who drive less expensive cars. Especially since this is the first case of its kind and there's no track record to go on. This is why your argument is flawed - you're arguing about what might happen, not what actually is happening.

False. The law has been amended since 2008 such that they can pursue forfeiture of cars used for "street racing." The fact that this is the first case of its kind tells me that they only go after cars that are worth seizing since I'm sure there have been others that have been charged with excessive speeding and street racing since the law came into effect. Don't take my word for it? Let's see what criteria the Director uses in deciding which assets to go after:

When deciding whether or not to initiate civil forfeiture proceedings,
the CFO assesses each referred file based on a set of principles:
• The protection of the public interest;
• Compliance with privacy and information-sharing laws;
• The nature of the alleged criminal or other unlawful activity;
• The potential return on investment; and,
• The probability of a successful outcome.

As you can see, the penalties are not being applied evenly as they have a preference to go after those where they can achieve a "return on investment." Clearly this law is discriminatory if the government doesn't apply it evenly to all violators.


Still, the fact is they settled. Which means they don't give a damn about civil rights or standing up for what they believe in. They made a decision that cost them the least amount of money, which means they only think about themselves. You want to support someone like this who had a chance to challenge a law that's unjust and simply took it up the ass 'cuz that was the least painful route for them?

Whether people fight or settle is a personal decision. This has no bearing on the argument on whether this law violates the principles of civil rights and charter rights. You have thus far argued that you are ok with the law because the offenders in question "deserved" the punishment. That's the type of logic and thinking that allowed German citizens to rationalize Nazi behavior when laws were put into place to strip Jews of their assets. No citizen living in a free society should take an infringement on their rights by the government lightly.

[Soundy]

Marco, you are so utterly full of shit.

That is all.

[Marco911]

Soundy, I am clearly a whole lot smarter than you.
If you have nothing of substance to contribute, run along and disappear into the quiet internet night. ;)

[R33Vspec]

Actually Macro is right most of the time. If you actually take political science, criminology, law, and philosophy into perspective, it is exactly what you get. All i got to say is if you guys think canada and the Usa are a free and democratic society then you are seriously mistaken. Just look at all the laws and acts that came into effect in BC for the year 2010. HST, Drunk Driving, Speeding and it came with zero public consultation. We are getting systematically screwed over by the government. You guys need to wake up and look at the bigger picture outside of some rich kids that lost some nice cars.

[Soundy]

Soundy, I am clearly a whole lot smarter than you.

Yes... clearly. (http://www.revscene.net/forums/because-marco911-needs-t413491.html?t=413491)

If you have nothing of substance to contribute, run along and disappear into the quiet internet night. ;)
Pot... kettle. You've expended about 20,000 words so far in this thread, contributing fuck-all except hot air.

[Marco911]

Yes... clearly. (http://www.revscene.net/forums/because-marco911-needs-t413491.html?t=413491)

Hahahah. Is that your evidence? You have zero evidence that any of my claims are fake. People have called me out here and have lost time and time again.

[quote]
Pot... kettle. You've expended about 20,000 words so far in this thread, contributing fuck-all except hot air.

Aww, I guess you're just a little sensitive because I win at life?

[MelonBoy]

wow.. this thread is huge..
So from whats iv quickly tried to pick up..

The guy was caught racing with another car.. going 200 and almost hits a lady?..

He punishment is
- They take his car and sell it and give him a 15 day license suspended.. ?

I dont get why they dont just ban his ass for life .. License taken away.. I mean there should be no tolerance for street racing..

Also selling his shit is a bit bunk .. seems more like a cash grab then anything.

[originalhypa]

This is why your argument is flawed - you're arguing about what might happen, not what actually is happening.


Isn't that the whole point of the criminal charge, and this whole scenario?
They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.

[dangonay]

^ If the government used the argument "you might have killed someone, therefore we're taking your car" then I'd agree with you.

But how do we know what portion of the law would have been used? As I already said, this thread is full of non-lawyers taking specific snippets of law and making assumptions about how the law would be applied. These guys never went to court, so making claims that the only reason they had their cars taken was because of something they "might" do or because they were "expensive" cars is pointless.

People always complain about the media only reporting specific facts of a story to make it more sensational or to twist the story. How is that any different from people in this thread arguing about specific clauses of law and expanding on those specific points to draw their own conclusions?

Marco. Come on, bringing up the Nazis and Jews? Stretching things a little, aren't we?

BTW, when you say "The potential return on investment", why do you make the assumption this means they will only go after the wealthy? When I think of return on investment I think of expenses vs income. Expenses being the time & money to go to court and the income being the return from assets. You are only talking about the income side of things, not the expenses. If the police have concrete evidence of someone doing something wrong, then they will go after them, even if the car is only worth $20K. I highly doubt that these guys would have lost their cars based on the poor testimony of a person walking up Cypress (their lawyers would have a field day with some lady trying to explain how she was able to calculate the vehicle speed). It was their bad luck an officer was there and witnessed first hand how they were driving. Therefore the expense side of the equation was small, making this a good return on investment.

[marc0lishuz]

I dont get why they dont just ban his ass for life .. License taken away.. I mean there should be no tolerance for street racing..
Worst penalty ever.... you gots an F430 Scuderia and you can't even drive it!! :D

[originalhypa]

These guys never went to court, so making claims that the only reason they had their cars taken was because of something they "might" do or because they were "expensive" cars is pointless.

That's the key to this whole situation. If I was caught speeding, and they took my car away, I would have a lawyer on that asap. To me, this is a case where the cars were acquired through illicit means, OR, the owners wanted to "save face". In other words, don't fight the power, and you'll get *some* money back. Plus, we won't tell the public who you are.

I don't think there will be a rash of seizures coming from this in the future. It was a good story, and the law looked like heroes in the process.

[impulse777]

Am I reading this right?

The owner can buy this car back for $47,000. The gov is only really asking for a huge fine 20% of the sale price. If the owner goes in to the dealership drops 235k to buy the car back 1 party get's 50% returned the other get's 30% the remaining 20% to Gordo. I'd buy my car back if I'm correct on how this deal is going down.

I'm can't believe the civil forfiture act can be applied this way, Sure everyone is happy to hear when a house or car is taken from a pot grower with no legit income. Were these guys charged with cc offence and convicted? A mva ticket does not make you a criminal, The car's/drivers were impounded/ticketed under a mva infraction not a cc offence but the car is being seized as proceeds of crime.

[hscpq]

This whole thing doesn't make any sense to me. I've been up Seymour many times and it makes me wonder at what point the police witness first hand that the cars were doing 200km/h let along the question wether the BMW could keep up with the Scuderia. The only way to acheive that kind of speed is on a straightaway obviously. If memory serves me right, there is not enough space on the side of the roads for a parked police car. That photo of the Ferrari on a flat bed tow truck was taken on the top parking lot of Seymour Mountain which tells me that it was where the police pulled them over. If the police pulled them over before they reached the top, the Ferrari would ended up in one of those smaller parking lots on the way up. So the Ferrari was going 200km just right before he "entered" the top parking and the poilce happened to be there and took a reading of his speed with the BMW followed "closely" behind? The more I think about it, the more I believe the whole thing is bullshit and I suspect the two drivers were given harsh punishments based on assumptions without any hardcore evidence... The media were definately "used" by the government.

[Marco911]

Marco. Come on, bringing up the Nazis and Jews? Stretching things a little, aren't we?

I'm not comparing the BC government to the Nazis. I'm comparing your declared apathy to an erosion of civil rights to that of German citizens during the Third Reich.


BTW, when you say "The potential return on investment", why do you make the assumption this means they will only go after the wealthy? When I think of return on investment I think of expenses vs income. Expenses being the time & money to go to court and the income being the return from assets. You are only talking about the income side of things, not the expenses. If the police have concrete evidence of someone doing something wrong, then they will go after them, even if the car is only worth $20K.

Riddle me this: If either of those individuals had the car registered 100% in someone elses name, would the govt be able to seize the asset?
If your answer is NO, you just admitted that the govt is unable to apply penalties evenly and shouldn't be in the business of seizing private assets from citizens.

[zulutango]

They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.


So if someone takes a gun and fires off a few shots that just miss hitting and killing someone, you must apply the same reasoning. If you had done so, the crown would seize your gun, so why the different opinion about cars?

[StylinRed]

oh god is this thread still going on....

is Marco still standing up for rights that he feels cannot be contravened? which in actuality can be infringed upon if the govt so declares?


i proffered it when Marco just stuck to his fairy tales



if you keep feeding him he will come

[Marco911]

oh god is this thread still going on....

is Marco still standing up for rights that he feels cannot be contravened? which in actuality can be infringed upon if the govt so declares?

Your whole argument that the Government will apply the "notwithstanding" clause is moot because the Canadian government has NEVER applied the nothwithstanding clause in history because unlike the provincial government, the Federal government still seems to care about civil rights. It is only there for the most egregrious circumstances.



i proffered it when Marco just stuck to his fairy tales

What fairy tales?

[Marco911]

They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation. Other than the car owners.

That's what fines, driver point penalties, and license suspensions are for - they punish the offender. There is no reason to go after an asset in civil court, if the govt. cannot apply this across all cases.



So if someone takes a gun and fires off a few shots that just miss hitting and killing someone, you must apply the same reasoning. If you had done so, the crown would seize your gun, so why the different opinion about cars?

I fail to see how the analogy fits since weapons are controlled by regulations and permits. Private citizens can't freely carry or discharge firearms in Canada. A more appropriate analogy would be to seize and sell the cars of anyone caught driving intoxicated - even first time offenders. Do you have a different opinion about this?

[gars]

but cars are controlled by regulations and permits - you can almost say there are more laws regulating the usage of cars on the road. You need licences to drive them (which can be taken away), you must have insurance to operate them, and there are rules on how you're allowed to drive it.

[originalhypa]

but the car is being seized as proceeds of crime.

The original seizure law, which was brought in to combat the HA, was rewritten in 08' to allow them to take assets that may be used in a crime. It's the equivalent of going back in time and killing Pol Pot as a baby so he couldn't massacre a generation of Cambodians. Good in theory, but horrible in practice.

So if someone takes a gun and fires off a few shots that just miss hitting and killing someone, you must apply the same reasoning. If you had done so, the crown would seize your gun, so why the different opinion about cars?

The different opinion comes from the fact that a car and a gun are two completely different objects.The centralized mass of a bullet travelling at 1200fps is a lot different than a car travelling at 220fps, equal to 200kmh. Not to mention the fact that roadways are for auto use. The last time I checked, we didn't have "bulletways", and I'm sure if we did they would be dangerous places to hang out.

The fact that our local police representative likens a car to a gun is why I would like to limit the amount of power these individual officers have.


You need licences to drive them (which can be taken away), you must have insurance to operate them, and there are rules on how you're allowed to drive it.

On a public road, yes.
But there is nothing stopping me from buying a car to drive on my property. I wouldn't need insurance, or a license. Only if I want to use the publicly owned road system, do I need to go through the gov't processes.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Worst penalty ever.... you gots an F430 Scuderia and you can't even drive it!! :D

whats the point driving it if you cant rip it

no shifting 2000rpm is not driving a ferrari

[StylinRed]

Your whole argument that the Government will apply the "notwithstanding" clause is moot because the Canadian government has NEVER applied the nothwithstanding clause in history because unlike the provincial government, the Federal government still seems to care about civil rights. It is only there for the most egregrious circumstances.


because they feel its political suicide if its applied but it's not like it's been applied by provinces which applies to this case you're arguing about... (which has proven to be political suicide in cases when only the threat of its use was given)

what would it matter if it hasn't been applied federally? they have the power to do so if they so wish THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT

so what you're saying is you're going to keep bitching until the federal govt. shuts you up? how bout you take this law up to the supreme court yourself if you're so passionate about it?



as for you're fairy tales your acting like you've forgotten you're history in rs ;) staying relatively silent for ages doesn't change that

[originalhypa]

it's not like it's been applied by provinces which applies to this case you're arguing about...

really?

taken from wiki...
On March 16, 2000, the Alberta Legislature passed Bill 202, which amended the provincial Marriage Act[7] to include an opposite-sex-only definition of marriage as well as the notwithstanding clause in order to insulate the definition from Charter challenges. However, the provinces may use the "notwithstanding clause" only on legislation that they otherwise have the authority to enact, and the Supreme Court ruled in Reference re Same-Sex Marriage that the definition of marriage is within the exclusive domain of the Canadian Parliament.

Alberta once abandoned an attempt to use the notwithstanding clause to limit lawsuits against the government for past forced sterilizations

Quebec

After the Charter came into force in 1982, Quebec inserted a notwithstanding clause into all its laws; these expired in 1987, when the Quebec Liberals, having ousted the Parti Québécois, did not renew them.

However, the most notable use of the notwithstanding clause came in the Quebec language law known as Bill 101 after sections of those laws were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ford v. Quebec (A.G.). On December 21, 1989, the National Assembly of Quebec employed the "notwithstanding clause" to override freedom of expression (section 2b), and equality rights (section 15). This allowed Quebec to continue the restriction against the posting of any commercial signs in languages other than French. In 1993, after the law was criticized by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the Bourassa government had the provincial parliament rewrite the law to conform to the Charter, and the notwithstanding clause was removed.

Two cases out of a number listed where the provinces used the notwithstanding clause.

so what you're saying is you're going to keep bitching until the federal govt. shuts you up? how bout you take this law up to the supreme court yourself if you're so passionate about it?

What a stupid argument.
Especially considering that Canada isn't China, nor is it Russia. In Canada, there is due process which has been thrown to the wind in these cases. That's the point that you bleeding heart paranoids just don't get.

In Canada, the onus is not on the defendant to prove their innocence. It's up to the crown to prove guilt, so why should the Canadian individuals have to put money and time out of pocket to fight what is an egregious misuse of the law?

[Ferra]

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/700768--cops-to-sell-235k-impounded-ferrari
A Vancouver speed racer’s confiscated Ferrari will be sold for $235,000
The driver, a 21-year-old Vancouver native, will receive only 30 per cent of the sale revenue, with the remainder going to the car’s other part owner — who was uninvolved in the incident — and the province.
Am i misreading something here???
So.....the driver (who is not the owner), will get 30% of the proceed from the sales
the owner, will get the remainder (70%) of the proceed?
I hope I am not reading it right.....

Either way, confiscating the vehicle WHILE the driver can still keep his license and drive on the road is just plain retarded :bullshit:

And where do they draw the line to confiscate the vehicle?
Does drinking&driving get your vehicle forfeited?
How about running a red light? or running a stop sign? or tailgating? what about speeding 120 in a 60 zone? or 80 in a school zone? (which i think is much worse than going 200 up seymour)
Technically all of the above are "illegal", so does that mean next time I got caught doing 55 in a 50km/h zone....my car COULD BE confiscated?

[Marco911]

The original seizure law, which was brought in to combat the HA, was rewritten in 08' to allow them to take assets that may be used in a crime. It's the equivalent of going back in time and killing Pol Pot as a baby so he couldn't massacre a generation of Cambodians. Good in theory, but horrible in practice.


Criminals who manage to amass a significant amount of assets are not stupid. The result of this law is that they will register cars/boats/houses in their wife's, relative's gf's or bf's name.

[underscore]

The different opinion comes from the fact that a car and a gun are two completely different objects.The centralized mass of a bullet travelling at 1200fps is a lot different than a car travelling at 220fps, equal to 200kmh. Not to mention the fact that roadways are for auto use. The last time I checked, we didn't have "bulletways", and I'm sure if we did they would be dangerous places to hang out.

The fact that our local police representative likens a car to a gun is why I would like to limit the amount of power these individual officers have.

Well, it's more like a car on a road, to a gun at a gun range (so, a "bulletway"). When the car is driven properly and the gun is fired downrange, everythings fine. But if you start doing 200 in a 60, or firing bullets in random directions, you can kill someone who is in what *should* be a perfectly safe area.

[Marco911]

Guns are controlled items. You can't just go to a store and buy one. Cops can take them away because you shouldn't have one in the first place unless you have a firearm license. You can buy / own a car without a driver's license. If you operate a vehicle illegally, you are subject to the penalites in the MVA. Using the civil forfeiture act to take away cars from citizens whose actions hurt nobody is an abuse of the act.

[GabAlmighty]

Who the FUCK Cares?!

[Nightwalker]

I do, it's ridiculous and I don't want my car seized.

[jlenko]

I do, it's ridiculous and I don't want my car seized.

Then don't speed... or move to Germany!

[godwin]

You still need to obey speed rules in Germany, just certain sections of the Autobahn is okay.

I think if you want to move to a place without speed limits, try Hawaii or Idaho?

Then don't speed... or move to Germany!

[Nightwalker]

Then don't speed... or move to Germany!

Hey, I'm not perfect. According to this though, I don't even have to be in or near the car. The part owner of the Ferrari was penalized without being involved whatsoever.

[originalhypa]

Then don't speed... or move to Germany!

Funny you mention Germany.
Back in the late 1930's they also unjustly seized assets from individuals prior to attempting to take over the world.

I just thought that was an interesting reference, considering that the best performance roads in the world were built by a power hungry psychopath who wanted to move troops quickly.

I think if you want to move to a place without speed limits, try Hawaii or Idaho?

Hawaii is damn near nazi with their speed limits. I spotted a couple of speed traps in Maui my last trip out there. That, and the impaired roadblocks they employ.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/3159083.bin?size=620x400



hypa.
making it all bipartisan since 1996.
:lol

[jlenko]

Hey, I'm not perfect. According to this though, I don't even have to be in or near the car. The part owner of the Ferrari was penalized without being involved whatsoever.

Then don't let Lead Foot Larry borrow your car.. duh!

I've been to Idaho.. there are cops all over the place, and they do have speed limits. You're probably thinking of Montana, who until 10 years ago or so didn't have daytime speed limits on I-90. (The sign said "responsible and prudent"). Now they do have enforced limits.. though the fines are pretty low, if you manage to get caught. A friend of mine had a $5 ticket in 2001 for going 40mph over the posted limit...

[Great68]

Then don't let Lead Foot Larry borrow your car.. duh!



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[JD¹³]

They might have killed someone while racing. That's what the argument for seizure is focusing on, the fact that their actions were dangerous and might have hurt someone. Even though the truth was that no one was hurt in this situation.
Absolute bullshit argument. What is this, Minority Report? If I'm at the ballpark swinging a bat am I guilty of a crime because if, in theory, I hit someone in the head I would kill them?

Nice job with the babysitting :rolleyes:

[rJZx]

I forgot where i've read or heard this from, but apparently the faster you go the more concentrated and focused you are...
anyways the ferrari and m6 have nothing on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5r-MrYxNM&feature=related

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Absolute bullshit argument. What is this, Minority Report? If I'm at the ballpark swinging a bat am I guilty of a crime because if, in theory, I hit someone in the head I would kill them?

Nice job with the babysitting :rolleyes:

hence why i think this case is absolutely bull fucking shit



and i still cant thank you in ur post

lol

[tofu1413]

I forgot where i've read or heard this from, but apparently the faster you go the more concentrated and focused you are...
anyways the ferrari and m6 have nothing on this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AX5r-MrYxNM&feature=related

ah... smokey nagata. :thumbsup:

[CanadaGoose]

Whatever. Fuck the government. Everything is so convoluted and everyone's just out to push their own agendas anyways. Who gives a fuck what they want to do, there's a way around everything. If the Ferarri owner really wanted to fuck around, he could've reported the car stolen.

[dangonay]

Absolute bullshit argument. What is this, Minority Report? If I'm at the ballpark swinging a bat am I guilty of a crime because if, in theory, I hit someone in the head I would kill them?

Nice job with the babysitting :rolleyes:
Let's get rid of drunk driving laws too while we're at it.

My dad was an alcoholic (one of those functioning ones who kept a 9-5 business job, but drank on weekends). He drove drunk every weekend, often from the city to the farm. He never had an accident in 40 years, except for the couple of times he hit our fence or garbage cans coming home. I added it up and he probably was drunk behind the wheel over 6,000 times, had a perfect driving record and even qualified for the maximum insurance discount because of this.

Every single Friday and Saturday in The Lower Mainland literally thousands of people will drive home drunk. If you don't believe me, just hang out by any restaurant, pub or club at closing and see how many drive home. And statistically, 99.999% of them make it home without any incident at all.

So why are we cracking down on drunk drivers who might cause an accident? Likewise, why are we cracking down on cell phones and texting?

[GabAlmighty]

Every single Friday and Saturday in The Lower Mainland literally thousands of people will drive home drunk. If you don't believe me, just hang out by any restaurant, pub or club at closing and see how many drive home. And statistically, 99.999% of them make it home without any incident at all.

So why are we cracking down on drunk drivers who might cause an accident? Likewise, why are we cracking down on cell phones and texting?

The worst part is, you're completely right.

[JD¹³]

Let's get rid of drunk driving laws too while we're at it.....

So why are we cracking down on drunk drivers who might cause an accident? Likewise, why are we cracking down on cell phones and texting?
The argument is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, not that the laws should be abolished.

Except the cell phone law, that one is completely ridiculous. Talking on your phone is no more dangerous than talking to someone else in the vehicle, changing the radio station, or eating. It's another babysitting law that caters to the lowest common denominator of shitty driver who can't do basic multitasking and probably shouldn't have gotten a drivers license in the first place.

[gars]

I disagree, I think texting is one of the more dangerous things you can do. You have to stare at a small screen to see what people are saying, and the vast majority of the people cannot type a message without looking at their keypad.

Talking isn't dangerous, people do it all the time, but get a handsfree, they're dirt cheap.

Taking one hand to hold a phone to your ear is one thing, but to have to concentrate and type out a message is another. I see nothing wrong with that law.

[GabAlmighty]

Taking one hand to hold a phone to your ear is one thing, but to have to concentrate and type out a message is another. I see nothing wrong with that law.

I'm so good at it though!!

[underscore]

Making a call while driving is hard. Receiving one isn't. The problem is there's no way to differentiate who is doing which unless you get pulled over, hence the new law that covers everything.

[marc0lishuz]

The argument is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, not that the laws should be abolished.
They should make a law stating that if you drive above XXX km/h, you lose your car and your license indefinitely. Maybe this is setting the precedent for that.

[JD¹³]

They should make a law stating that if you drive above XXX km/h, you lose your car and your license indefinitely. Maybe this is setting the precedent for that.
Well they're already taking your car for crimes never committed so I'd say we're not far off.

[vafanculo]

The argument is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime, not that the laws should be abolished.

Except the cell phone law, that one is completely ridiculous. Talking on your phone is no more dangerous than talking to someone else in the vehicle, changing the radio station, or eating. It's another babysitting law that caters to the lowest common denominator of shitty driver who can't do basic multitasking and probably shouldn't have gotten a drivers license in the first place.

I agree with you. It probably is a low percentage of people who can't multitask, and shouldn't be around a phone while driving. But with that being said, I'm glad this law is around. It takes those people away from talking and driving.

Also, like it or not, talking on the phone IS a distraction. Ever try playing video games while your gf wants to have a phone convo? Two things usually occur when I am in that situation. 1) she will say something and a few minutes I say "umm what did you just say?" and 2) before I know it, 2 periods in a NHL11 game I've been playing have flown by, and I am unaware of the score, cause I'm not focusing my whole attention in the game either.

If you think about it, it's not that bad of a law.

One last thing, if a driver crashes into your car and he's talking on the phone, compared to a driver who isn't talking on the phone, who would you more likely want to beat the shit out of?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[rawr]

speaking about ferraris...


http://www.raven.za.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ferrari_fxx_full_of_win_01-502x334-custom.jpg

this has to be the single most greatest picture in all of human history

[GabAlmighty]

No.

This is
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3916085840_6edcc528f2_z.jpg?zz=1

[InvisibleSoul]

Also, like it or not, talking on the phone IS a distraction. Ever try playing video games while your gf wants to have a phone convo? Two things usually occur when I am in that situation. 1) she will say something and a few minutes I say "umm what did you just say?" and 2) before I know it, 2 periods in a NHL11 game I've been playing have flown by, and I am unaware of the score, cause I'm not focusing my whole attention in the game either.
Bad analogy.

Along those lines, if you've been talking on the phone while driving, you may not remember details during your trip to where you are, but that doesn't mean you weren't able to get there in a safe manner.

[PuYang]

didnt someone say that the new "no cellphone/texting rule" now causes more accidents than before?

because people are still texting while driving. but now, instead of doing it in the open, they have to hide it below, which takes their eyes off the road = higher chance of accidents.

i was sitting in a friends car once, and he texted with both hands while driving at 100km with his knuckles. scared the crap out of me LOL. but he texted in the open (holding the phone up at the wheel), which allowed him to atleast see the road at the same time.

[GabAlmighty]

didnt someone say that the new "no cellphone/texting rule" now causes more accidents than before?

because people are still texting while driving. but now, instead of doing it in the open, they have to hide it below, which takes their eyes off the road = higher chance of accidents.

i was sitting in a friends car once, and he texted with both hands while driving at 100km with his knuckles. scared the crap out of me LOL. but he texted in the open (holding the phone up at the wheel), which allowed him to atleast see the road at the same time.

Ya I heard that one too. Can't remember if it was a study for BC or another place that had outlawed it.

With your knuckles eh? I prefer driving with my knee.

[Leopold Stotch]

Ya I heard that one too. Can't remember if it was a study for BC or another place that had outlawed it.

With your knuckles eh? I prefer driving with my knee.

i agree, i holding the steering wheel with my knee, but then again i can text without looking.

how we find ways to circumvent the law. haha

[gars]

i was sitting in a friends car once, and he texted with both hands while driving at 100km with his knuckles. scared the crap out of me LOL. but he texted in the open (holding the phone up at the wheel), which allowed him to atleast see the road at the same time.

rather than blaming the law, why didn't you just tell your friend to stop? If I had a friend in the car, I'd just ask them to text for me. There are specific duties that come with riding shotgun.

[PuYang]

^i wasnt blaming the law at all. i was simply sharing what i heard from other reports.

i was in the backseat. and it was his GF texting him. not really sure i want to be reading those and texting for him. lol. *shivers*

[GabAlmighty]

rather than blaming the law, why didn't you just tell your friend to stop? If I had a friend in the car, I'd just ask them to text for me. There are specific duties that come with riding shotgun.

Bro, can't be having my gf in the seat next to me texting my mistress for me. Shit'll get me caught.

[Great68]

The Ferrari has been posted on BC Auction:

http://www.bcauction.ca/open.dll/showDisplayDocument?sessionID=23312651&language=En&disID=6201380&docType=Tender&doc_search_by=Tend&fromEmail=yes

Asset Investment Recovery

2008 Ferrari F430 Scuderia VIN: ZFFKW64A780164470


Auction Details:
Mirabeau Blue 2008 Ferrari F 430 Scuderia

Arranged shipping is NOT available for this auction item. Buyer is responsible for making
their own arrangements for removal of this auction item.

Make: Ferrari
Model: F 430 Scuderia
VIN: ZFFKW64A780164470
Year: 2008
Exterior Colour: Mirabeau Blue
Interior Colour: Carbon Fibre with Black Seats w/Cream inserts
Mileage: 618 Miles
Engine Size: 4.3 L 510 bhp Aluminum Alloy, 90 degree V8 w/Dry Sump Lubrication
Fuel: Gas
Body Style: 2 Door Sports Car
Brakes: Carbon-Ceramic Discs w/ 6 Piston Front Calipers and 4 Piston Rear Calipers
Transmission: F-1 6 Speed Sequential Manual with Paddle Shift
Tires: Pirelli PZero Corsa 235/35/19 Front, 285/35/19 Rear
Spare: No Jack: No
Windshield: Good

Includes:
Air bags
Air compressor
AM/FM Radio, CD player
Alarm system
Battery charger
Car cover
Delay wipers
Manuals
Power windows, mirrors and door locks
Radar detector: Escort 9500ci
Tilt steering
Tool kit

Small rock chips on front valance and around wheel openings

Vehicle runs, overall condition is unknown.

[adambomb]

Only 618 kms!! :love:

[GabAlmighty]

Lol, most expensive radar detector did fuck all for him though.