76 year old man *SHOCKED* that 'street racer' law used against him

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:25:13 -0800 (PST), "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
MURDERERS" > wrote:

>Anyone doing 130 kph should do some prison time and lose their license
>permanently. This guy is a psychopath.

Howabout 66 KPH in a 40 KPH zone?


Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (a.k.a. SFB) admits to being
a deadly speeder, psychopath and criminal coddler:

"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/Speeders And Drunk Drivers
Are Murderers (SADDAM)), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Proof that POA is LBMHB/lbVH/SADDAM:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

While totally ignoring the egregious exceedign of the speed limit.
You may now argue "but it was safe", "unpderposted limit', etc.

Harry K


HUH?!? This was KILOMETERS we're talking about. ~30MPH over the limit
(briefly) to complete a pass safely? ****, I should have had my car
impounded many thousands of times by now...

What's much more dangerous are the ****tards that insist on waiting till the
passing lane is almost ending, then insist on trying to pass you at (speed
limit plus 5 or 10).

If you're going to pass, PASS, dammit. I don't see that this man did
anything wrong. Looks like the law needs to be re-worked a bit. He wasn't
doing anything dangerous, or even out of the ordinary. -Dave

On Feb 8, 7:45 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > In article >,
> > N8N > wrote:
>
> >>Well, it probably was safe. In addition, the gentleman was clearly
> >>neither racing nor "stunt driving" whatever the hell that means.
> >>(conjures up images of drifting and Evel Kneivel...)
>
> > Stunt driving means "driving in excess of 50 km/h over the posted
> > speed limit". It's an Orwellian redefinition of words, in order to
> > make a new law sound good to the public and the media while actually
> > having a harmful effect.
>
> > Anyone hearing of the proposed law was intended to think that only
> > "Evel Kneivel" types would be affected, little knowing that 80mph in a
> > 50mph zone while passing a slower vehicle would result in losing thier
> > car.
>
> And even if they do realize that could be the case they'll argue that it
> would never be applied to an ordinary person.

Why wouldn't it be applied? All you have to do is read the text of
the law. He was doing 78 in a 48 zone. In some places, you are
allowed to exceed the SL when passing. Some not. Maybe in that
province, you are not. Here in WA, you can, on a two-lane.

The law may have been passed as a tool to nail street racers, but that
still doesn't mean you can ignore it if you aren't racing. I'd say 80
in a 50 is creeping toward reckless driving.

Here, 80 in a *40* will get you nailed with reckless driving. 100 in
a 50, same story. Regardless of what you may think about the law,
without further information on what sort of road it was, we have no
idea how dumb it was to exceed the limit by 30mph. Out here in the
hinterlands, it really isn't. But in places closer to towns, it's
could very well be dangerous to everyone.

E.P.

On Feb 8, 8:43 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:05 am, (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Ottawa...07/4831646-sun....
>
> > <...>
>
> > A 76-year-old Pembroke-area man doesn't see himself as a street racer,
> > but the law clearly does.
>
> > Norman Harding was charged going 50 km/h over the speed limit on Jan. 17.
> > As a result, his car was impounded, his licence was suspended for seven
> > days and he was fined $2,000.
>
> > Harding feels the new Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act was aimed at
> > street racers, not an elderly man in a hurry driving his wife to a
> > non-emergency doctor's appointment.
>
> > "Hopefully, I can explain to them that I am not this kind of person,"
> > said the soft-spoken man of his Feb. 21 court date in Killaloe.
>
> > Harding was driving on Hwy. 515 toward Pembroke when he passed a truck he
> > said was moving too slowly.
>
> > He accelerated and moments later saw a cop car. There were sirens and he
> > pulled over.
>
> > The OPP officer clocked Harding doing 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and
> > told him he would be charged.
>
> > <...>
>
> > He faces a maximum fine of $10,000.
>
> > <...>
>
> > "This legislation was not for the likes of me. I don't drive like that.
> > It's just a case that the truck was pooping along and I passed to get
> > away from him," said Harding.
>
> > Bob Nichols, a spokesman for the transportation ministry, said the
> > legislation came into effect in September and has three categories for
> > drivers: Driving contest, street racing and stunt driving. Harding falls
> > into the latter.
>
> > He said the definition of stunt driving is when a driver is going 50 km/h
> > above the limit.
>
> > <...>
>
> > ------------------------
>
> > As much as I hate these stupid 'tool' laws, there's a certain feeling of
> > justice when one these 'it won't be used against people like me' types
> > has one used against him. His whole defense is that he's not the kind of
> > person this particular law was aimed at... it's comical in a way.
>
> While totally ignoring the egregious exceedign of the speed limit.
> You may now argue "but it was safe", "unpderposted limit', etc.


Well, Harry, there are stretches of HWY 26 that's plenty safe to punch
it up to 85-95 to get around a slow-moving grain truck. In other
places, not so much. Between Colfax and Spokane, there are plenty of
places that are perfectly safe to punch it up to 90 to get around a
phalanx of sloth. And legal, too, according to the RCW.

Then again, there are places where such a move would be stupid.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:45 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article > , Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > N8N > wrote:
>>
>> >>Well, it probably was safe. In addition, the gentleman was clearly
>> >>neither racing nor "stunt driving" whatever the hell that means.
>> >>(conjures up images of drifting and Evel Kneivel...)
>>
>> > Stunt driving means "driving in excess of 50 km/h over the posted
>> > speed limit". It's an Orwellian redefinition of words, in order to
>> > make a new law sound good to the public and the media while actually
>> > having a harmful effect.
>>
>> > Anyone hearing of the proposed law was intended to think that only
>> > "Evel Kneivel" types would be affected, little knowing that 80mph in a
>> > 50mph zone while passing a slower vehicle would result in losing thier
>> > car.
>>
>> And even if they do realize that could be the case they'll argue that it
>> would never be applied to an ordinary person.
>
> Why wouldn't it be applied? All you have to do is read the text of
> the law. He was doing 78 in a 48 zone. In some places, you are
> allowed to exceed the SL when passing. Some not. Maybe in that
> province, you are not. Here in WA, you can, on a two-lane.

Um... I'm the one always saying they can and will be so
applied.... remember? Practically everytime I post about a new tool law
like this 'stunt driving' law and say how it can be applied to regular
people, someone, often you, will call me a conspiracy theorist or
paranoid. Then there will be re-assurances that the government and its
police forces would never do such a thing.

On Feb 9, 10:18*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:43 am, Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:05 am, (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Ottawa...07/4831646-sun.....
>
> > > <...>
>
> > > *A 76-year-old Pembroke-area man doesn't see himself as a street racer,
> > > but the law clearly does.
>
> > > Norman Harding was charged going 50 km/h over the speed limit on Jan. 17.
> > > As a result, his car was impounded, his licence was suspended for seven
> > > days and he was fined $2,000.
>
> > > Harding feels the new Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act was aimed at
> > > street racers, not an elderly man in a hurry driving his wife to a
> > > non-emergency doctor's appointment.
>
> > > *"Hopefully, I can explain to them that I am not this kind of person,"
> > > said the soft-spoken man of his Feb. 21 court date in Killaloe.
>
> > > Harding was driving on Hwy. 515 toward Pembroke when he passed a truck he
> > > said was moving too slowly.
>
> > > He accelerated and moments later saw a cop car. There were sirens and he
> > > pulled over.
>
> > > The OPP officer clocked Harding doing 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone and
> > > told him he would be charged.
>
> > > <...>
>
> > > He faces a maximum fine of $10,000.
>
> > > <...>
>
> > > "This legislation was not for the likes of me. I don't drive like that..
> > > It's just a case that the truck was pooping along and I passed to get
> > > away from him," said Harding.
>
> > > *Bob Nichols, a spokesman for the transportation ministry, said the
> > > legislation came into effect in September and has three categories for
> > > drivers: Driving contest, street racing and stunt driving. Harding falls
> > > into the latter.
>
> > > He said the definition of stunt driving is when a driver is going 50 km/h
> > > above the limit.
>
> > > <...>
>
> > > ------------------------
>
> > > As much as I hate these stupid 'tool' laws, there's a certain feeling of
> > > justice when one these 'it won't be used against people like me' types
> > > has one used against him. His whole defense is that he's not the kind of
> > > person this particular law was aimed at... it's comical in a way.
>
> > While totally ignoring the egregious exceedign of the speed limit.
> > You may now argue "but it was safe", "unpderposted limit', etc.
>
> Well, Harry, there are stretches of HWY 26 that's plenty safe to punch
> it up to 85-95 to get around a slow-moving grain truck. *In other
> places, not so much. *Between Colfax and Spokane, there are plenty of
> places that are perfectly safe to punch it up to 90 to get around a
> phalanx of sloth. *And legal, too, according to the RCW.
>
> Then again, there are places where such a move would be stupid.
>
> E.P.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is stretches of 26 that are safe at well over a 100. If one
needs to punch it to 30 over the posted to pass, it is unsafe on the
face of it. Your references to 196 and 26 mean that you would be
punchingit to 90 in a 60 or 95 in a 65 (could be 100 in a 70 on 26,
been awhile since I was over that). It isn't about the actual speed
being done. It is about speed differential. I actually have very
little objection about those speeds but when you are doing 80 in
40.... And by being posted 40 one can be assured that there is a
_reason_ for that 40 (maybe underposted some yes but the area
definitey has cause for being reduced)

Incidently, I picked up a ticket in BC under similar circumstances
"Speeding while passing" so at least in BC you aren't allowed to
exceed the posted. I was only over by about 5 km.

Harry K.
Harry K

On Feb 9, 3:13*pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> While totally ignoring the egregious exceedign of the speed limit.
> You may now argue "but it was safe", "unpderposted limit', etc.
>
> Harry K
>
> HUH?!? *This was KILOMETERS we're talking about. *~30MPH over the limit
> (briefly) to complete a pass safely? *****, I should have had my car
> impounded many thousands of times by now...
>
> What's much more dangerous are the ****tards that insist on waiting till the
> passing lane is almost ending, then insist on trying to pass you at (speed
> limit plus 5 or 10).
>
> If you're going to pass, PASS, dammit. *I don't see that this man did
> anything wrong. *Looks like the law needs to be re-worked a bit. *He wasn't
> doing anything dangerous, or even out of the ordinary. *-Dave

What does it being in KM have to do with anything? It is about safe
passing. 30 mph over the traffic being passed is excessive especially
in 'slow traffic' areas.

Harry K

On Feb 10, 7:01 am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:18 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

> > Well, Harry, there are stretches of HWY 26 that's plenty safe to punch
> > it up to 85-95 to get around a slow-moving grain truck. In other
> > places, not so much. Between Colfax and Spokane, there are plenty of
> > places that are perfectly safe to punch it up to 90 to get around a
> > phalanx of sloth. And legal, too, according to the RCW.
>
> > Then again, there are places where such a move would be stupid.
>
> > E.P.
>
> There is stretches of 26 that are safe at well over a 100. If one
> needs to punch it to 30 over the posted to pass, it is unsafe on the
> face of it.

No. Have you ever pulled out to pass someone doing 55 in the 65 area
of HWY26, and had the 'tard decide he was going to then go 70?

I have, so I now pass with significant differential. Since it's legal
here, I prefer less opposite lane exposure. Which is MORE safe, not
less.

E.P.

On Feb 10, 11:14*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 7:01 am, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:18 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > > Well, Harry, there are stretches of HWY 26 that's plenty safe to punch
> > > it up to 85-95 to get around a slow-moving grain truck. *In other
> > > places, not so much. *Between Colfax and Spokane, there are plenty of
> > > places that are perfectly safe to punch it up to 90 to get around a
> > > phalanx of sloth. *And legal, too, according to the RCW.
>
> > > Then again, there are places where such a move would be stupid.
>
> > > E.P.
>
> > There is stretches of 26 that are safe at well over a 100. *If one
> > needs to punch it to 30 over the posted to pass, it is unsafe on the
> > face of it.
>
> No. *Have you ever pulled out to pass someone doing 55 in the 65 area
> of HWY26, and had the 'tard decide he was going to then go 70?
>
> I have, so I now pass with significant differential. *Since it's legal
> here, I prefer less opposite lane exposure. *Which is MORE safe, not
> less.
>

Exactly.

And with that said, I believe that that is exactly what happened in
this story - the age of the driver makes it that much more believable
(he's only a little younger than my late grandfather would be were he
still with us.) It seems to me that people of a certain age were more
likely to be taught to drive correctly - riding with my grandfather on
a 2-lane road, if he came up on a slower driver, SOP would be to leave
a considerable distance between us and the slow car, hug the center
line and watch for an opportunity to pass, and when safe immediately
floor the accelerator and let it run until safely past the slower
driver, then lift off and change back to the right, let speed drift
down to chosen cruise speed, resume driving as normal. I've seen this
with other older folks, too, but some younger drivers (not me!) seem
to think that it is "unsafe" to let the accelerator pedal touch the
carpet.

The fact that his car was a late-60's Olds with a 455/4bbl under the
hood only helped matters

I had an idiot "wake up" when I was halfway past him on a rural 2-lane
in Ohio once; unfortunately I was driving a '69 Valiant with a
225/1bbl. The driver in front of me was going about 50 in a 55, and
while I did employ exactly the passing technique I describe above, I
must have been doing at least 85 by the time I moved back right,
mostly because of knucklehead's decision to accelerate as soon as he
saw me draw abreast of him. A little more HP would have certainly
been appreciated in that situation I know that SWMBO actually got
a ticket once when someone did that to her, and unfortunately a) a
police officer was the first oncoming car and b) he didn't believe her
when she told him that the driver she was passing accelerated midway
through her maneuver.

nate

On Feb 10, 9:19 am, N8N > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 11:14 am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 7:01 am, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 10:18 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> > > > Well, Harry, there are stretches of HWY 26 that's plenty safe to punch
> > > > it up to 85-95 to get around a slow-moving grain truck. In other
> > > > places, not so much. Between Colfax and Spokane, there are plenty of
> > > > places that are perfectly safe to punch it up to 90 to get around a
> > > > phalanx of sloth. And legal, too, according to the RCW.
>
> > > > Then again, there are places where such a move would be stupid.
>
> > > > E.P.
>
> > > There is stretches of 26 that are safe at well over a 100. If one
> > > needs to punch it to 30 over the posted to pass, it is unsafe on the
> > > face of it.
>
> > No. Have you ever pulled out to pass someone doing 55 in the 65 area
> > of HWY26, and had the 'tard decide he was going to then go 70?
>
> > I have, so I now pass with significant differential. Since it's legal
> > here, I prefer less opposite lane exposure. Which is MORE safe, not
> > less.
>
> Exactly.
>
> And with that said, I believe that that is exactly what happened in
> this story - the age of the driver makes it that much more believable
> (he's only a little younger than my late grandfather would be were he
> still with us.)

I don't doubt that he was trained to do that. But there are plenty of
U.S. states, and obviously some Canadian provinces, where you may not
exceed the speed limit when passing.

I believe Oregon is that way, and Idaho, come to think of it.

If someone's poking along at 3 mph under, you better be willing to eat
the citation, or follow the slowtard.

In WA, you have to double the limit before it's reckless. Between
that and the limit, the language is vague as to what is reasonable in
passing a slow vehicle.

E.P.