[Newsbot]

Title: Speeder hits 120 km/h in 30 km/h school zone
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2015-11-10 20:28:33
Canadian

[martin14]

Another liberal judge outrage coming up.

[Lemmy]

What would an appropriate sentence be in your world, Marty? Death by firing squad for speeding?

[peck420]

Lemmy Lemmy:

What would an appropriate sentence be in your world,

Maximum fine and suspension. Mandatory, real time data logging w/bio-metric scan required on start, direct to EPS upon completion of suspension and driver's training courses, with a life time ban immediate upon any other speeding infractions.

$1:

Death by firing squad for speeding?

Seeing as the driver was more than willing to risk death to others...

MW Road South is not wide. St. Richard's parking lot isn't large, so many parents park on the street (legally). Between the two, the driver had far less than the vehicle's stopping distance, at that speed, in visibility. It is a small miracle that nobody was killed.

Also, St. Richard's requested that the area be monitored because this was a regular occurrence.

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

Lemmy Lemmy:

What would an appropriate sentence be in your world,

Maximum fine and suspension. Mandatory, real time data logging w/bio-metric scan required on start, direct to EPS upon completion of suspension and driver's training courses, with a life time ban immediate upon any other speeding infractions.

Yep, that sounds about right. 120 km/h is insane in a school zone.

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

peck420 peck420:

Lemmy Lemmy:

What would an appropriate sentence be in your world,

Maximum fine and suspension. Mandatory, real time data logging w/bio-metric scan required on start, direct to EPS upon completion of suspension and driver's training courses, with a life time ban immediate upon any other speeding infractions.

Yep, that sounds about right. 120 km/h is insane in a school zone.

No, a life time ban immediately. 35 in a 30 zone is a fine. 60 in a 30 zone is a suspension, because it isn't an oversight. Quadruple the speed limit isn't even an oversight, it's putting a lot of lives at risk on purpose.

Driving is a privilege, and if it's going to be abused so callously then it needs to be revoked.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, a life time ban immediately. 35 in a 30 zone is a fine. 60 in a 30 zone is a suspension, because it isn't an oversight. Quadruple the speed limit isn't even an oversight, it's putting a lot of lives at risk on purpose.

Driving is a privilege, and if it's going to be abused so callously then it needs to be revoked.

I'm not in total disagreement with you, but we really need more information before we impose the harshest of penalties. First, we need to know what was he charged with. Was he even charged with Dangerous Driving (a criminal offence) or was he just charged with Provincial Offences (like speeding, > 50km/hr over or Careless Driving)? Second, we need to know if he has any past violations. If it's his first offence, he's not getting a lifetime driving ban when, as stupid as this stunt was, no one was injured.

Putting people's lives at risk is, of course, very serious. But he didn't hurt anyone and the outcome is an important element in gauging the severity of any offence. That's why we have distinctions in law based on damages caused (in this case, Dangerous Driving is less serious than Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily, which is less serious than Dangerous Driving causing Death).

[Robair]

peck420 peck420:

Maximum fine and suspension. Mandatory, real time data logging w/bio-metric scan required on start, direct to EPS upon completion of suspension and driver's training courses, with a life time ban immediate upon any other speeding infractions
.

I like it. All I would add is publish his name, face and vehicle. Front page.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

No, a life time ban immediately. 35 in a 30 zone is a fine. 60 in a 30 zone is a suspension, because it isn't an oversight. Quadruple the speed limit isn't even an oversight, it's putting a lot of lives at risk on purpose.

Driving is a privilege, and if it's going to be abused so callously then it needs to be revoked.

I'm not in total disagreement with you, but we really need more information before we impose the harshest of penalties. First, we need to know what was he charged with. Was he even charged with Dangerous Driving (a criminal offence) or was he just charged with Provincial Offences (like speeding, > 50km/hr over or Careless Driving)? Second, we need to know if he has any past violations. If it's his first offence, he's not getting a lifetime driving ban when, as stupid as this stunt was, no one was injured.

Putting people's lives at risk is, of course, very serious. But he didn't hurt anyone and the outcome is an important element in gauging the severity of any offence. That's why we have distinctions in law based on damages caused (in this case, Dangerous Driving is less serious than Dangerous Driving Causing Bodily, which is less serious than Dangerous Driving causing Death).

I see where you are coming from, but I'm coming from the perspective that sentences are also meant to be deterrents and not just punishments for misdeeds. To me, it doesn't matter whether this person had prior convictions or not.

In Alberta, any speed over 50km/h above the posted limit automatically gets your vehicle impounded and your license suspended for 7 days. 80km/h over is 'Dangerous Driving' and is $1000 fine and 1 year suspension and a criminal record. He was going 90km/h over the posted limit.

I think that deserves a special section of the Highway Traffic Act. Permanent suspension of a drivers license, regardless of past convictions. Seriously, at those speeds, a car can not only jump the curb and crash, it would likely go right through a home and probably through the yard and into the next home.

Ke = 1/2 M V^2

Energy increases at half the rate of the mass, but at the square of the velocity! There should be zero tolerance for that kind of disregard for the safety of others.

[andyt]

I don't agree with the lifetime ban. The dangerous driving provisions sound about right, with maybe a 5 - 10 year ban. One thing, in BC, when they seize your car, they pay off your bank loan on the car. So if you owe a lot of money on the car, you're really not out that much. Also I don't know what they do in the case of leased cars. In either case, the driver should bear the full financial hit of having the car seized.

[BartSimpson]

Why not just install speed bumps near the school?

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why not just install speed bumps near the school?

The speeds here just recently went to 30 in school zones. There might be some speedjumps already, but those tend to cause rear end collisions when soccer mom in her 'SUV' stops nearly dead so she doesn't wreck the suspension on her Jeep.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Why not just install speed bumps near the school?

The speeds here just recently went to 30 in school zones. There might be some speedjumps already, but those tend to cause rear end collisions when soccer mom in her 'SUV' stops nearly dead so she doesn't wreck the suspension on her Jeep.

Speed bumps are pretty popular down here and Canadian drivers will get used to them just as drivers down here are getting used to roundabouts or rotaries at intersections down here.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see where you are coming from, but I'm coming from the perspective that sentences are also meant to be deterrents and not just punishments for misdeeds. To me, it doesn't matter whether this person had prior convictions or not.

But then you're throwing out "rehabilitation" as a goal of sentencing. I've related some of this tale before, but when I was 18, I made a stupid decision and hurt a couple of people. I got a Dangerous Driving conviction, did a short jail stint, lost my license for 5 years, paid a hefty fine, took it up the ass on insurance for a decade...all deservedly so. But I also got a chance to learn from my mistake and haven't made a similar mistake since. Society wouldn't have gained anything more by taking away my license forever (or some harsher penalty than I served) but it would have put a major burden on my ability to pursue my education and career, parent my children and generally live my life as a law-abiding productive adult. Would that have been justice?

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I see where you are coming from, but I'm coming from the perspective that sentences are also meant to be deterrents and not just punishments for misdeeds. To me, it doesn't matter whether this person had prior convictions or not.

But then you're throwing out "rehabilitation" as a goal of sentencing. I've related some of this tale before, but when I was 18, I made a stupid decision and hurt a couple of people. I got a Dangerous Driving conviction, did a short jail stint, lost my license for 5 years, paid a hefty fine, took it up the ass on insurance for a decade...all deservedly so. But I also got a chance to learn from my mistake and haven't made a similar mistake since. Society wouldn't have gained anything more by taking away my license forever (or some harsher penalty than I served) but it would have put a major burden on my ability to pursue my education and career, parent my children and generally live my life as a law-abiding productive adult. Would that have been justice?

No, that is quite true.

I guess I'm just pissed off at the recklessness this person showed for those around him.