Well I had my student start researching the issue for my planned attack. There are some serious hurdles in attacking this legislation. These are the problems that I have encountered so far:

1. The first cases to deal with the issue of administrative suspensions etc. were in the area of over 80/impaired. Alot of lawyer time has gone into combatting the issues at that point. So the appeal courts of most provinces have ruled that the Province have the power to control the roadways and are therefore entitled to enact such legislation.

2. Most of the Provincial appellate courts have decided that s. 7 of the Charter does not encompass a right to drive. One BC Court of Appeal decision differed on this point but the decision was not followed buy a later BC court of appeal decision. The Supreme Court of Canada has never ruled on the issue of a "right to drive" but it is unlikely they would find such a right as it opens the flood gates to many others.

3. The question that I think had the best chance of bringing down the legislation is whether the license suspension provisions offend the principles of natural justice? I am talking about right of appeal etc. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there is

"as a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and with affects rights, privileges or interests of an individual..."

But they later said the common law duty of fairness may be modified or abrogated by statute, if the intent to modify or abrogate the rules of natural justice are revealed clearly in the statutory language. This essential means that if they forgot to consider a right of appeal then it is not valid but if they thought about it and stated that there is no right of appeal then it is valid.

The next job for my student is to compare the various sections that result in administrative suspensions to find flaws or inconsistencies between the various sections.

I would normally post case names etc. but the research is costing me dollars at the moment so I am reluctant to do so.

I have permission from my client to speak vaguely about the case. S/he was pulled over for allegedly travelling at 166 on the 403. 1st court date is in the 1st week of December so I will detail what happens there. I hope to have my research completed prior to then to formulate a plan of attack for the months to follow.

 

kick his ***, seabass. Keep us updated.

 

Funny how the sympathy emerges when a male nurse gets pulled over on his way to church, along with an ignorant mother driving her kids in her shiny new car... and not those damn street racers.

 

Oh for the days of "what's Reasonable" in Montana... Oh, and fatalities doubled after they introduced speed limits bowing to politicians and safety groups... go figure...

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm

 

k, i've been thinking this thing through...and it must have been brought up before. But is there a chance that when an officer on the side of the road takes your speed with radar, there is an error?
Think back to high school math. Basic trigonometry...they are measuring your speed on an angle. The gun is measuring the change in distance along the hypotenuse, while the change is distance for the car is NOT along this line, and is infact at a different rate. So same time, different distance = different speed
I highly doubt the guns have internal processors which take into account angle.
Wish i could explain better.

 

There is a plethora of case law on the topic and all of those avenues are still available at trial but they are of little consequence when your car is siezed and license suspended prior to trial. It is that portion of the legislation that I want to take aim at.

 

The following is taken from http://www.astroproducts.net/Phantom.htm

 

So the angle wouldn't really make a difference since it would read less regardless.

thewird

 

I remember Road and Track doing a number of radar tests in the late '80's/early '90's: at that time, they were finding popular police radar systems gave erroneous readings on the high side ~30% of the time - almost one-in-three - in a variety of real-world settings. It was really quite appalling, since radar readings were and are taken as gospel in court. Many of the errors were traceable to the fact radar is like a flashlight beam - it speads out fast and wide, so returns can be coming from mulitple objects in the beam's path. The fixed-emitter means police radar can't determine range, and a semi at one mile presents the same strength of return as a sedan at a quarter mile - so the officer will be prone to assume the return comes from the nearer vehicle he's targeting, not a more distant vehicle. Examples cited in NHTSA testing for example found a police radar picking up a truck moving at 57mph 100yards more distant vs a targeted Pinto moving at 33mph.

A site I found on police radar: http://copradar.com/
Unfortunately, full access has to be paid for, but there's some interesting stuff in the free preview areas.
Another: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-btrust.html
Instant-on-Radar, popular to defeat radar detectors, comes in for particular criticism, because while many police radar errors can be mitigated by a properly trained operator correctly interpreting the readings, the instantaneous mode provides no possibility of the the operator screening bad data.


Of course lidar goes a long way to eliminating this source of error, since the beam is much tighter and more precise. Newer radars may have better target discrimination, although I somewhat doubt it, the limiting factor is the fixed emitter/receiver not permitting accurate ranging.

 

no one obeys the road rules no matter what the consequences. I see it every few minutes while i'm driving. No one can indicate properly, obey the speed limits and be safe around other road users.

Here in West Australia we have a special 'hoon law' which allows police to confiscate cars for 48 hours for the first offence, a month for the second and permanent for a third offence. Things such as spinning the wheels (no matter how you do it), driving dangerously or erratically, going 40kph over the speed limit and i'm sure there's more. I havent been able to find this 'law' anywhere in state legislation. So its a matter of police interpretation at the time.

I'm no angel when I drive, but i do not put other people in danger. Its the drunken, drugged up, inexperienced drivers that kill everyone

 

Bingo. It's the everyday lack of driving skill that the majority of the population present that is the major problem on the roads. In the roughly 5KM drive to the office every morning, there are at least 3 incidences where I must make evasive action due to someone else's mistake, and I've lost count of all the minor infractions (mainly failing to signal, stopping randomly at the side of the road to let people out, just squeaking through yellow lights, etc.) that can turn into major situations when two poor drivers meet.

Yet instead of solving the root problem through tougher licensing requirements mandating better driver education, the government goes for something which will produce immediate results geared for publicity while targeting the symptom and not the cause.

 

Bingo indeed. Here in AB, a program called graduated licensing was brought in a few years ago, which places heavier restrictions on new drivers. BC is similar I believe, both provinces limiting night driving, passengers, etc, for new drivers, and more severe penalties, in the sense that infractions that occurring under the graduated license may prevent or delay receiving unrestricted/full license. Good on the face of it, but they still get to learn the same bad habits from their parents and other drivers, so while it might help keep teen drivers from being out late at night with a carload of friends being stupid, I don't see it improving the overall quality of driving on the roads, which is the real problem, not speeding. Of course, re-testing all drivers thoroughly, and to tough standards, besides being costly, would tread on people's perceived "right" to drive.

Example: both of my parents (now retired) got their licenses under much more lax testing than today. My dad simply paid the $2 fee at a motor vehicle branch back in the '40s. That was it. My mom, being a few years younger, actually had a driving test, which consisted of driving around the town's horsetrack for a half hour. I guess a pass consisted of successfully starting, stopping, and not crashing into the rails in between. While my dad at various points had commercial licenses and did get re-tested, if he hadn't driven commercial vehicles and buses he easily might not have, and my mom never has. They're not bad drivers, but it's easy to see where lack of re-testing can leave some seriously under-trained and under-skilled drivers on the road - essentially forever. Even if the start out well, bad habits can be learned and ingrained.

Here's a favourite gripe of mine: turn signal comes on when the other car is already changing lanes. Hello, it's not a signal if I can already see you're changing lanes, the only thing that tells me is you're doing it on purpose and not just wandering.

Interesting in the study on accident and fatality rates in Montana after they added daytime speed limits on Interstates and State highways, cited by racerjason earlier, was that they found little downward change in driver speeds, despite the doubling of fatality and accident rates that followed the posting of speed limits (70 or 75mph). The study pointed to primarily to decreased driver courtesy and flow control as the primary cause. In other words, all a speed limit did was lead to more dangerous driver behaviors - namely, failure to keep right except to pass, etc, leading to tailgating, unsafe passing, and so on. All of which are epidemic on roads here, as seems to be the case across Canada.

This of course stems from people who selectively follow the rules - like driving in the left lane at 100kph, on a highway or expressway, even if other traffic is going faster - because the speed limit tells them it's okay to ignore the laws that say keep right except to pass, pass only on the left, and yield the left to faster traffic. They're going the limit (or slower), and the other guy shouldn't be able to get ahead by breaking the speed law, so the slow guy feels justified and righteous in playing traffic cop. Or, the only law they really have learned is the speed limit, and not the lane and flow control laws. Predictable, proven human behavior, that tightening speed limits and speeding crackdowns ignore entirely, leading to increased congestion, increased driver frustration, and increased accident rates. But many politicians, the public, and police have bought into the speed kills argument, so guys like Ontario's chief **** Julian Fantino seem like an upstanding law and order type to most when they call for even harsher speeding penalties, like seizing vehicles for being 30k over! All while ignoring research indicating little direct relationship between speeding and accidents, except thru other poor driver behaviors, which continue to be ignored.

 

We have graduated licensing here in Ontario as well. In fact I believe the year I received my G1 (first level of licensing here) was the first year graduated licensing came into effect. I think the statistics say that it has made better drivers, but then again we are making a comparison with the abysmal driving already out there so an "improvement" does not necessarily translate into "good".

In fact I think in some ways graduated licensing might result in poor driving skills in some situations. G1 drivers are prevented from driving on 400 series highways, but can then drive on those highways at a G2 level, presumably with virtually no practice and very little instruction.

Personally I'm all for retesting drivers on an annual basis. Make the test cost enough to cover the cost of the test, and use welfare recipients as instructors to keep the cost down (with qualified supervisors to oversee). The test should consist of a minimum of 30 minutes of city driving (preferably during rush hour), 15 minutes of highway driving, and at least one "surprise" situation in which the driver must make a split second decision and evasive maneuver (maybe have a wet skidpad at the testing center?). For various reasons, there's no chance of this happening ever.

My father (a retired police officer of 35 years) has some stories of this that if retold would make your hair curl. Seriously frightening and under qualified drivers make up the majority of those on the road, and as the population ages they become more dangerous.

That's one of my favourites right there. As well as the person who decides to merge onto the 401 at 50 KM/H below the speed limit even though the on-ramp was more then long enough to accelerate, then cuts into a thick line of traffic causing 3 other vehicles to have to make an emergency lane change and one (usually me) to brake heavily. And even worse then those, are the ones that actually slow down and let them in.

 

Precisely - more examples of how people's failure to understand the flow control laws (like the difference between yield and merge), or plain lack of skill in determining speed and distances, leads to dangerous situations we all see daily.

 

We do have that in BC and it has done exactly what you said it does in AB...... except comming from someone who still has friends in the graduated lisencing program and myself being out of it for 3 years I've noticed many thing:

1st around the hollidays you see one of two things happening from us younger poeple. a) we break the passenger limit rule (1 non family member, unlimited family members - apparently its alright to kill your entier family in your stupidity but not your neighbour and best friend) or much worse b) drive home intoxicated... theres a few who call cabs and stay at friends houses but they are rare.. normally a happens and then people get ticketed for having too many people.

2nd the provincial sponsored driver education programs which allow you to cut the legnth of your graduated lisencing program in almost half does one interesting thing that ive noticed amungst my firends....... they are more prone to getting into accidents. I'm not sure why this is happening since they all take "evasive manouvering" or something like that in their courses and pratice it. but if i had to guess i would say its the quality of the instructors and the instruction techniques - these guys are not race instructors and they are not on a race track..... their in a shopping mall parkinglot with cones and there are very few requirements to being an instructor (certain age and clean driving record comes to mind, then maybe some inhouse training)


..... on a side note i first learned how to manouver my car in parking lots too, except it consisted of spinning around in the rain then spinning around lampposts & those parkinglot gardens in the rain.... then spinning around in the snow, then spining aorund lampposts & gardens in the snow. I've hit a few kerbs in the process, broken some control arms and needing some realignment....... so far all the accidental mistakes ive made where i have spun in the wet or needed to manouver/brake quickly have not resulted in a crash. The countless times ive been fooling around doing that has resulted in 1 crash ........ for my friends from the driver programs their more in the neighbourhood of having a 50% chance of crashing when something unexpected happens. (ive since gone for some proper driver training which has helped enourmasly).

the good thing about the graduated lisence program is that there has been a reduction in teen fatalities since it appears that people are following the passenger limit rules (im of the opinion that the passenger amount doesnt increase the risk of an accidnet but rather minimizes the effect of one).


a friend had a good idea about why we have a problem with people driving... but this may be more vanocuver specific. "There is a problem with people driving because there are so many different driving styles that clash with one another. When you are in Europe, you have to drive like a european... when your in China, you have to drive like a chineese person and when your in india you have to drive like an indian. but here, all those vastly different driving styles come togeather at once and are not compatable with one another because not on group is dominant over another".

 

EXCELLENT wrriten submission in the Saturday Star today... It's must read. It infuriated me and I hope it lights a fire under many enthusiasts. Ontario can shove it's media, government, and spindoctors up it's ***.

http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/32975

 

I think the reasoning is that with mom and/or dad in the car, Junior is unlikely to be encouraged to speed or "Lets see how fast your Mom's Pontiac/minivan/Crapolier will go", while the opposite is true of a car full of other teens. Of course, as you point out, just because it's a rule doesn't mean it doesn't get broken, but it's probably still helpful even it it just cuts down on cars full of teens/new drivers out at night being retards.
Pretty much the same as my experience almost 25yrs ago. I learned to drive in parking lots first (just to learn to start, stop, and steer the car), then a LOT of driving with my parents - probably a 1-2 hours a week with my parents between age 14 and 16. By the time I could get my license (on my 16th birthday, of course!), I had logged a lot of supervised driving time. That time equated to experience that most of my friends did not have when they got their licenses, most of whom took driver's training courses to get their licenses, and not a lot of time behind the wheel otherwise. So I had driven in all kinds of weather, and traffic conditions. I knew things like that a light rain after a hot dry spell can make intersections surprisingly slippery, as the rain floated oil and gas residues off the pavement, and all kinds of other little hazards that my friends, who got most of their seat time in the form of a few hours of driver training courses, did not. Almost all these same friends had had at least one accident by the end of high school relating to excessive speed for conditions, although in most cases not speeding per-se. Another friend, who like me had a lot of seat time in his parent's car, as well as taking a driver training course (for the insurance reduction), described it as essentially worthless except for the insurance reduction - even his instructor knew he wasn't really learning anything, it was pretty much just an "atta-boy".

My big beef with driver training programs, on the whole, is that they give both parents and young drivers a sense of unjustified confidence, based on minimal experience, and testing that requires minimal levels of competence, not mastery, particularly of car control skills in an emergency situation. Parent's get to avoid spending a lot of time with junior at the wheel of their car in return for parting with a few hundred bucks, and everyone feels good, at least until people and property damage occurs as the young driver finds out how low their limits really are - and in the days before graduated licensing, they were doing it at 16 completely unsupervised!

As far as the clash of driving styles, I think that too comes down to failure to enforce driver standards. Our laws are essentially based on the European model, but the only laws really enforced are speed limits (which while they are present on most European roads, are generally much more liberal, and dictated by 85 percentile studies and sound engineering research, and less by "speed kills" politics). So the only lesson drivers really learn is concerning speed and red lights/stop signs, (speed limits which people will ignore if it's set below what's safe for a given road anyway), and not the rest of the rules about flow control and general courtesy to other motorists.

This "speed limit is the paramount rule of the road" message, getting back to the thread topic, is precisely what the Ontario government is harping on with it's new harsh new "street-racing" law, which in practice is really just hard core speed limit enforcement, with a side of unreasonable lee-way for an officer to define a situation as racing. I hope to hell the idea doesn't catch on out here, although like a lot of bad ideas that masquerade as government intervention for the public good, I fear it might.

 

That truly was an excellent article! He took everything I wish I knew how to say and put it in words for countless thousands of people to see! I hope it gets some recognition!

 

Wierd thing about myself. I speed freuquently, sometimes drive aggresively, but I'm a good driver, I take care not to cut people off or drive too close to anyone but, I'm a fast driver, I do constant lane changes, and get ahead of the traffic. I have never gotten a speeding ticket, or been in an accident driving fast, why, becuase I'm more careful, it keeps my attention on the road, and keeps me from making mistakes. Now when I'm trying to drive timidly, I get into accidents, yesterday I was going down a busy street in rush hour, and I'd usually take the faster lane to get around the traffic to go down the bridge, or either avoid it and take a different route (theres only 2 main roads that lead north in Brandon, and the one I was on was a one lane). For some reason I didn't, I stuck in the busy lane, and I was about to turn out of it cuase traffic was taking forever, and then some morron tries to cut a yellow, relies he won't make it, and slams his brakes. I was doing a shoulder check to change lanes, and by the time I had looked back, I was about 2 car lengths behind a stopped truck that had been going 50km, if I would have been speeding, going around the traffic, my parent's car would be fine, but now I have to pay for my deductable, the guy I hit's deductable, and a $400 liscence charge for an at fault accident. Oblviously, not my fault. Really, speed doesen't kill. Dumbass street racers do, those who choose to drive impaired, and poor drivers, who most of the time, don't speed. The only people who speed, are the ones who know they can get out of a dangous situation if it arises.

 

I came accross this on another forum






[quote]Yes, it's true. I lost the R to the popo in Canada this weekend.
You ready for the story of how my leadfoot finally did me in?

Well, crack a beer, grab a smoke of your choice and sit right back and hear a tale of a fateful trip Gilligan....

It starts after a beautiful weekend visiting my family in Ottawa. As some of you know, I go often, (maybe you followed my 'R in Canada' thread.)

Anywho, I get on the highway from Ottawa and start my journey back to New York. OK, I drive way too fast, but my 'highly-illegal-radar detector-in-Ontario' always saves my a$$ here in NY and up there as well. After saving my butt twice, I start to accelerate. I'm about a half an hour and 23 miles from the freedom of the U.S. border when an unmarked Ontario Provincial Police car car hits me with 'instant-on' K band radar going in the opposite direction. This is one of the few times a radar detector is vulnerable no matter how good it is. My K-Band signal starts going absolutely nuts, so I know he got me. I look back to see him swing a quick U-turn and floor it after me.
"Oh sh*t, I'm dead. Maybe he nailed someone else and I just caught a reflection" me thinks... NOT!
I jumped into the right lane and slowed to a legal speed. Well, lo and behold, he flies right up my a$$ and pulls me over.

-"Do you know why I pulled you over..eh?" (Eh= A Canadian term of endearment)

-"Not exactly Sir."

-"I have you on radar going 154 Kph in a 100 Kph zone" (For those who aren't Mike Solo, that's 95 Mph in a 62 Mph)

-"Really? I honestly don't think I was going that fast. Humph."

-"I have it on the display in my car. You can see it if you'd like"

*being that gadget freak that I am, I figured...*

-"Sure."

-"We have some new laws about that which I'll explain, but do you also have a radar detector in this vehicle?"

-"Yes sir, and it is off." *blatant lie*

-"May I have it sir."

-"I can't. It's permanently installed in the car."

-"Please remove the display. If you don't have something to cut it, I do."

*snips display from my car*

-"Could you please open the hood for me and remove the eye in the grill."

-"Ummm, OK."

*tears front eye from the vehicle* (Oh well...So much for that $1500 radar detector. )

-"OK, now please wait in your car for the flatbed."

At that point, I heard Kyle from South Parks' mom in my head saying,

"What, what, WHAT???"

This is also the time I started think.. "Man, I would totally flash him my t*ts right about now if I had some", but I had to settle for asking him if my NYPD leutenants' badge or the fact my brother is Canadian Special Forces would help. (Monday was Veteran's Day there too, but's it's a little bigger of a holiday meaning to Canada than it is for us)

-"Nope. Sorry, that won't help you today."

*Cue the Spicoli line in my head* "You dick!"

-"So waht do you mean, 'Wait for the flatbed.'?"

As explained to me, as of October 1st, anyone caught going 50 Kph over the speed limit can be considered wreckless driving, or as they word it, 'Stunt driving' in their law. It gets the same classification as racing, motorcycle wheelies, burn outs, donuts, etc...
It also means that there is a mandatory, on the spot suspension of your license for 7 days as well as the vehicle getting impounded for 7 days.



Now those of you thinking to yourself, 'Wait, they can't do that to someone from outside the country, or maybe they targeted you for being from NY/USA', ...think again. They can, and they don't target people from the U.S. in particular. This happens to ANYONE driving in Ontario, Canadian, American, or whomever you might be.
OK, so now you're thinking, 'well that sucks, but at least it won't go on your license abstract.' ....aaaand you'd be wrong again.
It turns out, Ontario and New York have agreements to share info and records. Anything that one gets convicted for there goes on your NY abstract.



...and oh, the fine for this infraction by itself is just ludacris. Wait 'till you hear this in a minute...



*my final plea for mercy*

-Sir, please don't do this. What do I do with my dogs? I have a ton of extremly important things I need to do that I need to get back for! Please!"

-"No, sorry. I know it's inconvenient. I can't help you.".

Great! Sso now I'm going to be stuck on the side of the highway, with the entire contents of my car and my two little dogs. (Yep, Sandy and Buddy were with me as usual) WTF now?!
At that moment, the flatbed pulled up and as I help the driver get the car up the cop takes off. Having no clue what to do, I asked the driver to just bring me to the impound yard so I can make arrangements to do something. What, I don't know, but something.

The only thing for me to do was to get a cab to the nearest rent-a-car place. The problem with that is;
#1- my license is now suspended in Ontario
and (as I had found out)...
#2-a rental car can't go from Canada to the US, only the other way around. ???

The driver and I happened to see a cab and flagged him down. Yes, he'll take me, my stuff and the dogs over the border to the nearest rental place. 'OK, cool'. Now the next problem; Just over the NY border there, only the Amish exist, (No really, I'm not kidding, Amish. No phone, no lights, no motorcars. Not a single luxury Amish.) Could someone please explain these people to me? Who the hell wants to party like it's 1699? But I digress... It turns out the only national car rental chain is miles away in Pottsdam. A fairly expensive cab ride and an hour and a half later we get to Enterprise. Sheeze.

Along the way the cab driver says to me;

-"Did the cop tell you what the fine for this is?

-*sheepishly* "Do I really want to know?"

-"It's a minimum of $2000 and up to $10000.

Nice.

I was lucky (if that's what you want to call it) that Enterprise had one lone, final vehicle sitting in it's lot. A plain white cargo van. WOOT!
My only problem is that Enterprise will only accept that van back at that office, so it's back off to Pottsdam next week before I go back to pick up the car in Canada. Oh well.

So now the the fun really begins in dealing with this mess and trying to pay for it all. I have to drive back up next Monday to go get the car. I also need to return again on December 4 for a court appearance. Now that just plain sucks a$$.

I've contacted a 'lawyer' in Canada to assist on this one. At first, I wasn't going to, but I finally just figured it's silly not to. Up there, the legal system's a bit different. For traffic tickets, an attorney doesn't have to represent you. Paralegals can represent you. There are multiple agencies filled with ex-Royal Canadian Mounted Police and O.P.P. who become paralegals who one can hire fairly inexpensively to deal with the case and from what I understand, they're pretty effective. Let's see if it helps get me reduction. Anything will help. Right now, the cost of this looks like;

$1500 radar detector
$2000-$10000 fines for 'stunt driving'
$350 fine for the radar detector ticket
$500 impound and towing fees
$200 in cab rides
$350 weekly van rental
$600 attorney fee

...walking away with my health and not getting arrested,

Priceless.


Sooooo, the lesson from this story is, when in Ontario, put your friggin' cruise control on 100 KPH and don't move from that for the love of God!

And now some bonus 'dirty R' shots in front of the Parliment building and the Hard Rock just minutes before it was hauled off to jail.

 

March 26th, 2008 at the Tannery Mall courthouse in Newmarket at 9am a lawyer that had his BMW towed has his/her trial date. There are several other people that have their trial date for the same charge on that date too. So far in the whole province nobody has gone to trial and all matters have resolved with people pleading to another offence like simple speeding. I spoke to the prosecutor in the above matters and he thinks the lawyer will resolve too but I am hoping that doesn't happen.


My client's trial is not till July of this year and I doubt he will want to take the chance of going to trial either. We really need someone willing to take this all the way.

 

Hmm... I live around the corner from the courthouse, maybe I'll swing in for the morning and listen in on the proceedings.

 

Didn't Florida have these same laws until someone pushed the trial and it went to the Supreme Court and got overriden? If Florida = Fail, Ontario = failocaust!

(oh, if only I wasn't at robarts and at home I could post the failocaust pics!)

 

I'd suspect that the reason no cases have gone to trial, and are instead being plead down is in large part precisely because prosecutors are likely reluctant to press the issue and risk having the law struck down. Instead, they can plead down, most defendants will feel like they're getting off light (other than the part where their car was towed and they were stranded on some highway, and that they're probably just pleading to whatever speeding violation they would have got before the new law came in ...), the Minister will continue to crow about how many cars have been towed and instant suspensions handed out, and how it's making the highways safe enough to eat off of (yeah, I know it's a mixed metaphor, but it makes about as much sense as this law!), there will be no statistically meaningful change in injuries on the roads (which will not be publicized), and police will still get to play with their big stick (that's a double entendre, not a mixed metaphor, for those of you counting!).

If my assessment is correct, the situation is not unlike prosecutors in BC choosing not to prosecute the openly polygamous Mormon breakaway colony at Bountiful, or BC and Ontario prosecutors not going after Muslims with more than one wife (which has apparently come to light because of numerous instances of collecting welfare for each wife); they are afraid that if they prosecute, the law against polygamy will be struck down as a violation of Charter guarantees of freedom of religion. And then society would become unhinged, as countless men who were probably lucky to ever get lucky, let alone married, expended themselves in a vain effort to acquire a second wife (because hey, maybe she'll have sex with me!), or even worse, they are successful, and still don't get laid, but do get nagged twice as much, until our culture descends into dark anarchy...

Or maybe not. However, I do believe I may have succeeded in dragging this thread way off-topic

 

I'm lost. In the article about the guy from NY, didn't he forget to add the cost of the car itself? I thought you loose the car if convicted, no?