Re: Bob Tom Scraps Dakota - Laws

From: jon@dakota-truck.net
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 19:15:31 EST


"Steve D" <01dak@sympatico.ca> wrote:
: From: <jon@dakota-truck.net>
:> "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".

   I will be the first to admit that I am unfamiliar with Ontario's laws.
However, I did read the proposed change, and as I read it, basically it
allows the lawmakers to create a list of prohibited parts, and suddenly
these parts are illegal on a street driven vehicle. Who decides the
list of parts? How is it added to? As Jeff very rightly mentioned,
even laws which start out with the best intentions can easily be abused
in the long term. That is the risk here. Even though I don't know Ontario's
laws, this type of law is the very definition of "sweeping legislation".
Its impact is infinite, and there doesn't seem to be controls in place
to prevent such abuse. (By abuse, I mean prohibiting aftermarket parts
which are not intended for street racing.)

: 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.

   a-nal-o-gy n.

    1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar
  
    2. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption
        that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they
        must be alike in other respects.

   It is an analogy - nobody is saying the laws are actually killing people.
The fly represents the problem we are attempting to solve. Killing the fly
would represent solving the problem. The shotgun represents the broad,
sweeping laws. The act of firing the gun represents enacting legislation in
an effort to solve the problem. The shot ("bullets") hitting things represents
the laws having a negative affect on something. Hitting the fly and causing a
negative impact on the fly is a good thing. However, because we are using a
shotgun, a lot of innocent people are struck also. These are law abiding
citizens who are negatively affected by this legislation. Instead of going
after the fly with a flyswatter (laws designed to specifically target the
problem without infringing on the rights of others), they are using a shotgun.

  I don't know how else I can explain it except to say please don't take it
so literally; that is why an analogy is used; its not supposed to be literal.
Sit back and think about it for a while.
   

:> : 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?

 
     It doesn't matter how serious the problem is. Broad laws like this
which take away the rights of the innocent are NEVER the solution. The
answer is stiff penalties for the undesireable action. For example, anyone
caught engaging in a street race has their license revoked for 5 years,
mandatory jail time, stiff penalties, etc. Basically, you alter the
exising laws to make the punishments harsh enough to dissuade someone from
engaging in that activity. If the penalties are not harsh enough to dissuade
most people from that activity, then you keep increasing the penalties until
they are.

:> :>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.

   
   If that is the case, then even after this bill passes, there will still
be no laws that address street racing specifically. This law addresses
aftermarket parts, which is a very stupid, indirect way to address street
racing. It is very sad that there is nothing specifically on the books
in Ontario to address this problem, but if this latest proposed legislation
is any indication of the thought process of the beaurocrats in Ontario, I
cannot say I am surprised.

:> :>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

   Do you truly believe that? This proposed legislation does not increase
the penalties for the crime, it tries to eliminate it by banning these
aftermarket modifications. You know, a lot of people street race in bone
stock vehicles. However, you won't see them proposing to make all cars
illegal. This would affect too many people and the citizens would never
put up with it. They think that if they target the aftermarket, the pool
of people affected is much smaller so they can push it through. It still
does not make any more sense than banning cars outright however.

   From what you say, it sounds like street racing isn't even a crime as
the laws are currently written. I'm no genius, but I think enacting a
law to *make* it a crime would be a darn good start!! Writing in
stiff penalties for committing this crime would be a great second step.
The way they are trying to go about it borders on ludicrous.

:> : 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,

    I am sure slicks are already illegal to have on the street due to
minimum tread depth requirements. No need for a new law.

: gutted interiors,

   Although not very common, many drag racers and autocrossers do this
on their dual purpose vehicles.

: solo racing seats,

   same as above

: full roll cages (which add nothing to performance),

   Many sanctioning bodies require a roll cage in a vehicle once it achieves
a certain performance level. Often, these cars are driven on the street as
well.

: full race harnesses,

   same as above

: nitrous (has only one purpose and that's winning drag races),

   It is most common in drag racing, but appears in many other motorsports
as well.

: gutted emissions controls

  Similar to slicks, this is probably already illegal.

   The point of the above is that all of the modifications you mentioned
(except for two which are already illegal due to emissions and safety laws)
are modifications that are done by automotive enthusiasts who use their
daily driver (or street driven vehicle) to also compete in various
legitimate motorsport events. They are most definitely not the sole
domain of street racers. The fact is that you cannot look at a car and
say "this car is used for street racing" unless you actually *see* the
car being used for such. As others have already stated, trying to regulate
the cars is a completely backward way to try to attack the problem. The
laws need to focus on the *people* not the instruments used to commit the
crimes.

:>
:> 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.

   What is the point of having a classic car if you cannot drive it on the
street?

[...]
:> 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?

   As stated above, the answer is increased penalties for the undesireable
activity, and if there isn't one already, a law to prohibit the activity
in the first place. The simple fact remains that (for any crime) if
someone is bound and determined to do it, there is no stopping them.
Someone who wants to commit murder will find a way to get a gun, or if
not, a knife, or if not, a club, or a rock, etc. You simply cannot prevent
crime by removing all potential instruments of such a crime, especially
when such instruments are common items used by law abiding citizens for
legitimate purposes. Even if you outlaw all aftermarket modifications,
people will still street race in stock vehicles! Crime cannot be
eliminated, it can only be reduced. The proven way to reduce crime is to
make the penalties for that crime high enough so that people feel it isn't
worth the risk to commit that crime. So, the answer to reducing street
racing as much as it is possible to reduce it is to insitute long term
license suspensions, jail time, fines, etc.

  I submit that banning aftermarket modifications has the potential to
*increase* street racing. A commonly held theory is that if people have
a legitimate place to race, they will not feel the need to race on the
street. I think there is some truth to this. I used to engage in
stoplight drag races quite often until I started taking my Dakota to the
dragstrip. After racing there regularly, the need to prove myself at
every light just sort've dissapeared. It never went away completely, but
I found myself participating in these stoplight drag races very, very
rarely. So, lets assume that having a safe place for people to go and
race is a good thing and will reduce street racing. One of the biggest
reasons to participate in such events is to better your previous
performance. The way to do this is to add aftermarket parts to your
vehicle. If aftermarket parts are banned, a HUGE reason for participat
ing in these events will be reduced, resulting in less attendance and a
subsequent rise in street racing.

:> : 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.

   Neither do I. However, I think it clearly shows a need to increase
the penalties for the laws already on the books, not a need to create
silly laws that sidestep the real issues.

:> : 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.

    How do you know a blower is allowed? If it is allowed now, who
is to say that it will be allowed 2 years down the road? 5 years?
This is a huge danger with this type of broad legislation.

:> 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.

 
   See above for my description of what an analogy is all about.

: 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.

    Maybe not, but what about the fines for adding these aftermarket parts?
Perhaps that is why the wording is so broad - an ulterior motive might be
increased revenue available via fining motorists in violation for having
these so called "street racing" modifications.

: 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.

   Again, I never said people will die because of this law; it was an
analogy - a literary device not to be taken literally. I truly hope
though that you will take some time to sit back and think about the whole
situation. I hope that you will come to realize how this sort of
legialation is not a solution to this sort of problem. This same
methodology has been tried in relation to gun control in Australia,
Britain, and Canada and has failed wherever it is tried. The reason
is that you cannot solve these sorts of problems by restricting items,
you must penalize the people committing the crimes. The more people that
realize this, the better off the world will be. If you truly wish to
agree to disagree then I will regretfully do so because I am confident
that my position in this matter is the correct one. However, I really
do hope that you try to step back and see the whole picture. I realize
this can be very difficult, especially when one has faced personal
tragedies or had firsthand experience with such events which can cloud
a person's judgement. I truly believe though that these things should
be looked at with a personal detachment so that the rights of the few
don't get trampled on by the blindness or indifference of the many.

-- 

-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