[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Jun 25 2007, 12:08 PM Wrote:I think that's enough of the "he said, she said" -- it's right there in black and white (OPP pun intended) and I can't believe no one's looked it up yet.

Anyway ... seems pretty clear to me ... here's what the OPP says about when to call 9*1*1

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 10:08 AM Wrote:

Quote:Sorry guys, you're wrong.

Guess I'll call the police officer and tell him that you said he was wrong. :lol:

Quote:The OPP is actually running a RADIO AD telling you to call 911 to report drunk drivers. I assume...

Shouldnt assume things. ;)
[right][snapback]242295[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]242307[/snapback][/right]

stopping a crime. Is speeding stopping a crime? is speeding criminal?

[ZTWsquared]

Context man, context ...

O.P.P. website Wrote:Call 9-1-1 to:
• stop a crime
• report a fire
• save a life
• in any EMERGENCY situation whenever police, fire or ambulance assistance is required immediately

If you are unsure, call 9-1-1 and the communicator will make the final determination
 
Do NOT Call 9-1-1 to:
• report a hydro outage
• check weather or highway conditions
• obtain government information
• for directory assistance
• for information about school closings, road conditions, directions, etc

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 12:34 PM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,Jun 25 2007, 12:08 PM Wrote:I think that's enough of the "he said, she said" -- it's right there in black and white (OPP pun intended) and I can't believe no one's looked it up yet.

Anyway ... seems pretty clear to me ... here's what the OPP says about when to call 9*1*1

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 10:08 AM Wrote:

Quote:Sorry guys, you're wrong.

Guess I'll call the police officer and tell him that you said he was wrong. :lol:

Quote:The OPP is actually running a RADIO AD telling you to call 911 to report drunk drivers. I assume...

Shouldnt assume things. ;)
[right][snapback]242295[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]242307[/snapback][/right]

stopping a crime. Is speeding stopping a crime? is speeding criminal?
[right][snapback]242312[/snapback][/right]

[Flofocus]

im asking a question. ;)

[P-51]

This wasn't just speeding.

This was "street racing" as defined by our government officials.

Street racing is now a criminal offence.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Flofocus]

OAC_Sparky,Jun 25 2007, 12:10 PM Wrote:P-51 and Flo, not trying to interfere on this pissing match.... ;)

[right][snapback]242308[/snapback][/right]

I'm not trying to start a pissing match, I hate it when people blow by me also, esceically when Im probably already rolling 20-30km/hr over the limit anyways, but hate it even more when some douchebag decides to take the law in their own hand by 'coming into my lane' a little to slow me down. Again, if you wanted to control traffic, go apply at your local OPP station. :rolleyes:

I agree with what has been said here...mostly....especially with the drunk driver comment...How many deaths has street racing caused in the last 10 years? One is to many, but let's compare that # to drunk drivers and see who's cars should really be getting crushed.

[Flofocus]

P-51,Jun 25 2007, 01: Wrote:This wasn't just speeding. 

This was "street racing" as defined by our government officials.

Street racing is now a criminal offence.

Thank you.  Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]242321[/snapback][/right]

So their IS a criminal charge for 'Street racing' in our criminal code now? Wouldnt mind seeing that.

[ZTWsquared]

in the context of whether or not to call 9*1*1, the answer to your question is "it doesn't matter" ... if you think it might be and are unsure, call 911 and let them figure it out - that's what the OPP wants you to do.

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 01:12 PM Wrote:im asking a question. ;)
[right][snapback]242318[/snapback][/right]

[NOS2Go4Me]

I agree 100% with Nate - don't just take away the licenses of drunk drivers, crush their cars too!

[ZTWsquared]

Although I think you are technically correct (there is no criminal code offense called 'Street Racing' but rather an aggravating factor a judge can take into consideration at sentencing once an offender has been found guilty of another offense such as dangerous driving) ... I think P-51s point is still valid in the sense that there is a new awareness and a new, more harsh consequence associated with street racing.

I find myself in agreement with most of what you are both saying, so I don't think you're two viewpoints are that much different.

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 01:23 PM Wrote:

P-51,Jun 25 2007, 01: Wrote:This wasn't just speeding. 

This was "street racing" as defined by our government officials.

Street racing is now a criminal offence.

Thank you.  Have a nice day.
[right][snapback]242321[/snapback][/right]

So their IS a criminal charge for 'Street racing' in our criminal code now? Wouldnt mind seeing that.
[right][snapback]242324[/snapback][/right]

[ZTWsquared]

I think your point (or what I think your point is) is well taken.

And in that light, I tend to believe that this news article reflects nothing more than extreme pre-election rhetoric - I simply can't imagine anything like this even remotely passing the sniff test in terms of Charter rights.

Those who point out that street racing has nothing to do with modding cars are absolutely right ... it's all in the behaviour of the driver.

Having said that, I do think the government could win the case for outlawing NOS, as there is no OEM currently using that technology ... but lowered suspensions, free-flowing exhaust, forced induction ... how can you ban these things for some and not for others -- the others of course being the OEMs.

And that's not to mention the AMGs, the AC Shnitzers and the Shelby's of the world ... all with OEM contracts to modify stock cars.

And in terms of seizing modified cars and crushing them, look at the hoops law enforcement has to jump through to seize and liquidate the assets of convicted drug felons and organized crime figures ... I just don't think it will be as simple as the AG makes it sound.

Flofocus,Jun 25 2007, 01:21 PM Wrote:

OAC_Sparky,Jun 25 2007, 12:10 PM Wrote:P-51 and Flo, not trying to interfere on this pissing match.... ;)

[right][snapback]242308[/snapback][/right]

I'm not trying to start a pissing match, I hate it when people blow by me also, esceically when Im probably already rolling 20-30km/hr over the limit anyways, but hate it even more when some douchebag decides to take the law in their own hand by 'coming into my lane' a little to slow me down. Again, if you wanted to control traffic, go apply at your local OPP station. :rolleyes:

I agree with what has been said here...mostly....especially with the drunk driver comment...How many deaths has street racing caused in the last 10 years? One is to many, but let's compare that # to drunk drivers and see who's cars should really be getting crushed.
[right][snapback]242322[/snapback][/right]

[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Jun 25 2007, 03:08 PM Wrote:I think P-51s point is still valid in the sense that there is a new awareness and a new, more harsh consequence associated with street racing.
[right][snapback]242335[/snapback][/right]

Never said it wasnt valid as I completely agree with you. My point to him was more...there is no criminal offence for street racing, and you shouldnt be taking the law in your own hand when you could cause more damage than good.

Thats all folks :)

[Flofocus]

ZTWsquared,Jun 25 2007, 03:18 PM Wrote:And in terms of seizing modified cars and crushing them, look at the hoops law enforcement has to jump through to seize and liquidate the assets of convicted drug felons and organized crime figures ... I just don't think it will be as simple as the AG makes it sound.

I agree, I think he just like stalking tuff to scare people and get him browny points with the voters.

[P-51]

All right then we're all in agreement.

Trying to pinch off the lane = not the best idea. As I said, I probably wouldn't do it again. It was also a bit of self defence on my part too, I didn't want this guy pulling in in front of me, eating up my "cushion" I was leaving to the car in front of me. I hate that when I'm towing a trailer. Anyway...

Calling 911 = They DO want you to, and if they don't, they'll tell you.

The rest of this, probably just pre-election chest thumping. However, I don't want to test it, and even the idea that somebody in power can say these things and get away with it... scares the s*** out of me. I'd love the Governor General or Feds or something to pull out the stupid stick and beat him with it.

[ZTWsquared]

I'm sympathetic to your frustration ... but yeah, pinching-in probably not the best course of action.

This official release does a much better job of detailing how the seizure and destruction of modified cars works ... bottom line:

Years in court

str8 from the AG's office

P-51,Jun 25 2007, 04: Wrote:All right then we're all in agreement. 

Trying to pinch off the lane = not the best idea.  As I said, I probably wouldn't do it again.  It was also a bit of self defence on my part too, I didn't want this guy pulling in in front of me, eating up my "cushion" I was leaving to the car in front of me.  I hate that when I'm towing a trailer.  Anyway...

Calling 911 = They DO want you to, and if they don't, they'll tell you.

The rest of this, probably just pre-election chest thumping.  However, I don't want to test it, and even the idea that somebody in power can say these things and get away with it... scares the s*** out of me.  I'd love the Governor General  or Feds or something to pull out the stupid stick and beat him with it.
[right][snapback]242342[/snapback][/right]

[P-51]

Probably, hopefully.

"Civil asset forfeiture focuses solely on the connection
between property and unlawful activity and is not dependant on any criminal
charges or convictions."

I think this is what the AG was referring too. If I understand it right, the case goes to court completely as a stand-alone issue. It's not an if-then. If you get convicted of a crime, then they can confiscate your things.

I'm guessing, you can be charged with using your car for unlawful purposes, and that is tested in court individually. It's not reliant on you being found guilty of street racing *first*.

So, at least it appears you get your day in court.

HOWEVER, I'm guessing they have the power to initiate these proceedings whenever they feel like it. Which means your car is impounded.

So, while you may get your day in court, your car could sit for... a long time in impound. And then if you prove your innocence... you just get an "oops, sorry 'bout that, but here's your car back. Don't mind the dust, 4 flat tires, varnished fuel system and vandalism."

Wonder if they also hit you with the storage fee too.

We've seen that happen with drinking and driving... Blow an 0.05, still under the limit, but you get pulled in anyway and thrown in jail overnight. And you get to pay the towing and impound fees. When you haven't broken any laws.

[ZTWsquared]

Right ... but the Crown still has to convince a judge that unlawful activity could be proven or is likely occuring ("connected") ... and you can see how that could work in the area of drug enforcement and organized crime with certain levels of lifestyle with no apparent means of support, certain activities and associations - things that have been observed by law enforcement over a period of time.

But take you as an example ... "yes your honour, the vehicle is substantially modified and in fact the defendant races on the track. Errr ... no he has no speeding tickets, he has a job, it's emissions controls are intact, he has no criminal record, lots of character witnesses, we haven't actually been monitoring his activity ... but look at that header!"

Unless you've actually been found guilty of something and then also found to be street racing, I believe most judges in most situations will dismiss a stand alone application to have modified cars seized - assuming it even gets that far.

In the case of the two cars that were crushed, even though the crown didn't have to prove street racing, my bet is that the owners were in fact found guilty of some sort of serious on the road offense prior to the seizure - and even though the AG is touting this as some sort of example, it's probably not the pure example he's making it out to be.

If it was easy ... you can be sure we'd be hearing about a lot more than just two cars crushed; two cars that were involved in some sort of incident 3 and 4 years ago.

I'm not trying to say that your concern is unwarranted ... all I'm saying is that the AG is making it sound a lot easier than it is ... and regardless of what Fantino or the AG want, the rule of law and the judgement of judges and ultimately the charter still trumps them all.

P-51,Jun 26 2007, 10: Wrote:Probably, hopefully.

"Civil asset forfeiture focuses solely on the connection
between property and unlawful activity and is not dependant on any criminal
charges or convictions."

I think this is what the AG was referring too.  If I understand it right, the case goes to court completely as a stand-alone issue.  It's not an if-then.  If you get convicted of a crime, then they can confiscate your things.

I'm guessing, you can be charged with using your car for unlawful purposes, and that is tested in court individually.  It's not reliant on you being found guilty of street racing *first*.

So, at least it appears you get your day in court.

HOWEVER, I'm guessing they have the power to initiate these proceedings whenever they feel like it.  Which means your car is impounded.

So, while you may get your day in court, your car could sit for... a long time in impound.  And then if you prove your innocence... you just get an "oops, sorry 'bout that, but here's your car back.  Don't mind the dust, 4 flat tires, varnished fuel system and vandalism."

Wonder if they also hit you with the storage fee too.

We've seen that happen with drinking and driving... Blow an 0.05, still under the limit, but you get pulled in anyway and thrown in jail overnight.  And you get to pay the towing and impound fees.  When you haven't broken any laws.
[right][snapback]242401[/snapback][/right]

[P-51]

Yeah, except in my case I get about 1 ticket per year on average, so my record ain't exactly clean... ;) And, there's not many emissions parts on it anymore. It has a cage, racing harnesses, gutted, etc...

But, technically there's nothing illegal about the cage, or removed air bags. I still have the factory belts which I wear under the racing harnesses for legality. It sucks, I have to wear the factory belts for legality, but the racing harnesses too to keep my head off the cage in an accident.

And emissions... I just got a high flow cat I'll be putting on so I can pass emissions. No EGR but thats isn't a legal issue as far as I can tell. In Ontario, as long as you pass the sniffer, you're good. As far as I can see.

[naz]

P-51,Jun 26 2007, 05: Wrote:No EGR but thats isn't a legal issue as far as I can tell.
.....
In Ontario, as long as you pass the sniffer, you're good.  As far as I can see.
[right][snapback]242413[/snapback][/right]

take a look at this

EDIT: added link
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Regs/...0361_e.htm

Quote:Emission Control Systems or Devices

      6.1  The following types of systems and devices are prescribed for the purpose of subsection 22 (4) of the Act:

        2.    A system or device that is approved by the Bureau of Automobile Repair, the California Air Resources Board, the United States Environmental Protection Agency or another body specified by the Director as a replacement for the system or device that is being replaced.  O. Reg. 86/99, s. 6.

based on that, it seems a 'high flow' cat could be illegal even though it is a replacement for the OE cat because i don't think these aftermarket cats have CARB or EPA approval?

and also

Quote: 7.  (1)  If a motor or motor vehicle is manufactured with a system or device to prevent or lessen the emission of any contaminant, the following standards are prescribed as additional maximum emission standards for the vehicle:

          1.    The system or device, or any replacement therefor, must be maintained or kept in such a state of repair that it is capable of performing the function for which it was intended.

          2.    The system or device, or any replacement therefor, must be kept installed on, attached to or incorporated in the motor or motor vehicle in such a manner that, when the motor or motor vehicle is operating, the system or device functions in the manner in which it was intended to function.  O. Reg. 343/01, s. 6.

EGR is for emissions reduction right? that section above suggests it is illegal to remove the EGR


i agree with you that if the car passes sniffer what's the big deal.. but if someone wanted to be really picky i think that would be an area they could focus on

what's with no EGR? does it help performance in some way to remove it? or do you have a japanese market motor that never came with EGR (if this is the case, and its for your wrx, mind if i pm you with some Qs?)

[Flofocus]

p51, if most places did the etesting according to their training, they would fail most people running a race header. ;)

They can fail you on the visual portion (not one etest technician that ive seen has physically put the car on the hoist, and checked the exhaust/emmisions equipment) which is basically to look and make sure your cat, EGR, PCV, really any emmisions equipment that came from the factory, is still there and operational.

Thats what I was explained anyways when visting the multiple places trying to get my focus to pass etest...btw, most technicians dont even agree with it (like us), I was complaining about that when I went to 2 different shops in one day and got very different results on both tests from just gapping the plugs, and cleaning out the MAF. It's a money grab, especially when you have some stupid non self tuning device such as a diablo chip and you have to pay for retunes :angry:

[D-Dub]

All these facts and statements are clear as water, what it comes down to is three people got BURNED !!!!!!!!