[Eff-1]

Speeding Ferrari Driver Loses Ride
Share | File # 2010-26972
2010-09-27 15:20 PDT

On Saturday, September 25th at around 10:45 AM, motorists in the area of Mt. Seymour Rd. spotted two vehicles racing at excessive speeds up Mt. Seymour. They called the RCMP to report the dangerous driving.

An officer who was conducting patrols near the top of the mountain when the call was dispatched, prepared to intercept the drivers. Moments later, he watched, stunned, as a blue Ferrari rocketed past him at almost 200 km/h. A BMW followed close behind.

The officer was able to catch up to the vehicles in the parking lot at the top of Mt. Seymour. The drivers, two young men, one aged 21 and the other 22, both residents of Vancouver, were issued almost $1000 in traffic fines for Excessive Speeding and Driving Without Due Care and Attention. Under provisions of the new Provincial legislation for excessive speeding and street racing, both drivers had their licenses prohibited for 7 days, and both cars were impounded for 7 days.


“With these kinds of unbelievable speeds, it would only have been a matter of time before they killed either themselves or someone else. The new Provincial driving legislation now allows police to take away their licenses and their cars, a consequence that not only saves lives, but in this case, is also unarguably fitting.”

Cpl. DeVries said that the stretch of road is used at this time of year by hikers, outdoor enthusiasts and families who make their way up to the mountain to enjoy the outdoors.

http://bc.rcmp.ca/digitalAssets/22/22534_Towed_2_Small.JPG

[sonick]

Odds these 'tards are from VanSky?

[Presto]

Buster's is so going to rape both of those cars.

[R&R]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[Jgresch]

In unrelated news, Larry Chu, formally known as "XTC-604" traded in daddies baby blue S200 for a matching baby blue ferrari.

[Eff-1]

Buster's is so going to rape both of those cars.

North Van = Payless Towing

[124Y]

In unrelated news, Larry Chu, formally known as "XTC-604" traded in daddies baby blue S200 for a matching baby blue ferrari.

LOL that's exactly what I thought too when I saw the baby blue ferrari!

[Presto]

North Van = Payless Towing

They'd invite Buster's over for some exotic double-teaming. :p

[shenmecar]

when 7 days is up, they'll tell daddy to sell the scuderia (cuz its bad luck) and buy a LP560 or something.

[jpark]

LOL that's exactly what I thought too when I saw the baby blue ferrari!

its..suzuka blue...

[Dragon-88]

TOO Funny...

[GabAlmighty]

Noobs, Cypress is where it's at. And daytime runs are bad news, too many people.

You can hold some pretty fast speeds up Cypress.

[Euro7r]

Dad is gonna be pissed his car got impounded hahahaa

[JoshuaWong]

those motorist should just mind their own business instead of ratting ppl out. at least they do it in a reasonable place and not down granville. jealousy is a bitchh

[Jgresch]

^ Not other peoples business when they're being put in danger.... rigggghhhtttt

[Dragon-88]

those motorist should just mind their own business instead of ratting ppl out. at least they do it in a reasonable place and not down granville. jealousy is a bitchh

Safety is a bitch but theres a reason for it...

[GabAlmighty]

That's unfortunate he only hit 200... Probably couldn't drive worth shit.

[Amuse]

those motorist should just mind their own business instead of ratting ppl out. at least they do it in a reasonable place and not down granville. jealousy is a bitchh
So why don't you join them in their race up the mountain?
And what does jealousy have to do with this. I would call the cops if a some other car did 200 just for safety reasons of other cars or pedestrians..

[GabAlmighty]

Personally I prefer solo runs, but that's just me.

[Spectre_Cdn]

Dad is gonna be pissed his car got impounded hahahaa
Daddy probably doesn't know because he's halfway around the world...
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JSALES]

too funny haha

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

ferrari can speed all they want...because according to jeremy clarkson..... ferrari is like.....a step down of god

:thumbsup:

[The_AK]

http://aroundthesphere.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

[flagella]

rofl, fucking fools. Only 7 days? I hope the mileage of their cars shoot up at least 1,000 km with various scrapes by the time they get them back.

[!Aznboi128]

In unrelated news, Larry Chu, formally known as "XTC-604" traded in daddies baby blue S200 for a matching baby blue ferrari.

its..suzuka blue...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

WIN!

[v.Rossi]

please don't speed, i was just in an accident in north van couple hours ago. it was my first car accident, i'm still in shock and feeling adrenaline. it was during my shift, it was a works demo car, a versa actually. airbag deployed, front end completely smashed in it wasn't my fault nor from speeding. this post is just a reminder really. anyways i blacked out, woke up from people asking if i was alright and having them explain i was just in an accident. first thing that entered my mind: "whoa what happened? why is my car facing the other way? i'm on my shift, am i on my break?" then i hear: turn off the car, turn off the radio!!

paramedic told me he's glad i'm not paralyzed by the damage. i thanked him, but was still in shock while in the ambulance. got off my shift, feeling sore was offered to go to a hospital, but i really didn't want to take up any rooms considering my condition. bruised arm from airbag, leg sore nothing major. though i feel like puking right now.

walked back and found the scratched and mangled emblem rolled half a block away from the accident near the curb. i'm going to hang it on my rear view mirror to remind myself not to speed.

http://imgur.com/xuAXf.jpg

[GabAlmighty]

Bro story cool

[Jayhall]

Why can't we sign a waiver, get seymour road shut down for the day and go up one at a time?

[hk20000]

Any pics or more information of how the accident happened?

The devil is in the details, yo.

[sonick]

Any pics or more information of how the accident happened?

The devil is in the details, yo.

vtec prolly kicked in, yo.

[Kaolinite]

please don't speed, i was just in an accident in north van couple hours ago. it was my first car accident, i'm still in shock and feeling adrenaline. it was during my shift, it was a works demo car, a versa actually. airbag deployed, front end completely smashed in it wasn't my fault nor from speeding. this post is just a reminder really. anyways i blacked out, woke up from people asking if i was alright and having them explain i was just in an accident. first thing that entered my mind: "whoa what happened? why is my car facing the other way? i'm on my shift, am i on my break?" then i hear: turn off the car, turn off the radio!!

paramedic told me he's glad i'm not paralyzed by the damage. i thanked him, but was still in shock while in the ambulance. got off my shift, feeling sore was offered to go to a hospital, but i really didn't want to take up any rooms considering my condition. bruised arm from airbag, leg sore nothing major. though i feel like puking right now.

walked back and found the scratched and mangled emblem rolled half a block away from the accident near the curb. i'm going to hang it on my rear view mirror to remind myself not to speed.

same happened to me aug 14,2010 . Going straight on Granville and not speeding and this douchebag turns left infront of me lol except i wasnt as lucky and got a compound fracture on my right leg.. hooray still on crutches.

[hk20000]

vtec prolly kicked in, yo.
on a Versa? yo?

[Vale46Rossi]

owned already...

[sonick]

on a Versa? yo?

I'm talkin about the Ferrari, bro.

[GabAlmighty]

I'm talkin about the Ferrari, bro.

On a Ferrari, bro?

[sonick]

On a Ferrari, bro?

More than you can afford, pal.

[GabAlmighty]

Smoke em.

[belka]

$5 says these guys are rich Asians from Richmond.

[orange7]

$5 says these guys are rich Asians from Richmond.

Speeding Ferrari Driver Loses Ride
Share | File # 2010-26972
2010-09-27 15:20 PDT

On Saturday, September 25th at around 10:45 AM, motorists in the area of Mt. Seymour Rd. spotted two vehicles racing at excessive speeds up Mt. Seymour. They called the RCMP to report the dangerous driving.

An officer who was conducting patrols near the top of the mountain when the call was dispatched, prepared to intercept the drivers. Moments later, he watched, stunned, as a blue Ferrari rocketed past him at almost 200 km/h. A BMW followed close behind.

The officer was able to catch up to the vehicles in the parking lot at the top of Mt. Seymour. The drivers, two young men, one aged 21 and the other 22, both residents of Vancouver, were issued almost $1000 in traffic fines for Excessive Speeding and Driving Without Due Care and Attention. Under provisions of the new Provincial legislation for excessive speeding and street racing, both drivers had their licenses prohibited for 7 days, and both cars were impounded for 7 days.


“With these kinds of unbelievable speeds, it would only have been a matter of time before they killed either themselves or someone else. The new Provincial driving legislation now allows police to take away their licenses and their cars, a consequence that not only saves lives, but in this case, is also unarguably fitting.”

Cpl. DeVries said that the stretch of road is used at this time of year by hikers, outdoor enthusiasts and families who make their way up to the mountain to enjoy the outdoors.

[!Aznboi128]

$5 says these guys are rich Asians from Richmond.
^ thx

where's my 5 bux

[belka]

S both residents of Vancouver,

Vancouver, Richmond, same thing.

[AccordCouped]

.

[Rich Sandor]

Trying to tell a 20-22 year old to NOT speed up cypress/seymour is like talking to a wall. Any racing enthusiast is going to push the limits when they think they can get away with it.

I'm not going be a hypocrite, I've done it. But these days I am MUCH more reserved, and it's got NOTHING to do with police.

Let me tell you why: The roads going up cypress and seymour have NO fencing to prevent wildlife crossing. And believe you me, there are SHITLOADS of bears and deer that cross those roads, both day and night. And they don't always get out of the way! They will jump right out in front of a speeding car and sometimes you may not be able to avoid them.

I know Porsches/Ferraris/BMWs *will* stop faster than most other cars, even at breakneck speeds, but if an animal jumps out 20' in front of you when you're doing 160+kph - you're fucked!

I'd argue it's safer to do those speeds on highways like the coquihalla that are designed for it. (even if it is illegal)

[twitchyzero]

in a ferrari 200 is safe.. 300 is where it gets dangerous

yeap cause they do crash-testing at 300kph let alone 200?

[Hehe]

in a ferrari 200 is safe.. 300 is where it gets dangerous

Dude, even the fastest 0-100-0MPH car takes about 3.5sec to come to a full stop from 100mph (which is less than 200km), and about 100 meters for that deceleration, in the event of any pedestrian o car showing up, they do not have enough reaction time to stop. And if the fastest don't have this ability, what makes you think a Ferrari can pull it off?

[Berzerker]

Buster's is so going to rape both of those cars.

It's Payless towing in North Van and yes... they will be raped.

Berz out.

[underscore]

Good on the people who called it in, it's too bad the fine is relatively low compared to the value of those cars. They should make it so that fines are raised relative to the cost of the vehicle haha.

rofl, fucking fools. Only 7 days? I hope the mileage of their cars shoot up at least 1,000 km with various scrapes by the time they get them back.

Who knows where the impound lot is and has a good slingshot? lol

[tofu1413]

wildlife is quite random at cypress and seymour.

even driving normally, a deer pops out of nowhere. scares the shit out of me.

[GabAlmighty]

Ya, I've almost hit a deer while on a Cypress run.. haha.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

deer meat anyone?

[Presto]

I wonder if those were N drivers.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

i wonder if they were power by mommies

[Hondaracer]

7 days and $1000 when you have a 400k car, no biggy it's probably worth it to them to actually drive the car oposed to avoiding a $100 ticket going under 80
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

its pocket change to them, but sucks having the ferrari impounded

[Phil@rise]

Buster's is so going to rape both of those cars.

Busters won't get them. They'll be in the payless yard. And of course they were N drivers they were 21 its not possible to get rid of your N by 21 is it?

[Mancini]

No street racing fines?

[Mananetwork]

I'm talkin about the Ferrari, bro.

On a Ferrari, bro?

More than you can afford, pal.

Smoke em.

:rofl:

[RevRav]

Busters won't get them. They'll be in the payless yard. And of course they were N drivers they were 21 its not possible to get rid of your N by 21 is it?

Yeah it is...you can get your class 5 by 19...

[Tai Chi]

on today's chinese newspaper

[Dragon-88]

^^^ LOL, so daddy can understand what happened. Instead of son saying cops took car la for no reason la...

[q0192837465]

lol, no love for the BMW? I wonder what model it is.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

definitely aint gonna be a 323


most likely E92 m3 / M6

[gearshifter]

wow considering that they were asian.... the parents will feel the shame..... family shame!

[buddy]

great, $1000 and 7 days later, they will be back on the road putting other people's lives at risk ...

[cococly]

I wonder if the ferrari driver was too dumb or too excited from the race to actually not noticing a police cruiser coming from the opposite direction?

[Greenstoner]

he must be excited because i would imagine jizzing in my pant while driving a ferrari

[q0192837465]

If you look at it from their point of view, I don't think they'r "too excited" to speed in a Ferrari. The novelty factor wears off if u drives a Ferrari everyday. It's just another car.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

until they get something faster, 458/LP670

[CP.AR]

let just hope that these guys either
A) get caught so many times they lose their car for 90 days/driving suspension
or

B) drive off a cliff - DIE, and not hurt anyone else in the process

[spoon.ek9]

i'm glad these kids were fined but it makes me scratch my head how my friend got $800 in tickets for driving 70km/hr in Richmond in the middle of the night (a few months ago now).

[tofu1413]

^ speeding + VI's + fine for dangerous driving..?

[spoon.ek9]

the cop slapped him with excessive speeding and something else. he was cruising at 70km/hr in a stock family car at like 2am, no VI.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

richmond pigs, NOTHING suprises me at all

[tofu1413]

each time i go to ackroyd blenz, on average, i see at least two cars pulled over per a night.


HAHAHAH. just sitting there, watching random cars getting pulled over.

[Hondaracer]

actually now that i think about it.. there was the same F430 [color anyways] that drove around with a guy with an M6 in british properties when i was working up there, could very well be those 2 guys, although both looked older than those ages

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

maybe its XTC? he finally sold enough bullshit warranties at futureshop so he grew a pair of balls and sold his fugly s2000 and got that ferrari, no wait...who the fuck am i kidding here.



:bullshit:

[tofu1413]

maybe its XTC? he finally sold enough bullshit warranties at futureshop so he grew a pair of balls and sold his fugly s2000 and got that ferrari, no wait...who the fuck am i kidding here.



:bullshit:

what was in his trunk again...? :troll:

[winks]

owned

[Eff-1]

Some more details:

- Ferrari was purchased the day before

- When the report was made to the RCMP, the officer who was already at the top of the mountain was there because he was investigating a vandalism report

- The other car was a white M6

[nack]

:facepalm:

[orange7]

. . > .. $.. 6. ... ~

[mb_]

I'm going to assume the Ferrari beat the m6 to the top.

If you read you'll know

[q0192837465]

I dunno, it's a driver's race. I'm sure the M6 lost cuz the driver sucked. Or maybe they just got busted right when the Ferrari overtook the M6.

[HonestTea]

I dunno, it's a driver's race. I'm sure the M6 lost cuz the driver sucked. Or maybe they just got busted right when the Ferrari overtook the M6.

I don't think a M6 vs. F430 Scuderia is a drivers race..

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

not even close

M6 cant even corner properly against a 911 turbo, what makes you think it can come CLOSE to a 430 SC

[ivys2k]

lol the cop is nice enough for only $1000 fine and 7days...

[The_AK]

lol whoever the kid is, he made it onto Jalopnik

http://jalopnik.com/5652364/

[twitchyzero]

lol whoever the kid is, he made it onto Jalopnik

http://jalopnik.com/5652364/

Lol so many jabs at canadians in that article.

[Psb1]

They probably thought they could race up the mountain thinking there would be less cars and less people.
At least they didn't race in the city where they would have most likely crashed

[JV6]

In unrelated news, Larry Chu, formally known as "XTC-604" traded in daddies baby blue S200 for a matching baby blue ferrari.

LOL

[observer]

lol the cop is nice enough for only $1000 fine and 7days...

Wouldn't be sad if the cop didn't have evidence and exaggerated making a 150 km/h speeding into 200 km/h. Details aside, must say I'm not a fan of these guilty until proven innocent laws.

[Anjew]

7days and 1000dollars thats it???? prolly took daddys other car out for a drive that same night.

400,000 car with a 1000dollar excessive speeding fine? how about a percentage of the value of the car or a percentage of the owners income/assets. that should be a sufficient deterent

[belka]

7days and 1000dollars thats it???? prolly took daddys other car out for a drive that same night.

400,000 car with a 1000dollar excessive speeding fine? how about a percentage of the value of the car or a percentage of the owners income/assets. that should be a sufficient deterent

Don't they have a law like this in Sweden...or some European country? I've heard of a Bugatti owner getting a six figure speeding ticket because of his high income.

[1exotic]

Everyone needs to chill the F out, you kno what I'm sayin. Just becuase the artical says 200km doesn't mean anything... It could have been 150km/h or 250km/h, no one really knows. And +1 at least they were doing it in a resonable area. You kno what I'm sayin.


Here's an example of a video I found, watch the whole video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCknOszgBl8

cop says they were doing 140, but they say 200.

You kno what I'm sayin.

[Spy228]

chill the F out, you kno what I'm sayin.

You kno what I'm sayin.

You kno what I'm sayin.

You kno what I'm sayin

[GabAlmighty]

I kno what you sayin

[1exotic]

back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXsTexVtnMQ&feature=related

LOL wtf is this

[underscore]

Don't they have a law like this in Sweden...or some European country? I've heard of a Bugatti owner getting a six figure speeding ticket because of his high income.

I was told it's Switzerland, and I think it's a brilliant idea.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

no i dont know what the fuck you are saying

[Noizz]

I'm just curious here but....

The article noted that the 2 cars blew past him at 200km/hr, meaning they would be out of his sight from the windy road going to the top, and the fact that the officer had to catch up with them when they were at the parking lot meant that he would have lost continuity.

It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was them. There could have been another Ferrari or BMW in another parking lot. Obviously we know there wasn't, but it could be argued, couldn't it?

I remember I bombed past a cop once at cypress at the lookout point on my bike, he radioed a lady cop at the bottom of the mountain and when I got there she pulled me over to only tell me to watch out and slow down. She even told me the loss of continuity and change of witness protected me.

[ws6ta]

I'm just curious here but....

The article noted that the 2 cars blew past him at 200km/hr, meaning they would be out of his sight from the windy road going to the top, and the fact that the officer had to catch up with them when they were at the parking lot meant that he would have lost continuity.

It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was them. There could have been another Ferrari or BMW in another parking lot. Obviously we know there wasn't, but it could be argued, couldn't it?

I remember I bombed past a cop once at cypress at the lookout point on my bike, he radioed a lady cop at the bottom of the mountain and when I got there she pulled me over to only tell me to watch out and slow down. She even told me the loss of continuity and change of witness protected me.

exactly how you can get away with tickets in court. too bad they take your car away road side now. guilty until proven innocent??

[1BADMR2]

.

[ruthless]

This new law is wrong, the fine(s) I agree with but to impound the vehicle is not right. If this was the only vehicle that the person owned and it gets impounded, how would they get to work if there is no transit, live in different city from work, etc. Do not tell me "just don't speed", even going 1 km/h over the speed limit is considered speeding. Many people speed and I agree that some people should never even drive but impounding the vehicle is not right. Guilty until proven inoccent. Why not fine them a very large amount instead?

A lot of the speed limits in BC are out dated. This gives the fuzz too much power, especially when they assume that they are always right or just having a bad day.

They don't impound your car if you go 1km over the speed limit they impound it if your caught doing 40+km/h over...

[vo_hantu]

I'm just curious here but....

The article noted that the 2 cars blew past him at 200km/hr, meaning they would be out of his sight from the windy road going to the top, and the fact that the officer had to catch up with them when they were at the parking lot meant that he would have lost continuity.

It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was them. There could have been another Ferrari or BMW in another parking lot. Obviously we know there wasn't, but it could be argued, couldn't it?

I remember I bombed past a cop once at cypress at the lookout point on my bike, he radioed a lady cop at the bottom of the mountain and when I got there she pulled me over to only tell me to watch out and slow down. She even told me the loss of continuity and change of witness protected me.

I kind of understand what your argument is, but how often do you see a baby blue ferarri? It was pretty obvious. You go a 'rip', you accept all consequences for your actions...it just sucks for the people that try to not excessive speed. Like how that street race in Richmond way back when, started the whole awareness thing. I would love to drive in Richmond without being scared haha.

But yeah...rather have the car impounded than crushed like in certain places. *knock on wood*

[underscore]

This new law is wrong, the fine(s) I agree with but to impound the vehicle is not right. If this was the only vehicle that the person owned and it gets impounded, how would they get to work if there is no transit, live in different city from work, etc. Do not tell me "just don't speed", even going 1 km/h over the speed limit is considered speeding. Many people speed and I agree that some people should never even drive but impounding the vehicle is not right. Guilty until proven inoccent. Why not fine them a very large amount instead?

A lot of the speed limits in BC are out dated. This gives the fuzz too much power, especially when they assume that they are always right or just having a bad day.

Oh you can still speed, just don't go more than 40 over and you can keep your car.

Reading > you.

[Noizz]

I kind of understand what your argument is, but how often do you see a baby blue ferarri? It was pretty obvious.

Think of it this way, forget the Ferrari. Same situation but you drove the same car as the violator and you're sitting in you car, parked in the lot. Violator zooms past you out of sight, cop comes around the corner and sees you and the same car. What is the cop going to think?

And the fact that it is a Ferrari doesn't matter, it's the principle. Yes it's less likely, but a chance is still a chance.

I would think that although they can still tow your car away on the spot you aren't guilty yet. When you get your speeding ticket it doesn't mean you are pleading guilty so I don't see how this would be any different because in the canadian charter of human rights and freedoms it says:

"Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

[GabAlmighty]

We'll take my situation for example.

Was driving highway 1 and punched it, lo and behold it was an unmarked car behind me. Get pulled over, cop DOESN'T know how fast I was going. He says I was going more than 160km/h as he couldn't keep up with me (Wait, your police trim suv couldn't keep up with my bone stock Volvo 240? hahah). Puts on the ticket "more than 60km/h over"... Later, I get a letter in the mail saying that the ticket has basically been thrown out and that the cop has the right to issue a new ticket (that was a few months ago).

Moral of the story here, I woulda had my car impounded for "bad" ticket.

And no, i'm not saying I was in the right. But pretend I wasn't excessive speeding, maybe just accelerated really hard to 130km/h... Still not the 40km/h over... And I woulda lost my car for a week and been charged the fees for essentially the wrong offence.

[1BADMR2]

.

[Soundy]

I know Porsches/Ferraris/BMWs *will* stop faster than most other cars, even at breakneck speeds, but if an animal jumps out 20' in front of you when you're doing 160+kph - you're fucked!
When I was growing up, in the Interior, a neighbor of ours left his driveway in his K-car... turned onto the highway... was up to a whopping 30 or 40km/h when a moose jumped out of the bushes directly in front of him.

Now, your average moose weighs in the vicinity of 1000 pounds and has long spindly legs that hold it a good three feet off the ground... so even just nudging this thing, it basically landed in his lap.

Dude lived... but he didn't walk for two months. Still doesn't have the use of one hand to this day, 20+ years later. His face was incredibly messed up from the glass that was embedded in it - even windshield safety glass can piece out when it has a several-hundred-pound chunk of flesh going through it. His jaw was wired shut for a good four weeks and he couldn't eat normally for almost a year.

So yeah... hitting a big animal is not something you want to do in your pasta or sauerkraut rocket.

I'd argue it's safer to do those speeds on highways like the coquihalla that are designed for it. (even if it is illegal)
Not just that, but using Seymour or Cypress, you're trapped - once you get to the top, there's nowhere to go.

[Soundy]

I already know that they will impound your vehicle if you do 40 km/h over the limit. If you acutally read what i am saying is that impounding a vehicle is NOT right. Many people speed (40+) and the speed limits in BC are outdated. Just because you do the speed limit, others do not.
So? Let the OTHERS lose their cars, then.

If that was the only vehicle in that family and the car got impounded, how is that person(s) going to get to work, pay bills, kids to school, etc.????
How is that person to pay the fines if they can not get to work???
Shoulda thought of that beforehand. Duh.

Looking outside of the box ownes you both.
When you choose to drive on the PUBLIC roads, you choose to put yourself in a very narrow box. Stay inside the box, and everyone gets along. Step outside the box, bad things happen. Don't like it... stay inside the box, stay home, or build your own fucking box with your own rules.

[underscore]

I already know that they will impound your vehicle if you do 40 km/h over the limit. If you acutally read what i am saying is that impounding a vehicle is NOT right. Many people speed (40+) and the speed limits in BC are outdated. Just because you do the speed limit, others do not.

If that was the only vehicle in that family and the car got impounded, how is that person(s) going to get to work, pay bills, kids to school, etc.????
How is that person to pay the fines if they can not get to work???
What if the person is doing 38 km/h over and the fuzz rounds it up to 40 km/h and they get their car impounded???

The Police are human beings, to be human is to error. I say that they just imply a very large fine and let the courts decide if the vehicle gets impounded not one policeman or woman. Not all Police are always in great moods.

Looking outside of the box ownes you both.

Most people barely ever leave city limits, where are they going 40 over on a regular basis? Yes most people speed, but it's typically 5-10 over, 20 at most.

"That person" shouldn't have been such a selfish prick and gotten the car impounded now should they? This should be pretty simple.

So, to play it safe, don't go more than 30 over. If you're around 40 over and it's up the officers discretion, your attitude probably plays a big part here as to whether they count it as excessive or not. If you think you're only going 38 over, changes in tire size and age means your speedo isn't that accurate, and you could very easily be going more than 38 over.

*actually
*owns

[observer]

"Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".

.

[1BADMR2]

.

[penner2k]

What happens if you lose your car and license and then when you go to court the judge finds you not guilty?
Who pays the impound fee?
Who pays for whatever form of transportation you need to use while you have no car and no license?

Do you just get credit for one free 40+ km/h over the speed limit in the future? lol

[1BADMR2]

[.

[Soundy]

I would think that although they can still tow your car away on the spot you aren't guilty yet. When you get your speeding ticket it doesn't mean you are pleading guilty so I don't see how this would be any different because in the canadian charter of human rights and freedoms it says:

"Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribunal
"Tribunal in the general sense is any person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title.[1]"

I would imagine in the course of dotting the legal i's and crossing the t's, they would have empowered the cops appropriately for these circumstances.

Consider that they're already permitted to tow your car for a number of other reasons: if you're impaired, if the vehicle is unsafe, if the driver is arrested on an outstanding warrant, etc. There never seems to have been a "Charter issue" with these... there's no reason there should be with this.

But I think I need to simplify my statements. In my opinion, The courts should decide if the vehicle should be impounded, burnt, recycled, etc. NOT the Police.
The police are only deciding whether the car should be impounded. You still get it back afterward. Nobody is burning it or recycling it or doing anything else to it other than stowing it for the prescribed time period.

Tell us this: let's assume this was the case, that the court decides your vehicle should be impounded. That means the minute you pay your ticket, you're pleading guilty - you want the truck to come unannounced and tow your car then? Or say you dispute the charge, and lose - should they come and tow it then and leave you stranded at the courthouse? Or are you going to voluntarily go drop it off at the impound yard?

I am stating that this new law gives the Police too much power
The worst they can do is take your car and store it for a while - this isn't Ontario where the courts can later decide to destroy your car. They already have the power to impound, and have had for a long, long time. All this does is add another circumstance where impoundment is an option.

That's not an opinion, BTW, that's just a statement of fact.

What happens if you lose your car and license and then when you go to court the judge finds you not guilty?
Who pays the impound fee?
Who pays for whatever form of transportation you need to use while you have no car and no license?

Do you just get credit for one free 40+ km/h over the speed limit in the future? lol
Exactly what I am trying to convey. Think out side the box. No one will pay you back so it is up to the courts to decide about impounding the vehicle or whatever else they want to do NOT the Police.

Skidmark has stated numerous times in other threads that there are provisions in the law for compensation. Why don't you try looking them up, or ask over in PF for a pointer to them?

Try keeping your head inside the box long enough to learn the facts of what you're whining about.

[originalhypa]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v253/hypasteve/723sy.gif



The police are only deciding whether the car should be impounded. You still get it back afterward. Nobody is burning it or recycling it or doing anything else to it other than stowing it for the prescribed time period.

Jesus Christ Soundy, you're such a fucking fail.
I'm literally slapping my own forehead after reading your replies.

You may get your car back, you may also get your license back, but what happens in the meantime?

You could lose your job.
You could get the car back with damage.
You could be put in a bad financial situation when forced to pay the exhorbitant fines and fees.

Only to have a judge say "sorry, our bad".

You may like the gov't holding your hand, for whatever reason.
But most of us take personal responsibility for our own actions, and don't want the gov't looking over our shoulders.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

you forgot to fail him dude

[originalhypa]

Meh, he's a living fail.
It's doubtful that mine would even make a difference.





:lol

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

i wonna double thank you


dude is a wonnabe cop
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Soundy]

You may get your car back, you may also get your license back, but what happens in the meantime?

You could lose your job.
You could get the car back with damage.
You could be put in a bad financial situation when forced to pay the exhorbitant fines and fees.

Only to have a judge say "sorry, our bad".

And again I ask, how is this any different than having your car impounded for being falling down drunk, or for it being a piece of shit, or any of a number of any reasons that cops have been allowed to tow your car for DECADES?

Here's how it's different: it's still cheaper. You don't have to worry about defending a criminal DUI charge. You don't have to put thousands into repairs before you're allowed to put it back on the road. You wait your seven days, you pay off the impound yard and the various fees, and you're on your way again.


But most of us take personal responsibility for our own actions, and don't want the gov't looking over our shoulders.

That's actually almost funny... you know the law, you know the consequences... if you get busted, will you take the personal responsibility for your own actions? Or will you come into RS whining about it, and try to blame it on the cop having a bad day?

If you know that 40-over is the line, and that cops so far are only concentrating on people doing 50-over... how hard is it to keep it to 30-over?

Have a little fucking self control. Take some personal responsibility for your own driving habits, instead of blaming it on the speed limits, or the flow of traffic.

[Great68]

Now it makes sense why Soundy's so grumpy:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2309&stc=1&d=1286501819

[GabAlmighty]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH, well done^^^

[orange7]

Now it makes sense why Soundy's so grumpy:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2309&stc=1&d=1286501819


rofl..

[1exotic]

Officer Soundy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTvtkUPjgXk&feature=player_embedded

[Soundy]

It's funny that you call me grumpy, yet you're all the ones whining and bitching about new penalties that you really should be able to easily avoid if you just drove as if you weren't the only person on the planet.

[godwin]

http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?id=3873630&sponsor=

Gov't seizes $235,000 Ferrari and BMW after drivers caught racing in North Van


By Staff Reporter, The Province November 23, 2010 1:43 PM


They're sexy, sleek and can burn up the road above and beyond the speed limit – and the drivers of a $235,000 Ferrari Scuderia and a BMW M6 have both lost their dream machines thanks to B.C.'s beefed up civil forfeiture laws.

The drivers were busted doing about 200 km/h along North Vancouver's Mount Seymour Parkway in September — with the Ferrari narrowly missing a mother walking with her children.

After being stopped by North Vancouver RCMP, both drivers were given immediate 15-day driving bans.

Whether RCMP and the Civil Forfeiture Office seize vehicles depends on specific criteria, such as the speed the vehicles were travelling, the regard for the safety of others, and whether there is potential for catastrophic injury or death. This road race met the criteria and the vehicles were impounded.

"When a vehicle has killed or injured someone, it's too late. Our laws now work to take vehicles away from reckless drivers before they hurt someone because they are demonstrating no regard for the safety of themselves or others on our roads," said Solicitor General Rich Coleman.

Of the Ferrari sale proceeds, 50 per cent will go to a relative of the driver who was part owner but was not involved in the incident. The province will receive 20 per cent and the driver, 30 per cent. Proceeds from the BMW sale will go first to cover the costs of storage and disposal, and repaying a bank debt on the vehicle. Out of the remaining proceeds, 30 per cent will go to the province and 70 per cent to the driver. From the total proceeds from both vehicles, the province will receive an estimated $100,000.

The province has an agreement in place to sell the Ferrari to a local dealership at a set price of $235,000, but the amount received for the BMW will depend upon an auction. The BMW will be auctioned on the province's BC Auction website at www.bcauction.ca.

To date, cash and assets valued at more than $13 million have been forfeited to the province, including $4.4 million since April 1, 2010.
© Copyright (c) The Province

[Tai Chi]

nice.:smokin:

[dhari]

ouchh thats gotta hurt

[Great68]

So they slipped in the ability to SEIZE vehicles along with the new impoundment punishments???

What a fucking steamy pile of bullshit.

[cococly]

So they slipped in the ability to SEIZE vehicles along with the new impoundment punishments???

What a fucking steamy pile of bullshit.

Yea, it's :bullshit:

[Great68]

Fuck this government.

I'm glad they're going down in flames right now, I really really am.

[Phat_R]

So they slipped in the ability to SEIZE vehicles along with the new impoundment punishments???

What a fucking steamy pile of bullshit.


No way man -- I totally disagree with you. They got off lucky!

What if they had crashed and/or caused a fatality? At the speeds these asshats were driving -- they very likely could have.

I applaud the seizure of these cars -- fuck those guys. The only way they are going to listen (i.e. rich spoiled ass fucks) is if you hit em where it hurts which is in the wallet.

This also will prevent future douchebags from using public roads as their personal racetrack.

[RevRav]

Of the Ferrari sale proceeds, 50 per cent will go to a relative of the driver who was part owner but was not involved in the incident. The province will receive 20 per cent and the driver, 30 per cent.

So in another words, the driver got fined $47,000. And rest of the money goes back to him and his "relative"....to buy a brand new Ferrari :thumbsup:

[too_slow]

$235k is an insane bargain for the scuderia..

[spyker]

So they slipped in the ability to SEIZE vehicles along with the new impoundment punishments???

What a fucking steamy pile of bullshit.
I couldn't agree with you more,the government has a habit of making the rules as they go along without telling anyone.

The people of Canada lose our democracy little by little each time the government does stuff like this.The Canadian government might as well go into a dictatorship type of ruling for the people.

[zulutango]

Ferrari and BMW Seized Due To Street Racing
Share | 2010-11-23 13:56 PST
A Ferrari and a BMW with a combined value of $310,000 have been forfeited thanks to the combined efforts of the RCMP’s Federal Integrated Proceeds of Crime Unit (IPOC) and the BC Civil Forfeiture Office.
IPOC’s Asset Forfeiture Unit has been working on this file since September 25th, 2010. That was the day North Vancouver RCMP stopped two 31-year-old men who were racing on Mount Seymour Road. A 2008 Ferrari Scuderia (valued at $235,000) was seen at speeds reaching 200 km/h, and a BMW M6 (valued at $75,000 ) was close behind. One pedestrian said she was nearly hit while walking with her children. At the time they were stopped, both drivers were ticketed for excessive speeding and driving without due care and attention. They were also issued 15-day driver’s license suspensions and had their cars impounded for seven days.

Please click here for the original North Vancouver RCMP news release on this incident.

The Integrated Proceeds Of Crime Section recommended the BC Civil Forfeiture Office assess the case. It was found to be suitable for civil prosecution under the BC Civil Forfeiture Act for the following reasons:

1. The vehicles were by definition "street racing";
2. The speeds were estimated at 200 km/h on roads designed and signposted for 60 km/h;
3. The disregard by both drivers for the motoring public;
4. The near miss of three pedestrians;
5. The potential for catastrophic injury or death.
“I don’t think anyone in their right mind would disagree with the notion that this kind of driving is absolutely unacceptable. If something had happened, if one of the drivers had lost control and left the roadway or struck another vehicle, at almost 200 km/h, without question someone would have died,” said Corporal Peter DeVries, North Vancouver Media Relations Officer.

Constable Michael McLaughlin, the Federal IPOC Media Relations Officer, adds that “when valuable assets like cars, houses, or cash are used to commit crimes and put other people at risk, the Federal RCMP will explore every option to ensure justice under the law. The public also expects that offenders will not be allowed to keep the profits of crime. The BC Civil Forfeiture Act gives us options that go beyond criminal prosecution.”

The Federal RCMP’s IPOC and the BC Civil Forfeiture Office are committed to maintaining safe communities, and in this case, safe roads. The BC Civil Forfeiture Office assesses RCMP investigations referred by IPOC, and where appropriate, forfeiture is requested in BC Supreme Court for property that is either an instrument and or proceed of unlawful activity.

[tofu1413]

so these cars are going to be police auctioned in the future..??

[fsy82]

That's a load of bullshit. Fine and jail them all you want but seizing property like that is complete bullshit. I wonder what these guy's lawyers will be saying.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

WAIT A MINUTE, let me get this straight

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS PIECE OF FUCKING BULLSHIT ACT


SO they were speeding yada yada yada, they get fined along with all the other bullshit. THey got their license suspended 15 days big deal, they got their vehicles towed away while stored in a lot for 2 weeks. Ok....now please tell me im reading this right. NOw the goverment has right to fucking sell their cars and keep the money?

DId i read it correctly? WHEN THE FUCK DID THIS HOMO MOTHERFUCKING RULE KICK IN

what kind of fucking bullshit is this, last time i check they only impound you with all the other fucking jazz. BUT selling your property just brings this bullshit to a whole new different level


FUCK THIS :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::bullshit:

$1000 + fine just became a ......$250g loss? am i reading this shit correctly? because i honestly dont beieve what im reading right now

wonna sell their houses too? how about seize their wife while they are at it

[PuYang]

im more confused on the fact that they are selling their cars, and then giving parts of the money back to them.

its like saying "hey im gonna forcefully sell your property, but im super nice, so heres part of that back. and then go buy yourself another fast car".

also:
"Of the Ferrari sale proceeds, 50 per cent will go to a relative of the driver who was part owner but was not involved in the incident."

if i was that other half owner who was completely innocent. id be fucking pissed my ferrari was just sold. yay, 50% back, thanks?

[Great68]

Moral of the story:

If you're going to speed, do it in someone else's car.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

its their fucking property, since when does the faggot goverment has the power to force the owners to sell their car ???? :bullshit::bullshit::bullshit::bullshit:


Seriously impounding and bullshit tickets is one thing, but this?????

DId any of us even heard this bs? NOPE, so where did the goverment pull such a bs move out of their ass is what piss me off

[alwaysideways]

Wonder what auction these will be sold off at? Would love to watch to see what they sell for :thumbsup:

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

here is what i just found

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=508ab247-18f3-4e71-b8a1-362bf7e1bef3



:rolleyes::bullshit:

[PuYang]

@alwaysideways

ferrari is going to a dealership.

"The province has an agreement in place to sell the Ferrari to a local dealership at a set price of $235,000, but the amount received for the BMW will depend upon an auction. The BMW will be auctioned on the province's BC Auction website at www.bcauction.ca."

[Great68]

if i was that other half owner who was completely innocent. id be fucking pissed my ferrari was just sold. yay, 50% back, thanks?

I also wonder how they can force a penalty on an innocent person.

No matter how you slice it, the "50%" owner just got penalized, because that 50% will not get him 50% of another F430 Scuderia.

[ree666]

wonna sell their houses too? how about seize their wife while they are at it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKsVSBhSwJg&feature=player_embedded#!

hide yo kids hide yo wife.
cuz they rapin everybody out there

[SaviorSelf_666]

Love how the government gets a huge chunk of the sales. So a driver of a Ferrari loses way more than lets say you topping out your moms ford windstar.

[tofu1413]

@alwaysideways

ferrari is going to a dealership.

"The province has an agreement in place to sell the Ferrari to a local dealership at a set price of $235,000, but the amount received for the BMW will depend upon an auction. The BMW will be auctioned on the province's BC Auction website at www.bcauction.ca."

RS group buy M6.....?

[optiblue]

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

[Pokemon997]

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 !!!

[1exotic]

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"

[InvisibleSoul]

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.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

thank you poke ur mom master

[ree666]

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

[StylinRed]

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

[jackmeister]

The Integrated Proceeds Of Crime Section recommended the BC Civil Forfeiture Office assess the case. It was found to be suitable for civil prosecution under the BC Civil Forfeiture Act for the following reasons:

1. The vehicles were by definition "street racing";
2. The speeds were estimated at 200 km/h on roads designed and signposted for 60 km/h;
3. The disregard by both drivers for the motoring public;
4. The near miss of three pedestrians;
5. The potential for catastrophic injury or death.

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.

[Great68]

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

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

[Great68]

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.



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

[RevRav]

$1000 + fine just became a ......$250g loss? am i reading this shit correctly? because i honestly dont beieve what im reading right now

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

[RevRav]

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.

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.

[Marco911]

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!

[StylinRed]

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

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 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!

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")

[underscore]

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.

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.

[RevRav]

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!

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.

[Hehe]

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.

[Fuhrër-Z]

^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.

[InvisibleSoul]

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.
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."

[ree666]

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

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

Even #2 is subjective, as the key word is "ESTIMATED"
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:
No, you're not reading it correctly. Its only a loss of $50g.


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

[bcedhk]

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.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

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!
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:
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.

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

[jackmeister]

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.

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.

[v.Rossi]

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.

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

[Nightwalker]

This is a fucking outrage.

[Fuhrër-Z]

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

Not sure where that info is coming from, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that street racing is just a teency weency bit more negligent than tailgating is. Granted they're both dangerous, but street racing is on an entirely different level of stupidity.

[snowball]

If you're running drugs with your car and get caught, most likely the car will get seized and sold at the next police auction.. Rob a bank and get caught, the getaway car will get seized and auctioned. Street race (also illegal) and get caught, your car gets seized, sold, but you get some of the money back.

I don't agree that the penalty of street racing should be as much as the other two examples, but at least an example has been made of someone who is rich for once. The owner of the Ferrari probably didn't notice the the 5k for the ticket and impound fees missing from his bank account.

[GabAlmighty]

So, when do I get to impound and crush/sell a cruiser that's drivin like an idiot?

[Marco911]

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.

Idiot. We are talking about the fundamental rights of living in a free society. Under what conditions should the government be allowed to take away private property? It is a matter of grave concern to any citizen. First they are going after excessive speeding without having demonstrated SIGNIFICANT harm to society. What if the govt. decides that loud house parties damage society and force you to sell your home? Would you say, "well I don't care because I don't have house parties"?

[GabAlmighty]

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.

The point, went right over your head. I've done those speeds before, albeit I wasn't an idiot about it. Does that mean I automatically deserve to have my car sold, BEFORE I can take it to court and plead my case?

[dangonay]

Does anyone know the names of any of the parties? I tried searching the Civil Cases but there are far too many to dig through. Since this is a civil case, the details should be available for anyone to see. I'm also wondering why the newspapers knew about this but never published any names.

These guys would have gone to court. They would have likely had very good lawyers. There would have been evidence provided by the RCMP (and witnesses) and also by the lawyers on behalf of the drivers. The judge would weigh all this and make a decision. It's not like a witness can come into the court and say "that guy was doing 375 km/h" and the judge replies "375 km/h? that's it, I'm selling your cars".

And after all the evidence was presented the judge decided to sell the cars.

Nobody here knows a damn thing about what happened in court, what was said or why the judge made their decision. Until the details of the civil case are known, nobody can say the decision was stupid or the law is stupid.



However, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the drivers never even went to court and simply "settled". It just doesn't make sense to me that their names weren't released. I bet their lawyers told them they fucked up and they're screwed and they just took their losses and kept everything quiet. Having their names made public probably consitutes a bigger "loss" to them than the money.

[Marco911]

If you're running drugs with your car and get caught, most likely the car will get seized and sold at the next police auction.. Rob a bank and get caught, the getaway car will get seized and auctioned. Street race (also illegal) and get caught, your car gets seized, sold, but you get some of the money back.

I don't agree that the penalty of street racing should be as much as the other two examples, but at least an example has been made of someone who is rich for once. The owner of the Ferrari probably didn't notice the the 5k for the ticket and impound fees missing from his bank account.

We live in a society where protection under the law and fundamental rights are equal for rich or poor. Don't gloat just because some misfortune happened on someone wealthier than you. Think about everyone's rights being eroded.

[dangonay]

The point, went right over your head. I've done those speeds before, albeit I wasn't an idiot about it. Does that mean I automatically deserve to have my car sold, BEFORE I can take it to court and plead my case?
Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court? It can't. The police have no right to sell it, nor does the government. A judge has to make a decision and you get your day in court.

[GabAlmighty]

Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court?

From my head:D

[underscore]

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.

You seem to think all of Canada is like Vancouver. Here in Kelowna, we deal with a lot of spoilt Albertan kids tearing around in mommy and daddies cars. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it does help with those rich pricks who think they're above the law because the fines are "cheap" to them.

Yes most people who own these sorts of cars ought to be smart enough, but I doubt many are. How many of the supercars in BC get tracked? I would guess very, very few.

[Marco911]

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.

Yes, actually it would make me feel better if the seize occurs after an injury/death occurs.

Most of you morons are not educated enough to realize that most of our fundamental freedoms and the principles of justice in free societies are based on the philosophical thought of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jon Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Whether it's called a constititution, or charter of rights, laws in free societies are written with reference to these philisophical principles. Fundamental to these freedoms is the concept of "private property rights." You will note that in societies that are not free, such as with Communism and Fascism, private citizens do not have private property rights and the state can confiscate property at will from its citizens. You see this happening right now in Iran and North Korea.

In a free society, confiscating private property is a big fucking deal. According to philosophers, government should only be allowed to confiscate property under the following conditions:

(1) Property has been gained through illicit means - This is why we allow courts to confiscate property of Madoff or drug dealers as part of "proceeds of crime" legislation because they did not gain these assets fairly and harmed society in acquiring these assets.

(2) Civil compensation to VICTIMS

Since (1) does not apply, the government has decided to use (2). In this case, the excessive speeding is a victimless crime UNLESS someone suffers damages. Did the government compensate the woman with her kids or any other pedestrians? No, because there are no victims for this crime. The offence should never have reached a severity of confiscating a citizen's private property since the government had as its disposal, other means to reduce perceived "risk" to society: - They are able to rescind the driving privileges of perpertrators. The fact that the govt forces a sale of the vehicles and keeps part of the proceeds is THEFT by the government.

[GabAlmighty]

Yes.

356 internets to you sir.

[Nightwalker]

You seem to think all of Canada is like Vancouver. Here in Kelowna, we deal with a lot of spoilt Albertan kids tearing around in mommy and daddies cars.

I'm not from Vancouver either, but all I hear on here is the EXACT same complaint about spoiled Chinese kids.

Not that it matters AT ALL, haters gonna hate. They have the right to their private property.

[Marco911]

Where did you get the idea your car can be sold before going to court? It can't. The police have no right to sell it, nor does the government. A judge has to make a decision and you get your day in court.

Civil court, where the burden of proof is lower. Nevertheless, the government has to prove that "damage" has occurred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit

Next, tell me which category of "damage" does this offence fall under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages

You will see that unless the cars crashed into persons or property there is no category where this offence would fall into where anyone has suffered any "damage."

"Punitive damages" is the ONLY category which is remotely close to where this offence might fall under and is worth quoting because it is very questionable as to its implementation:

Generally, punitive damages, which are also termed exemplary damages in the United Kingdom, are not awarded in order to compensate the plaintiff, but in order to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff. Punitive damages are awarded only in special cases where conduct was egregiously invidious and are over and above the amount of compensatory damages, such as in the event of malice or intent. Great judicial restraint is expected to be exercised in their application. In the United States punitive damages awards are subject to the limitations imposed by the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:

1.Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
2.Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
3.Where a statute expressly authorises the same.
Rookes v Barnard has been much criticised and has not been followed in Canada or Australia or by the Privy Council.

Punitive damages awarded in a US case would be difficult to get recognition for in a European court, where punitive damages are most likely to be considered to violate ordre public.[2]

Now, do you see why I consider this to be such an outrage? This case needs to be appealed.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

the thing about this ridiculous law is there are so many places that can get you to excessive speed in a blink of an eye. SFU, marine drive, hwy 1.

how long does it take a 300hp car to reach from 80-120km 2/3 seconds? ya sometimes u dont even notice and u go with the flow of traffic. Oh snap u got picked among the bunch by the pig. HE decides to power trip, impounds your car. Will the guy gets off so unlucky like the ferrari owner? excessive speed? really? ok lets sell his vehicle too and make him lose $20g, instead the $1000 loss that was being announced to the public


whats next? is the goverment gonna pull another bs law out of no where just to make an example to the general public? :bullshit: since when does the law gets alterate or rewrite as we go along?

[deep87]

A vehicle can be used as a weapon just like a gun.(not as easily of course)

go outside and fire off a bunch of rounds in all directions. Im sure the police wont just sell your gun and give you back 20%.
You put other people lives in danger by racing on PUBLIC roads. imo, a slap on the wrist for not hitting someone vs jailtime incase you do is too big a leap in punishment.

Selling the car does bother me aswell, maybe just make them pay 80% of the cars value as a fine. But then again you just demonstrated that your not responsible enough to take it to a track so...

[Marco911]

^^Unless damage has occurred the government has no business taking away private property. The government can impose fines and penalties WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LAW. The government can take away driving privileges, but not apply uneven penalties and damages just because you happen to be driving a Ferrari vs. a Civic.

[StylinRed]

We live in a society where protection under the law and fundamental rights are equal for rich or poor. Don't gloat just because some misfortune happened on someone wealthier than you. Think about everyone's rights being eroded.

and yet he^^^ only chimes in when its regarding the wealthy ;)


u didn't respond to my reply so here it is again with a wikilink to where you can read about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedo ms


I agree with your views and passion over civil forfeiture but before you blow up in a "FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU" you need to understand what's entrenched in our laws and realize that as long as it's not a fundamental, legal, equality right the govt. can infringe upon you

seizing a piece of property that has been illegally used to the point of endangering others does not fall into what cannot be infringed upon

[Great68]

How many of the supercars in BC get tracked?

There's not exactly an abundance of tracks in BC.

[Culture_Vulture]

...
While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

[1exotic]

While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

stop trying to sound smart :rofl:

[Marco911]

While I agree with what you're saying, the foundations of your arguments are full of fallacies.

Kant dismisses the issue of property rights. J. S. Mill's philosophy is against property rights, you're thinking J. Locke. And Aristotle (as far as my limited knowledge goes) has never even addressed the issue.
Of the handful of philosophers you mentioned, only Rawls mentions explicitly the negative right to private property rights.

In my original argument, I did not attribute the concept of private property rights to any specific philosopher. I merely stated that the principles of justice in our society was based on the philosophical thought and debate between some of the philosophers I cited.

[jing]

What if the owner of the confiscated Ferrari bought it back from the dealership that it was sold to? :troll:

[penner2k]

Yes, actually it would make me feel better if the seize occurs after an injury/death occurs.

Most of you morons are not educated enough to realize that most of our fundamental freedoms and the principles of justice in free societies are based on the philosophical thought of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, Jon Stuart Mill and John Rawls. Whether it's called a constititution, or charter of rights, laws in free societies are written with reference to these philisophical principles. Fundamental to these freedoms is the concept of "private property rights." You will note that in societies that are not free, such as with Communism and Fascism, private citizens do not have private property rights and the state can confiscate property at will from its citizens. You see this happening right now in Iran and North Korea.

In a free society, confiscating private property is a big fucking deal. According to philosophers, government should only be allowed to confiscate property under the following conditions:

(1) Property has been gained through illicit means - This is why we allow courts to confiscate property of Madoff or drug dealers as part of "proceeds of crime" legislation because they did not gain these assets fairly and harmed society in acquiring these assets.

(2) Civil compensation to VICTIMS

Since (1) does not apply, the government has decided to use (2). In this case, the excessive speeding is a victimless crime UNLESS someone suffers damages. Did the government compensate the woman with her kids or any other pedestrians? No, because there are no victims for this crime. The offence should never have reached a severity of confiscating a citizen's private property since the government had as its disposal, other means to reduce perceived "risk" to society: - They are able to rescind the driving privileges of perpertrators. The fact that the govt forces a sale of the vehicles and keeps part of the proceeds is THEFT by the government.

Now if someone fought this and brought up these points and the courts sided with them couldnt pretty much every person that loses their cars to this bs law turn around and sue the govt?

[Marco911]

u didn't respond to my reply so here it is again with a wikilink to where you can read about it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedo ms


I do not think that is a relevant section of law. The relevant section of Law is the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Note that unfair laws are written all the time and are struck down and repealed if higher courts decide that they are unjust. I shall argue that application of the civil forfeiture law to crimes of street racing and speeding is unjust. First, let's see what the law says:


http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_05029_01

The director, who is an appointed public servant can make an application to the courts to seize an "instrument of unlawful activity"

I quote the relevant sections:

"instrument of unlawful activity" means any of the following:

(a) property that has been used to engage in unlawful activity that, in turn,

(i) resulted in or was likely to result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or

(ii) caused or was likely to cause serious bodily harm to a person;

(b) property that is likely to be used to engage in unlawful activity that may

(i) result in the acquisition of property or an interest in property, or

(ii) cause serious bodily harm to a person;

Clearly, the director is bringing about the case based on Subsection (a) ii. The law, however, is written broadly enough that the director can potentially seize ANY sports car he wants under section (b) ii - property that is LIKELY to be used to engage in unlawful activiity that MAY cause serious bodily harm to a person.

However, just because the director makes an application to the courts to seize your property, doesn't mean that the courts have to accept the director's forfeiture order.

Subsection 6(1):
Relief from forfeiture
6 (1) If a court determines that the forfeiture of property or the whole or a portion of an interest in property under this Act is clearly not in the interests of justice, the court may do any of the following:

(a) refuse to issue a forfeiture order,

(b) limit the application of the forfeiture order;

(c) put conditions on the forfeiture order.


Therefore in determining if a forfeiture order is justified, the court has to decide on the rather nebulous term of whether it is "in the interests of justice." This suggests that they should take into account protection of civil rights and treatment of similar crimes in other provinces. What does the attorney general in New Brunswick think of enactment of a civil forfeiture law in his province?

http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/993357

Carr says it's important to make sure the act won't allow things to happen that were not intended.

"We need to protect ordinary people's civil rights," he says.

Lamrock says the new law will not let that happen because it has safeguards built in. For example, police can't simply seize items. It must also be proven in court that the item is being used for an ongoing criminal activity.


He goes on to say, " the law doesn't allow for seizure of every property where crime happens, so drivers won't lose their cars for speeding. The Crown must prove the property is instrumental in an ongoing criminal activity.

Also, courts cannot approve a seizure where the property taken is disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime. Lamrock says the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that forfeiture laws within these parameters are consistent with the Charter."

And there you have it. Speeding, or street racing is not an "ongoing criminal activity" and seizing a vehicle is arguably disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime.

British Columbians, your civil rights have just been violated! This case sets a bad precedent and needs to be brought to the attention of the public at large.

[Hehe]

I think the forfeiture law does have its share of problems against property rights.

The way I look at street racing and forfeiture law is this, forfeiture is only justifiable when there is actual damage. But then again, what we want is to prevent damage from happening in the first place.

Therefore, some sort of penalty that would really *scare* people from conducting such action is needed in order to prevent damage first hand. Otherwise, the Ferrari owner is probably so rich that he has another 458 or something on order.

IMO, just put a clause on the law that cars involved in street racing can be impounded and driver's license suspended up to x years, with the owner responsible for all storage fees. At about 10 bucks a day for storage+depreciation of super cars, this could be more painful to the owner as he/she is not allowed to transfer the car's title until the suspension is up. Basically putting the car in jail.

Now, imagine the Ferrari and M6 have to be stored for 3 years, they will probably lose 40% of the value in 3 years time, not to mention all the parts they need to replace after 3 years storage. All cost is covered by the owner and property right is still protected up to an extend.

[underscore]

^ The does make sense - make the license suspension and impoundment of a car dependant on how excessive the speed was. Which I think is kind of what they're doing here, if these guys were "only" doing 100 in a 60, the gov't might not be doing this. But because they went 200 in a 60, the cars are seized and being sold.

There's not exactly an abundance of tracks in BC.

True, but if you can spend $235k on a Ferrari, you can afford to make a few trips if you want to really cut it loose.

[pastarocket]

The Civil Forfeiture Act and that Ferrari Scuderia are mentioned in today's Metro News.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/700768--cops-to-sell-235k-impounded-ferrari


IMO, those idiot drivers deserved more than just a ticket for excessive speeding and 15 day license supension. They almost injured a woman and her two children. :flamemad:

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/700418--b-c-government-seizes-racing-ferrari-and-bmw

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

almost but they didnt

[Benz_05TSX]

They should start the auction at $14 !!!

[adambomb]

Anyone else find it odd that on the first page of this thread, the news reports the drivers as 20 and 21 yr old, spoiled rich kids. Thus, the hate was on.

But now that the forfeiture has gone through, we are now dealing with 31 year old, adults. Was the false report of young people racing in a ferrari an attemp to grab headlines and sell newspapers? Seems like it.

This whole situation reeks of jealous cops, jealous gov't officials and cash grab. :bullshit:

[dimdiu]

IMO this will be a huge lesson for those parents that buys ferrari, lambo etc for their kids. I agree with underscore, if they were doing 100 in a 60 zone, probably would've been license suspended and a fine. but doing 200 in a 60 zone, that's too much, and the fact is almost hitting a woman and her children didn't even scare them or stop them from speeding...that's the scary part. taking their cars away might be a good thing, not that the drivers care, they will just ask their parents for a brand new one. It's the parents, they will think twice wat car they will be buying for their children next time. remember ppl, this is a whole different situation, it doesn't happen everyday...as long as u dun speed, government won't randomly take away ur car. This whole thing is just making everyone safe and drive safe.

[van_driver]

So this means the 21 year old driver of the Scuderia WAS really part owner of the car. Not just "powered by mommy and daddy", as everyone was saying. Props to him.

[adambomb]

He's apparently 31 now, Not 21.

Not only did he buy a ferrari, he also bought 10 years of life in 3 months.
Props to him aswell. :thumbsup:

[Death2Theft]

Who wants to go lease ferrari's and street race??? RSGB? we'll just share seat time.

[van_driver]

He's apparently 31 now, Not 21.

Not only did he buy a ferrari, he also bought 10 years of life in 3 months.
Props to him aswell. :thumbsup:

Reading the first article posted a few posts above...


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.



Wonder which ones correct.

[van_driver]

On a side note, I guess we'll know exactly how much the dealership is gonna make on the Ferrari.

[adambomb]

RCMP say he's 31. Who do we believe? The reporters reporting the news or the cops who pulled them over? Could be a typo from either side.



http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=17706

Like I said... this whole story reeks of jealousy because someone under the age of 35 owns or partially owns a ferrari. :tantrum

[Death2Theft]

I forgot where in europe they do this but speeding tickets are a % of your income so the net loss is the same if u drive a veyron vs a civic.
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.

[1exotic]

Alright screw fast cars time for everyone to get suv's with 36 inch spinners! Dont worry guys if your civic gets busted doing 200km/h i'm sure they wont take it away. Hence another reason not to race beserkers riced out pos

lol

[Phat_R]

Maybe we should instead go with the Swiss model of speeding fines...

http://www.worldcarfans.com/110081327904/1-million-speeding-fine-in-switzerland-for-swedish-sls

I'd rather lose my SLS than pay a million dollar fine.

[StylinRed]

I do not think that is a relevant section of law. The relevant section of Law is the BC Civil Forfeiture Act. Note that unfair laws are written all the time and are struck down and repealed if higher courts decide that they are unjust.

and if someone takes the case to the supreme court and the supreme court so decides the govt can enact the Notwithstanding Clause and continue seizing

you could argue that the law was applied incorrectly and win it that way (if so proven) but gl with that, paying a 20% fine for being an idiot is a lot less time consuming and the cheaper way out

Attorney General New Brunswick

while the views of New Brunswick politicians are valued they are simply viewpoints (even the attorney generals); tell that to Ontario and their seizures of property under their Street Racing Laws, etc etc

[penner2k]

and if someone takes the case to the supreme court and the supreme court so decides the govt can enact the Notwithstanding Clause and continue seizing

you could argue that the law was applied incorrectly and win it that way (if so proven) but gl with that, paying a 20% fine for being an idiot is a lot less time consuming and the cheaper way out



while the views of New Brunswick politicians are valued they are simply viewpoints (even the attorney generals); tell that to Ontario and their seizures of property under their Street Racing Laws, etc etc

It might be the cheaper and easier way out but its most likely not the best. Who is to say that if people just let this keep happening they dont change other laws to start seizing stuff when they really shouldnt.
I believe it should be equal punishment across the board for stuff like this.

Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

The Canada Equality Law says that everyone is equal but in this case the fines are completely different. Sure the percentage might be the same but the amount you are paying isnt.
What I dont get is that driving is a privileged in Canada. Why not just hand out a nice fine in this case and take away the license from the drivers for a year or two.
Lets just say the Ferrari driver is stupid rich and the Ferrari means nothing to him. He just got a 15 day driving ban and lost his car but get cash from it. Tomorrow he goes into the dealership and buys the car back and tomorrow does the same thing but this time actually kills someone. This law is all about money and not about stopping anything.


If I had the money I'd love to go out and buy a $5000 car and purposely blast past a cop going 200+ just to prove how flawed this actually is. I can almost guarantee if this went to supreme court the province would lose and they would be fucked since it would make it that everyone that has lost their cars to this law could turn around and sue the govt.

[orange7]

I forgot where in europe they do this but speeding tickets are a % of your income so the net loss is the same if u drive a veyron vs a civic.


but a lot of fobs can cheat their way out.

They don't have any income in Canada cause all their business are in China, so I guess will get fined % x 0 income = $0 fine, even though they were driving in lambo or something like that.

[Marco911]

The Civil Forfeiture Act and that Ferrari Scuderia are mentioned in today's Metro News.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/700768--cops-to-sell-235k-impounded-ferrari


IMO, those idiot drivers deserved more than just a ticket for excessive speeding and 15 day license supension. They almost injured a woman and her two children. :flamemad:

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/local/article/700418--b-c-government-seizes-racing-ferrari-and-bmw

You're like the fucking peanut gallery. Don't believe everything you read in the press. Do you really think a woman and her kids are going to be anywhere close to a roadway when a screaming Ferrari flies by? I can believe that they were at the same place/time together but I'm sure they were on a sidewalk or safely off the road.

[Marco911]

Incidentally, according to the BC Forfeiture law, victims can make a claim for proceeds taken by the government. I wonder what the province would say if this mother and her kids made a claim against the province for a portion of the theft proceeds from the forced sale of this Ferrari.

[cococly]

Moral of the story:

If you're going to speed, do it in someone else's car.

I have to agree with you on this one :thumbsup:

The fact of the matter is, they were choosing a road at the time of year with very few traffic/pedestrians. (Were they being considerate?) If they did that kind of speed in Downtown at peak rush hour on Friday evening, then it's really dangerous.

This local news has become an international news now.

NEWS source:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/man-caught-driving-200-km-h-on-public-roads-gets-235-000-ferrar/

[Manic!]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/11/ferrari-canada.jpg

LoL!!!

[FX35]

I have to agree with you on this one :thumbsup:

The fact of the matter is, they were choosing a road at the time of year with very few traffic/pedestrians. (Were they being considerate?) If they did that kind of speed in Downtown at peak rush hour on Friday evening, then it's really dangerous.

This local news has become an international news now.

NEWS source:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/man-caught-driving-200-km-h-on-public-roads-gets-235-000-ferrar/


Dumb ass.

#1 You agree with him that if you are going to speed, speed in someone else' car? So what, that somebody else could suffer from your lack of brain? I feel sorry for those who befriend with you.

#2 Is it even possible to go 200 in Downtown Vancouver? Do you even think before you speak???

#3 So based on your logic, it was a (relatively) GOOD idea for them to speed, just because they chose a relatively open road?


Roads are dangerous because of dumb ass pricks like yourself.

[FX35]

Government did the right thing by taking their rides. In fact, we should copy California and crush these cars for exccessive speeding. That ought to teach the rest of the spoiled ass FOBs a lesson not to play NFS on the public roads.

I could care less about them wrapping themselves around a pole, but don't fucking put other people's lives in potential danger.

[cococly]

Dumb ass.

#1 You agree with him that if you are going to speed, speed in someone else' car? So what, that somebody else could suffer from your lack of brain? I feel sorry for those who befriend with you.

#2 Is it even possible to go 200 in Downtown Vancouver? Do you even think before you speak???

#3 So based on your logic, it was a (relatively) GOOD idea for them to speed, just because they chose a relatively open road?


Roads are dangerous because of dumb ass pricks like yourself.

#1: lack of brain? Yes I have done that speed in a real car in Europe. Was it really that dangerous? I don't think so.

#2: DO you want some figures? Ferrari 16M can acceralate to 122.7mph in 400m, that's the length of 2/3 blocks. PLUS, I said "IF".

#3: I was saying driving a car at high speed is acceptable, if the driver knows what he/she is doing. Driving at high speed does not equal to SPEEDING. :rolleyes:

Don't worry Mr.FX35, I am not living in Canada. You don't have to be scared about driving on Canadian roads.

[Marco911]

^^ Even without the street racing and civil forfeiture legislation there are already sufficient penalties in addition to large fines and driving suspension. If someone gets killed, a street raced can be charged with the criminal charge of "dangerous driving causing death."
Taking away someone's private property while still allowing them the privilege of driving begs rationality.

[Marco911]

while the views of New Brunswick politicians are valued they are simply viewpoints (even the attorney generals); tell that to Ontario and their seizures of property under their Street Racing Laws, etc etc

Here's an interesting article for you talking about the politics involved in enacting the street racing legislation in Ontario.

http://blog.legalaction.ca/does-ontario%25E2%2580%2599s-new-street-racing-law-violate-the-charter-of-rights/

[freakshow]

They should be taking their licenses away for a longer period instead of taking the cars.

[underscore]

RCMP say he's 31. Who do we believe? The reporters reporting the news or the cops who pulled them over? Could be a typo from either side.



http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=50&languageId=1&contentId=17706

Like I said... this whole story reeks of jealousy because someone under the age of 35 owns or partially owns a ferrari. :tantrum

No, someone under 35 borrowed a Ferrari. That isn't anything spectacular, no matter how you look at it.

[FX35]

#1: lack of brain? Yes I have done that speed in a real car in Europe. Was it really that dangerous? I don't think so.

#2: DO you want some figures? Ferrari 16M can acceralate to 122.7mph in 400m, that's the length of 2/3 blocks. PLUS, I said "IF".

#3: I was saying driving a car at high speed is acceptable, if the driver knows what he/she is doing. Driving at high speed does not equal to SPEEDING. :rolleyes:

Don't worry Mr.FX35, I am not living in Canada. You don't have to be scared about driving on Canadian roads.


#1 Learn how to READ. I did NOT suggested that you suffer from lack of brain, though now that appears to be the case aplenty. My point was your lack of any morality. So what, if you are going to kill somebody, kill with somebody else' kitchen knife? That makes it right? In any way???

#2 No shit you don't live in Vancouver. IF you did, you'd know that it's impossible to sprint 400M in Downtown vancouver without hitting something in less than 100M. Your "IF" doesn't even relate closely to reality here, so what's the point of IFing???

#3 Ever heard of the word "track"? That's where cars are meant to be driven at hight speed. Driving 200 in a 60 zone, regardless of drivers' skill, is UNACCEPTABLE, PERIOD. Let's see you talk again, when your mom / wife / daughter get rammed by one of the idiots-in-question here.

I am glad you don't live in Canada. We have enough morons on the road already, even without your contribution.

[dangonay]

This was clearly posted a few pages back...

The BC Civil Forfeiture Office assesses RCMP investigations referred by IPOC, and where appropriate, forfeiture is requested in BC Supreme Court for property that is either an instrument and or proceed of unlawful activity.

Why are people saying this should be challenged in the Supreme Court when it's the Supreme Court that decides if the property should be forfeited in the first place? The RCMP don't make these decisions, politicians or government officials don't make them, a Supreme Court judge does.

Like I said earlier, nobody knows a damn thing about what happened in court, so bitching about it being a stupid law is pointless.


A couple years back I researched various BC laws for a case I was thinking of going to court on (civil lawsuit). When I read the statutes I was going to abandon the case because in plain English it appeared I didn't have a hope in hell of winning. I went to a lawyer anyway (advice of a friend) and found out the relevant section of law I was reading, while 100% correct, was overruled by another completely unrelated section of law that I never even read (or would have thought to read). So I went to court and won my case. I didn't even take a lawyer as the case was a slam dunk for me. The judge decided in my favor after only 10 minutes, much to the astonishment of the other party who had also read the same section of law as me (they quoted it to me early on in our dispute long before going to court) and thought they were in the right.

Just because you read a line or two of law doesn't mean you know how to apply it to every specific situation.

[cococly]

#1 Learn how to READ. I did NOT suggested that you suffer from lack of brain, though now that appears to be the case aplenty. My point was your lack of any morality. So what, if you are going to kill somebody, kill with somebody else' kitchen knife? That makes it right? In any way???

#2 No shit you don't live in Vancouver. IF you did, you'd know that it's impossible to sprint 400M in Downtown vancouver without hitting something in less than 100M. Your "IF" doesn't even relate closely to reality here, so what's the point of IFing???

#3 Ever heard of the word "track"? That's where cars are meant to be driven at hight speed. Driving 200 in a 60 zone, regardless of drivers' skill, is UNACCEPTABLE, PERIOD. Let's see you talk again, when your mom / wife / daughter get rammed by one of the idiots-in-question here.

I am glad you don't live in Canada. We have enough morons on the road already, even without your contribution.

In #1, you said what "if" I kill somone? ok, a fair point, because you used the word "if" just to make a point.

In #2, I used the word "if" to make a point. I wanted to make my point across in the same way as you did.

FOr #3, you misunderstood me. I said, driving a car at high speed (ie. 100km/h) Does not mean it is speeding. (ie. if the speed limit was 110km/h?120km/h?) [Is driving at 100kph(high speed) in a 110kph zone very dangerous?] I have not said anything about driving a car at 200kph is OKAY/ACCEPTABLE in a 60kph zone.

P.S. : Do you really believe in what people said on the internet?

[Soundy]

You're like the fucking peanut gallery. Don't believe everything you read in the press. Do you really think a woman and her kids are going to be anywhere close to a roadway when a screaming Ferrari flies by? I can believe that they were at the same place/time together but I'm sure they were on a sidewalk or safely off the road.

And if the car leaves the road...? Even a Ferrari can lose control and go airborne at 200k - an unseen dip in the road, some debris, some loose gravel in the middle of a curve is all it takes.

[Soundy]

They should be taking their licenses away for a longer period instead of taking the cars.
Problem is, taking away someone's license doesn't actually STOP him from driving.

[Marco911]

And if the car leaves the road...? Even a Ferrari can lose control and go airborne at 200k - an unseen dip in the road, some debris, some loose gravel in the middle of a curve is all it takes.

This was not a busy roadway full of pedestrians. There were a couple of other people in this park. Based on a balance of probabilities, the seizure of personal property is far in excess of the extent of the offence.

[Marco911]

Problem is, taking away someone's license doesn't actually STOP him from driving.

LOL. And forcing a sale of the guy's car while allowing him to keep his license does? Do you think people who who Ferraris and M6s will start taking transit if their car gets sold under them but they still get to hold on to their d/ls?

[vafanculo]

LOL. And forcing a sale of the guy's car while allowing him to keep his license does? Do you think people who who Ferraris and M6s will start taking transit if their car gets sold under them but they still get to hold on to their d/ls?

I agree. If I could afford a Ferrari and it got seized, I wouldn't just buy another Ferrari. Chances are, I could afford an even nicer Ferrari, and would buy that just to make the whole crappy experience a bit nicer.

However, if my license got taken away for a year or two, that would definitely stop me from getting behind a wheel.

Personally I like the whole get tough laws, but the seizing of property just doesn't sit well for me.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Marco911]

This was clearly posted a few pages back...
Why are people saying this should be challenged in the Supreme Court when it's the Supreme Court that decides if the property should be forfeited in the first place? The RCMP don't make these decisions, politicians or government officials don't make them, a Supreme Court judge does.
Like I said earlier, nobody knows a damn thing about what happened in court, so bitching about it being a stupid law is pointless.


Actually, I'd like to correct some misconceptions here:

1) An appointed official makes an APPLICATION to the Supreme Court about an asset they wish to forfeit.

2) The Supreme court reviews the file and either issues APPROVAL of the application or refuses to issue the forfeiture order. Approval of the application means that a hearing will be set, not that the asset will be forfeited.

3) A hearing is set by the Supreme Court but the parties are allowed to settle privately outside of court. The reason you haven't found any record of this case is because all civil forfeiture cases in BC has been settled out of court. Essentially, the Crown reached an agreement with the owner of the Ferrari and M6 allowing them to keep a portion of the proceeds of the sale of their vehicle rather than confiscating them outright. So there has NOT been a case yet where the Supreme court has decided that the asset forfeiture is justified.

[Vale46Rossi]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2628/motivatorbaa8821812b4c2.jpg

[GabAlmighty]

Problem is, taking away someone's license doesn't actually STOP him from driving.

Can't STOP people from doing much really, unless you lock them up or put physical restraints/restrictions.

[Soundy]

This was not a busy roadway full of pedestrians. There were a couple of other people in this park. Based on a balance of probabilities, the seizure of personal property is far in excess of the extent of the offence.

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".

[Soundy]

Can't STOP people from doing much really, unless you lock them up or put physical restraints/restrictions.
True, but forcing someone to watch their six-figure wheels sold out from under them certainly makes a much bolder statement than just taking away a piece of plastic.

[Anjew]

what about that ontario video where the cars got crushed? these guys are lucky they got part of the money back no?

i liked that idea of 2-3 year impound on the owners dime....

[underscore]

This was not a busy roadway full of pedestrians. There were a couple of other people in this park. Based on a balance of probabilities, the seizure of personal property is far in excess of the extent of the offence.

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.

[gars]

What bugs me about this situation, is that there are plenty of people out there who have enough money, that they don't care about speeding tickets, don't care about parking tickets.

It's like when I was at Harrods and saw those Saudi princes parking their Lambo's, and they don't care that they got the tickets, because they are filthy rich, that they I'm sure they have a personal assistant to take care of all their issues for them.

I've hiked around that area before. I agree that when you cross a road, even if it's remote enough that you probably will not encounter a car, that you need to pay attention and look both ways. But I don't think it's right to be scared that a ferrari might come screaming around the corner at 200km/h. Do it on a closed track.

[johny]

if the gov stole my 200k car I'd go down shooting. theft is illegal and I'd defend my property.
the law is only for proceeds of crime. IE if he bought the car with drug money


I'd also argue that speeding is not unlawful as it's not in the criminal code. it's just a regulation

[Soundy]

if the gov stole my 200k car I'd go down shooting. theft is illegal and I'd defend my property.
Driving that fast is illegal, too... perhaps pedestrians should be shooting at you if you're doing those speeds?

I'd also argue that speeding is not unlawful as it's not in the criminal code. it's just a regulation

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.

[Jgresch]

So this was in the news again yesterday apparently... were they just updating the status of it or what?