----- Original Message -----
From: <jon@dakota-truck.net>
To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: DML: Bob Tom Scraps Dakota - Laws
>
> "Steve D" <01dak@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> : From: "Wayne" <blowndakota@yahoo.com>
> :> I usually don't reply to these types of posts but
> :> these comments made me felt as I must. Saying these
> :> types of laws are aimed at the Fast and Furious crowd
> :> makes about as much sense as opening up with a sawed
> :> off shotgun into a crowded mall and saying you were
> :> trying to kill a fly.
>
> : This analogy is hysterical and illogical at best. Actually it's idiotic.
No
> : offence.
>
>
> No, actually it is an *excellent* anaolgy of how poorly thought
> out legislation can create a negative impact on law abiding citizens.
> Please explain why this is not an absolutely perfect analogy for this
> situation!
Oh come on. First, if you read the changes and were familar with Ontario law
you would not be describing the changes as "sweeping". That aside, I fail to
see how one equates an elected legislature enacting laws, for whatever
reason, to someone brandishing a sawed-off shotgun in a crowded mall. It's
laughable. Sorry. Maybe in your mind the two are comparable but in the real
world they're not.
> : And a riced out car driven by a testosterone charged 16-25 year old male
> : trying to impress somebody is a sawed off shotgun fired in a crowded
mall.
> : I've seen too many of the aftermaths to believe otherwise.
>
>
> Nobody is suggesting that these idiots aren't dangerous. However, the
> solution to the problem is not dangerous, sweeping legislation.
I think you aren't aware of the seriousness of the probem. And if stiff laws
designed to prevent carnage in the first place is not the answer, then what
is the answer?
> :>If these so called street
> :> racers are causing all this mayhem, why not pass a law
> :> against street racing, speeding or reckless driving in
> :> general?
>
> : Street racers do cause mayhem. They cause death and horrible injuries.
They
> : kill themselves (seldomly) and innocent bystanders and in a case last
year a
> : womans unborn child.
>
>
> Again, nobody is suggesting these people aren't dangerous. Although I
do
> not speak for Wayne, I think it is pretty clear that he was simply asking
a
> rhetorical question here. The question was, why not introduce legislation
that
> targets the offensive activity directly rather than these silly sweeping
laws?
> It is a rhetorical question because the answer is that there are *already*
laws
> against this. If there is a law against a specific activity and that
activity
> has not stopped, the solution is not more laws against (dubiously) related
> activities; the solution is to enforce the existing laws and if necessary,
> modify them to increase the penalties.
But there are no laws in Ontario that address street racing specifically.
Police are forced to use present HTA laws such as dangerous driving,
speeding, illegal lane change, etc. and emission laws when the boy racers
remove the cats, etc, none of which constitutes a criminal offence.
Presently an offence is not committed until someone is dead, and the
penalties for killing someone while driving in the Province of Ontario are
laughable. Under the present system it's nothing short of licensed murder.
Were I to brandish aforementioned shotgun in a crowded mall, without even
firing a shot, I could be charged crimally for possessing a restricted
unregistered weapon. I didn't hurt anyone but I may have and I formed the
intent to by merely having it on my person. That's what these laws
recognize. Road racing kills people. It's proven. I see it all the time.
> :>Of course there are already laws against
> :> such behavior so more laws will not assist the police
> :> in enforcing them.
>
> : Wrong. The present laws on the books in Ontario have no teeth.
>
>
> So GIVE them teeth! Don't make new laws! Who is to say the new laws
will
> be any more effective than the old ones?
That's exactly what has been done. Old laws have been amended
> : Laws aimed at
> : people who modify their vehicles for the sole purpose of engaging in
street
> : racing are needed. We're not talking about vintage cars here. We're not
> : talking about people who install CAI's or different spark plugs or
blowers
> : or who legally mod their cars for better power and performance. We're
> : talking about cars built for street racing, of which there are hundreds
on
> : the road here.
>
>
> Ok, indulge me - what modifications are done for street racing which
are
> not also done by enthusiasts looking to increase power or race their
street
> car at legally sanctioned events? In order to write a law to target these
> modifications, the modifications must first be identified.
Slicks, gutted interiors, solo racing seats, full roll cages (which add
nothing to performance), full race harnesses, nitrous (has only one purpose
and that's winning drag races), gutted emissions controls
> :>I certainly would not want a law
> :> that leaves enforcement up to the discretion of a
> :> police officer who may or may not understand the
> :> difference between a Hyundai with a chrome tip and a
> :> Hemi Cuda.
>
> : All laws are enforced at the descretion of the police. Ultimately cops
on
> : the street decide wether or not to lay a charge.
>
> : Correct me if I'm wrong but there hasn't been a Hemi Cuda built in 35
years
> : and it was a production car so it would be exempt from any laws written
> : today. At least in Ontario it would be. I don't know about where you
live.
>
>
> There are also very few HEMI Cudas which are not using aftermarket
> parts (this would go for most classic cars on the road today)
And it's perfectly legal for them to do so since they were built so long ago
and always will be. They're classed as *VINTAGE* cars, and an important part
of history. If I had the money I would own one. And besides, I still have
the freedom to build any car I want, with any engine, burning any fuel. I
just can't drive it to work and the mall. That's the difference. Licensed
road going vehicles must conform to certain standards. Race cars that are
driven at sanctioned private tracks are open to the imagination. People who
build race cars and drive them on the street thinking that it somehow makes
them important or special should not have licences, IMHO.
> :>The real force behind such laws is
> :> twofold. One is to keep you out from under the hood
> :> of your own car so you are at the mercy of dealerships
> :> and manufactures. The other is to allow large
> :> factories and corporations to continue to destroy the
> :> environment while putting the blame on the consumer.
> :> I am sorry, but the thought that laws such as these
> :> are put in place to ensure the safety of those on the
> :> roads is laughable at best.
>
> : Sorry Wayne but this is just paranoid beyond belief. You're saying that
laws
> : aimed at keeping people from racing on the streets are actually part of
a
> : conspiracy between government, dealerships and manufacturers aimed at
> : keeping you from servicing your own vehicle? OK.
>
>
> Its not such a farfetched idea. Since the proposed law is such an
> obviously inappropriate tool to combat the supposed problem, one has to
> wonder wether the lawmakers are merely idiots, or wether there is an
> ulterior motive.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't believe in
conspiracy theories. I don't believe that the feds cares one bit if Joe Blow
works on his car in his driveway. Oh wait. I think the RCMP are sniffing
around my garage for used oil filters. LOL ;<)
> : I don't know what goes on where you live but in the Greater Toronto Area
28
> : people died last year (2001) in street racing accidents. Eighteen of
those
> : were the occupants of the vehicles, not necessarily the driver. 10 were
> : people minding their own damn business and going about their lives until
> : some irresponsible punk decided to kill them. If one of those 10 were a
> : friend or loved one of your's I'm sure your tune would be different. If
you
> : had to clean goo of the road at 3:00am your tune would be different too.
>
>
> That's a darn shame and a genuine tragedy. But once again, the
solution
> needs to target the problem. This proposed legislation does not. If you
> are truly concerned with eliminating the problem, you should get behind
> legislation that will be effective against the problem and not these
> red herring "solutions" which will only aggrivate the situation. Unless
> your involvement runs deeper than wanting to be able to say "well, at
least
> I tried" to absolve yourself of any feeling of responsibility, then you
need
> to take a much closer look at the problem and this proposed solution. It
> has been said that if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part
of
> the problem. This legislation does not present a solution to the problem,
> therefore anyone who supports it is a part of the problem. Taking this a
> step further, arguably, anybody who supports this bill supports street
> racing. Yes! Stupid laws like this will only stand to hinder genuine
> efforts to combat the problem.
So what is the answer? What would you do and why would it be effective?
> : BTW. The longest jail term handed out last year for fatalities involving
> : street racing was to a 17 year old who killed a classmate of his while
> : racing another classmate. (he boy he killed was just walking down the
> : sidewalk oblivious to the fact that two idiots were racing.) The length
of
> : his sentence? 90 days in jail. Pretty easy time for taking a life.
>
>
> I suspect he was shielded by some form of minor protection laws; he
> probably should have been tried as an adult for involuntary vehicular
> manslaughter. If legislators want to increase the penalties for these
> "contests of speed" as they are usually termed, then they need to modify
> the existing laws to increase the penalties. Pretty simple stuff, really.
> No need to create new legislation; just get serious about the laws you
> already have! The very fact that the existing laws are not being changed
> shows that the legislators do not truly care about the problem. Most
> probably they merely want to be on record as appearing to care. Either
> that or they are trying to gain more control over the populace and are
> merely using street racing as a vehicle to do so. In any case, wether
> this legislation is motivated by stupidity, sloth/ego or conspiracy, the
fact
> remains that since the root problem is not being attacked, they do not
> truly care about it. (Or, perhaps they don't care enough about it to do
> any actual work to combat it.)
Yes he was shielded and we have no such crime here called "vehicular
manslaughter". He was charged under the HTA with dangerous driving causing
death. Hardly paints a realistic picture in my mind. His license was
suspended for one year in addition to the 90 days. He's back driving and
probably racing while his victim is still dead. I don't call that justice.
> : And before you accuse me of being a tree hugging Al Gore (whoever he is)
I
> : drive a Dakota I plan to built up to a 5.9, blown if money allows and I
live
> : in Canada so American laws and American politicians mean nothing to me;
only
> : American cars ;<)
>
>
> We're talking about Canadian laws here - the proposed legislation is
> an Ontario bill so this should mean a great deal to you... American laws
> and politicians have nothing to do with it.
>
> As far as your Dak goes, how do you know you will be legally allowed to
> build up your 5.9 or install a blower should this bill pass?
Because it was an option that was available from the factory therefore the
swap is allowed. A blower is allowed. Many people who tow boats add blowers.
It's quite common.
> You are obviously trying to modify your truck for street racing. No?
Well, can
> you prove it? Of course you can't. Because street racers put blowers
> on their cars, all blowers should be outlawed.
No I'm not, I'm just too broke to buy the truck I want ;<)
> This is what the bill proposes, and this is *exactly* how sweeping "sawed
off shotgun" style
> legislation affects "innocent bystanders". Trying to shoot the fly
(street
> racers) with this legislation (sawed off shotgun) might hit the fly, but
> it will also hit everyone else within range (responsible enthusiasts
> who add aftermarket parts to their vehicles). Wayne's analogy is an
> excellent one.
I think you're exagerating and maybe don't understand the laws as they are
written. I don't think any innocent civilians will be killed by these laws.
I don't see the gulags filling up with people who dropped their trucks or
put on nice rims or added a blower or a stroker kit. As long as the vehicle
remains emissions legal and road worthy there won't be a problem.
Why don't we just agree to disagree? I'll never convince you that the boogey
man isn't lurking around the corner waiting to take your blower and you'll
never convince me that millions will die because of this change in Ontario
law. We just don't see eye to eye which is OK.
> --
>
> -Jon-
>
> .---- Jon Steiger ------ jon@dakota-truck.net or
jon@jonsteiger.com ------.
> | I'm the: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA. Rec & UL Pilot - SEL
|
> | 70 Cuda, 90 Dak 'vert, 92 Ram 4x4, 96 Dak, 96 Intruder 1400, 96 FireFly
|
> `------------------------------------------
http://www.jonsteiger.com ----'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:48:16 EST