I'm sure there were lots of Pcars, Fcars, Macs, etc out there today on their first run of the year. Mine stayed under cover but had a nice 2 hr bike ride instead.

 

hopefully nobody from this forum got in trouble today.

 

Laughed out loud.

 

It was North Face Rally's.
I looked at their website and wasn't at all surprised they got busted.

"Their" lawyer has been on radio and TV defending.
Sounds like most of the charges may get dropped.
They pulled over and arrested based on "driver reports".
Apparently, no cops tracked , radared, or witnessed it.

What I never understood though about the stunt driving laws is that if your cleared or the charges are dropped, why can't you get back your towing and impound charges.

 

They thought it was the Gumball 3000 until the normal driver on the road called them in! Bahahaha! Imagine what kind tool you have to be for other drivers to take the time and report them? Also, who the F knows if the lawyer is telling the truth anyways!

 

If they impounded solely based on "driver reports" without personally witnessing any 150 km/h + driving, etc., then a total abuse of power by the piggy's.

 

I agree. Reports from other driver's should not at all be basis for impounding a vehicle. What if I was at the same On Route in the 911 but not driving with that group? Would my car be subject to seizure just because of its make?

 

I read that also. Pretty ignorant comment.

 

Many of those cars are completely unique and easy to identify. I assume that if the owners fight the tickets and the witnesses' testimony wasn't solid they would drop the case. However if multiple people witness a driver behaving (obviously) illegally than I would expect the police to act.
That doesn't mean discriminating against any vehicles that weren't involved.

I'm not saying that the police acted correctly since I wasn't there to observe. But if the group was actually blocking traffic, speeding recklessly in a group, and generally being complete dicks then they deserve the tickets.

 

Maybe, but how can you go by witness testimony as to speeding? Some layman testifying that he/she thought a car was going over 150 km/h is not admissible. Same for reckless driving. What you and I may think is reckless is probably different from a 90 year old woman who drives a Honda Cube. I personally think this was done as a publicity stunt by the cops which is why it is plastered all over the media. A warning to drivers at the start of the nice weather. I suspect all charges will be dropped.

 

Exactly, people don't call the police when you drive according to the rules. And that stretch of the 400 is already dangerous enough with the speeds of the average driver.

Money can't buy brains, but it can buy you a good lawyer.

 

I agree on the speeding. But passing on the right, passing on the shoulder, passing without signalling could be admissible. Obviously speeding is an exception since the witness cannot know the car's exact speed. Any witness testimony would be reviewed in court. I really don't have a problem with an officer charging someone based on witness testimony. Put yourself in the shoes of the witness.

I'm sure we all enjoy as a group and driving fast. I know I do. But that isn't an excuse to disrespect everyone else and put others in danger.

Having said that, I'm sure that the police would have considered the media attention when they made the decision to charge the drivers. Would it have been the same result if the drivers were in normal cars? I don't think so. I don't see the police enforcing aggressive driving regularly on the 401.

 

There's nothing illegal with passing on the right.

I've called and reported *** hat driving on the 401. I called when I was in Brockville and saw the car being impounded with a tow truck in Whitby.

fast forward almost 9 months later and I get a call from the Crown asking me to be their witness against this guy in Kingston Court. I said, sorry, unless you guys will cover my wage and expenses 100%, I just cannot commit to a full day (or more) away from work for this. They advised me that they would be dropping all charges then. I said that's fine, you guys already made sure he paid the price with the street stunting suspension and vehicle impound anyways.

 

I agree, nothing illegal about passing in the right lane, however the original reports speaks of driving in the shoulder, which I suspect might be ticket-able offence. But unless people do stand up in court and testify, I suspect the police will also just drop the charges. Certainly the impound costs and hassle are at one level a punishment and a fine in its own right. Its hard to say really how 'bad' this case was, but if you even try mild stunting in a group of cars like that, you gotta know someone might tattle on you.

I wonder if any of the reports to the police came from drivers using a handheld cell phone while still driving

 

Exactly.

Here are the relevant sections of the HTA. Note that one of the issues was passing on the 'shoulder' and is covered here under section 150 (Sub 2) and it *is* illegal...


Passing to right of vehicle

150. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle may overtake and pass to the right of another vehicle only where the movement can be made in safety and,
(a) the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn or its driver has signalled his or her intention to make a left turn;
(b) is made on a highway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles in each direction; or
(c) is made on a highway designated for the use of one-way traffic only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (1).

Driving off roadway prohibited

(2) No driver of a motor vehicle shall overtake and pass another vehicle by driving off the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 150 (2).

As far as the statements concerning these drivers observed by other drivers and *this* led to the cars being stopped: Apparently they were observed by an OPP unit from up on an overpass as these guys went under and this unit called in the descriptions to units parked further up the road waiting for them. They may very well *not* get the charges tossed due to the 'stunting' part of the driving (that the cop could observe) verses any 'speeding over 50' provision. Many people were reporting they had 'cam' recordings on the local news - so there's that as well. Just my thoughts here.