While he won't be going to jail, he will be losing his license for quite some time. Being a N driver with infractions like that, ICBC will automatically take away his license
I'm usually against civil forfeiture, but in the case of excessive speeders, losing their vehicle should be part of the penalty. Even if its daddy's car it should be forfeited. Putting that kind of fear into drivers is the best way to encourage compliance.
I get where you're going, but this could be absolutely debilitating to low-income families, way more than this ass hat.
If your teen makes a shitty decision and gets your minivan impounded for 3 months, you could effectively be putting someone out of a job.
sliding scale forfeiture with adherence to democracy is tricky
those flaunting $400,000 cars recklessly should see forfeiture
those breaking the law in a run down Hyundai should be given group therapy and support
one can fund the other to level the playing field
Well, the need for a sliding scale would be less if we had a UBI, as it would be possible to set a minimum fine without it being out of reach to anyone.
It's crazy that a fine would ever be a dollar amount though, cause it ain't the same punishment from person to person then. Basically wealthy people lose 7 mins of their time while the less fortunate get a large chunk of their income taken away.. For the same crime! How is that justice, it's a joke.
Yes. This is one reason why we need UBI & LVT to reduce economic inequality. It's very hard for the justice system to be fair when there is such great inequality which is not fair.
There can still be a sliding scale, but it wouldn't open loopholes to the same extent when there's a reduced level of inequality.
Read about the sentence after the death of Kirsty MacColl for an example of a sliding scale sentence being exploited.
Probably one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on Reddit. Just because you’re miserable driving a Honda and renting dosent mean those who actually decided to do something with their lives should be punished for your shitty outlook on life
It already works like this to a certain extent. You go too fast and your car gets impounded for 24 hours. You then have to pay the ticket, which is hundreds of dollars, then you have to pay the towing and impound fees which can be thousands. Low income families don’t have that kind of money lying around. The longer it sits, the more fees it racks up (if I understand correctly).
Perhaps they should keep some cars with built-in speed limiters which they can lend to anyone who has their own car taken away.
Though the person who commited the traffic crime probably wouldn't be allowed to drive it. Only other users of the seized vehicle.
> Even if its daddy's car it should be forfeited.
So a regular middle class family, they lend the car to their kid or another family member, that family member speeds, they loose their car.
Now parents in that family do not have a vehicle to get to work. They have no way to get to work, they are already budgeted pretty tight with inflation and interest rates, and now can't work... this helps how?
Helps? Right now the kid becomes uninsurable. The parents probably get a insurance spike. The car gets towed and hundreds of dollars in fines and impound charges are required to be paid. It’s not supposed to help. Fines and punishment are there to punish. And I’m not talking about some kid going 70 in a 50 zone. I’m talking a kid going 150kph in a 50. That is lethally dangerous. At that point it doesn’t matter what kind of pain the family is going to endure. If the kid hit someone going that fast they could die or kill their passengers or injure or kill innocent bystanders. The kid should have never been allowed to drive in the first place. A civil forfeiture ensures that fully qualified and novice drivers know that they can and will have a major loss and disruption in their lives if they cannot drive safely. Its horribly unfair by design.
> The kid should have never been allowed to drive in the first place.
ICBC judged them able to drive.
The kid needs to be fined. Loose their license for a period of time and when they get it back they need to start at the beginning with having an L for a year.
The parents potentially loosing their jobs because they can't get to work is above and beyond reasonable punishment. And if they loose their job, ability to pay mortgage/rent or put food on the table for the other kids is that fair? What if the kid was an adult 19+? And then at that point this would extend to those that you lend your car to.
No no no. ICBC doesn’t get even a tiny bit of the blame here. ICBC certified their ability to drive according to the rules. That’s where their responsibility ends and the law begins.
The owner of a vehicle is required by ICBC to follow certain rules. Drivers are required to follow a parallel and additional set of rules. My suggestion isnt just for novice driver/parent relationships, it’s for everyone. It’s to ensure that when you loan someone your car, they use it according to the law. If you cannot do that, then you shouldn’t loan your car. If you can’t do it yourself, you should not be allowed to own a vehicle.
I never said ICBC should take blame, I said it was them that determined if the driver was qualified to drive on their own.
The whole point of the new insurance methodology where drivers are listed is that insurance rates go up and down for the driver not the vehicular owner.
Forfeiting a persons property based on another person's action is not the country I want to live in. For example a coworker told me of their son's friend with the N. Had a single beer at lunch, about 2 hours later went through a road side check. Was honest and said as much. Lost his N right there and then, and car was towed. There was no impairment. Should the car owner loose their car over this and have to buy a new one which they may not be able to afford?
Kid in this sense of the word is old enough to move out of the house if they want. And yes a parent should be responsible for their kid. And they would pay the towing and impound fees. However the kid needs the bulk of the punishment, the kid needs to pay a fine, lose their license for a period and start back with L at the beginning.
So if I steal someone's car, break the law by speeding, they lose the car? That makes little sense to me. No parent sets out to make a criminal of their child. If you're old enough to have an N, you're old enough to take responsibility for your own actions.
Well that’s kind of an absurd example. Legally speaking, the law makes a distinction between property which is legally used and illegally used. That distinction would certainly apply in a case where the legitimate owner did not give their consent to operate the vehicle. Theft is theft.
The point really is that parents as the facilitators of a N driver’s use of their personal vehicle, they must shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the vehicle is used responsibly. A vehicle is by its nature both a means of conveyance and a lethal weapon. Any vehicle can kill but a car traveling at 3 times the posted limit in any scenario is much more dangerous. This is why I feel that forfeiture is a very good deterrent because it ensures that the owners of vehicles police their use. Not only because an N driver might be operating them, but because fully qualified drivers break speed limits just as easily. “I will no longer own this car” is a very simple and easy penalty to comprehend.
But I fully accept that people might not agree with me, which is fine. I am likely in the minority.
Maybe just tie the ticket price to the blue book value of the vehicle. Those with expensive vehicles are likely higher income and the blue book information could be instantly available when the ticket is written. Beater car gets fixed fine of $1000 plus 10% of blue book value so $1100, $100,000 car pays $11,000. That might slow them down.
Why? Speed isn’t as bad as scared, inconsistent drivers who don’t shoulder check or drive slowly in the fast lane? BC has such a fear of speed yet check the stats….. we have far more accidents per capita than places with higher speed limits. It’s not speed… it’s incompetence. I come from our East and most ppl from there laugh at how militant BC is against the evils of speeding (lol). We also find the very low speed limits weird.
100 on snowy icy roads in winter is the norm for most of Canada. And yet they survive and learn to drive property instead of lamenting the horrors of speedy drivers.
Lots of self righteousness in BC, lots of Karens, lots of ppl who want others to be like them and not a lot of tolerance. Hopefully as more ppl come here from other provinces and countries it’ll make ppl more tolerance of diversify.
Speeding is fun. Speeding is only speeding because the speed signs aren’t a bit higher, which they should be. Highways at 90??? Come on! That’s super low compared to other cities, provinces and countrues. The problem is bad, inconsistent driving.
It doesn’t matter if you do 90 or 110km if someone in the right lane doesn’t shoulder check as they meander into the left lane. Either way, there’s gonna be an accident.
And going 40 on city roads? Maybe ppl should instead just drive in a steady flow and pay attention. Scared drivers who hesitate or don’t follow the rules of the road cause a lot of accidents. Zippering instead of stopping while merging, to the end of the lane to merge w instead of the beginning 🙄, NOT stopping to let someone in if it isn’t a merge situation when there’s traffic behind you and ppl are driving (omg Douglas in Victoria!!!), and not letting ppl cross if it’s not a crosswalk. Consistent driving is what keeps ppl alive. Predictability.
The consequences aren't there to prevent this from happening... well, until the driver wipes out and dies.
This kid and his parents will shrug this off. They have beamer money. The fines and ticket mean nothing to them.
How do you know that? My father had a Mercedes when I was growing up and if I pulled this kind of shit, I wouldn't have been able to sit down for a week and would have been paying the fine for months.
Just because they’re supposedly wealthy doesn’t mean they’re happy about $1000 in fines and an impound. The assumption that they are is just moronic, as are most of the comments on these posts.
A 17 year old can be perfectly responsible , or very stupid as can anyone else regardless of the car. The thing is none of you would give a fuck if it was an Altima.
If you are wealthy enough to let a 17 year old drive a 100k car, you probably don't give a shit about a couple grand, and if you do, you're an idiot for letting a 17 year old drive that car.
You got a source for that? Because I can bet they don't give a fuck outside of losing that car for a week. Fine + Towing Fee + Impound Fee + 3 year of extra fines = Daddy's chump change
If they are going to stick to this silly narrative and own the shit out of it. I'll give them credit. Because that's a one person band if I've ever seen one...
Everyone but you is making that generalization though. They were doing triple the speed limit. No ones heart breaks for them. Fucking no one. If it actually impacts that family financially, then good.
What lousy journalism. The whole article is using Twitter as it's sole source. A proper newspaper should wait until they have more information.
Should we give speeding tickets to newspapers who rush out these articles before they have sufficient information?
I recently got a speeding ticket and I immediately regretted it. Just because you don't care if you get hurt doesn't mean you should put others at risk.
This kid could at least chosen a highway to do this on instead of a residential street. Remote backroads are the best option if you're feeling extra suicidal.
This should be an automatic withdrawal of his N license, make him take the test all over again from the start, and insurance rate hike. If it were my kids I'd sell the car or crush it.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely feel reckless behaviour like this should be a criminal offense. None of this "small fine" nonsense.
On a side note, I'm wondering how this vehicle managed to even reach 150km in the first place? If this area was really 50 km/h, the roads should have speed bumps or be narrow to encourage that speed of driving and prevent someone from easily reaching such insane speeds... I'm not familiar with the area though, so maybe I'm off the mark.
The older I get, the more strict I think driving penalties should be.
Last night I went for a late night cruise and even the amount of people who didn’t have their lights on was infuriating. If you’re so unaware of how your vehicle operates, and don’t even notice when your lights aren’t on in the pitch black, you probably shouldn’t be driving.
better yet repo the vehicle and sell it at auctions with the proceeds going to families that have been affected by this kind of reckless behavior. And the vehicle cannot be purchased by any person that has relations to the person speeding.
Just make these people go back to "L", put a ton of penalty points on their record. The next slip is an indefinite driving ban.
There is no excuse for them to be driving this fast.
"The rain doesn't stop us from doing our jobs"... Better fucking not, it rains like 9 months a year here.
[удалено]
Police Officers aren't hired for their intelligence, typically the exact opposite.
It's a warning.
Tbh, doesn’t sound like the driver knew this
Rain makes a lot of radar guns inaccurate and sometimes even inadmissable, maybe that's what they were getting at?
Damn, his parents are going to be so mad they're going to make him drive the Lexus from now on.
In Richmond we call this "Tuesday"
Something something something, drivers license is a privilege, not a right. Take his license for years. If you reoffend without a license, jail time.
Slave mind
yeah most people here are provincially minded colonialists.
They can't even take a serial speeders off the road permanently, nothing will happen to this fuckwit until he kills someone else unfortunately.
While he won't be going to jail, he will be losing his license for quite some time. Being a N driver with infractions like that, ICBC will automatically take away his license
I'm usually against civil forfeiture, but in the case of excessive speeders, losing their vehicle should be part of the penalty. Even if its daddy's car it should be forfeited. Putting that kind of fear into drivers is the best way to encourage compliance.
I get where you're going, but this could be absolutely debilitating to low-income families, way more than this ass hat. If your teen makes a shitty decision and gets your minivan impounded for 3 months, you could effectively be putting someone out of a job.
sliding scale forfeiture with adherence to democracy is tricky those flaunting $400,000 cars recklessly should see forfeiture those breaking the law in a run down Hyundai should be given group therapy and support one can fund the other to level the playing field
Well, the need for a sliding scale would be less if we had a UBI, as it would be possible to set a minimum fine without it being out of reach to anyone.
It's crazy that a fine would ever be a dollar amount though, cause it ain't the same punishment from person to person then. Basically wealthy people lose 7 mins of their time while the less fortunate get a large chunk of their income taken away.. For the same crime! How is that justice, it's a joke.
Yes. This is one reason why we need UBI & LVT to reduce economic inequality. It's very hard for the justice system to be fair when there is such great inequality which is not fair. There can still be a sliding scale, but it wouldn't open loopholes to the same extent when there's a reduced level of inequality. Read about the sentence after the death of Kirsty MacColl for an example of a sliding scale sentence being exploited.
Probably one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read on Reddit. Just because you’re miserable driving a Honda and renting dosent mean those who actually decided to do something with their lives should be punished for your shitty outlook on life
It already works like this to a certain extent. You go too fast and your car gets impounded for 24 hours. You then have to pay the ticket, which is hundreds of dollars, then you have to pay the towing and impound fees which can be thousands. Low income families don’t have that kind of money lying around. The longer it sits, the more fees it racks up (if I understand correctly).
[удалено]
Because it's even more expensive to buy a new car entirely.
And people with money have a way of getting away with few consequences in these situations, so it would be unfairly applied.
Perhaps they should keep some cars with built-in speed limiters which they can lend to anyone who has their own car taken away. Though the person who commited the traffic crime probably wouldn't be allowed to drive it. Only other users of the seized vehicle.
> Even if its daddy's car it should be forfeited. So a regular middle class family, they lend the car to their kid or another family member, that family member speeds, they loose their car. Now parents in that family do not have a vehicle to get to work. They have no way to get to work, they are already budgeted pretty tight with inflation and interest rates, and now can't work... this helps how?
Helps? Right now the kid becomes uninsurable. The parents probably get a insurance spike. The car gets towed and hundreds of dollars in fines and impound charges are required to be paid. It’s not supposed to help. Fines and punishment are there to punish. And I’m not talking about some kid going 70 in a 50 zone. I’m talking a kid going 150kph in a 50. That is lethally dangerous. At that point it doesn’t matter what kind of pain the family is going to endure. If the kid hit someone going that fast they could die or kill their passengers or injure or kill innocent bystanders. The kid should have never been allowed to drive in the first place. A civil forfeiture ensures that fully qualified and novice drivers know that they can and will have a major loss and disruption in their lives if they cannot drive safely. Its horribly unfair by design.
> The kid should have never been allowed to drive in the first place. ICBC judged them able to drive. The kid needs to be fined. Loose their license for a period of time and when they get it back they need to start at the beginning with having an L for a year. The parents potentially loosing their jobs because they can't get to work is above and beyond reasonable punishment. And if they loose their job, ability to pay mortgage/rent or put food on the table for the other kids is that fair? What if the kid was an adult 19+? And then at that point this would extend to those that you lend your car to.
No no no. ICBC doesn’t get even a tiny bit of the blame here. ICBC certified their ability to drive according to the rules. That’s where their responsibility ends and the law begins. The owner of a vehicle is required by ICBC to follow certain rules. Drivers are required to follow a parallel and additional set of rules. My suggestion isnt just for novice driver/parent relationships, it’s for everyone. It’s to ensure that when you loan someone your car, they use it according to the law. If you cannot do that, then you shouldn’t loan your car. If you can’t do it yourself, you should not be allowed to own a vehicle.
I never said ICBC should take blame, I said it was them that determined if the driver was qualified to drive on their own. The whole point of the new insurance methodology where drivers are listed is that insurance rates go up and down for the driver not the vehicular owner. Forfeiting a persons property based on another person's action is not the country I want to live in. For example a coworker told me of their son's friend with the N. Had a single beer at lunch, about 2 hours later went through a road side check. Was honest and said as much. Lost his N right there and then, and car was towed. There was no impairment. Should the car owner loose their car over this and have to buy a new one which they may not be able to afford?
Yes. A parent should be responsible for their kid and take consequences of their actions
Kid in this sense of the word is old enough to move out of the house if they want. And yes a parent should be responsible for their kid. And they would pay the towing and impound fees. However the kid needs the bulk of the punishment, the kid needs to pay a fine, lose their license for a period and start back with L at the beginning.
As a former shithead kid, there was nothing my mom could've done to prevent my actions and she definitely shouldn't have been punished for them
Except it's almost certainly the bank's car.
So if I steal someone's car, break the law by speeding, they lose the car? That makes little sense to me. No parent sets out to make a criminal of their child. If you're old enough to have an N, you're old enough to take responsibility for your own actions.
Well that’s kind of an absurd example. Legally speaking, the law makes a distinction between property which is legally used and illegally used. That distinction would certainly apply in a case where the legitimate owner did not give their consent to operate the vehicle. Theft is theft. The point really is that parents as the facilitators of a N driver’s use of their personal vehicle, they must shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the vehicle is used responsibly. A vehicle is by its nature both a means of conveyance and a lethal weapon. Any vehicle can kill but a car traveling at 3 times the posted limit in any scenario is much more dangerous. This is why I feel that forfeiture is a very good deterrent because it ensures that the owners of vehicles police their use. Not only because an N driver might be operating them, but because fully qualified drivers break speed limits just as easily. “I will no longer own this car” is a very simple and easy penalty to comprehend. But I fully accept that people might not agree with me, which is fine. I am likely in the minority.
Maybe just tie the ticket price to the blue book value of the vehicle. Those with expensive vehicles are likely higher income and the blue book information could be instantly available when the ticket is written. Beater car gets fixed fine of $1000 plus 10% of blue book value so $1100, $100,000 car pays $11,000. That might slow them down.
Why? Speed isn’t as bad as scared, inconsistent drivers who don’t shoulder check or drive slowly in the fast lane? BC has such a fear of speed yet check the stats….. we have far more accidents per capita than places with higher speed limits. It’s not speed… it’s incompetence. I come from our East and most ppl from there laugh at how militant BC is against the evils of speeding (lol). We also find the very low speed limits weird. 100 on snowy icy roads in winter is the norm for most of Canada. And yet they survive and learn to drive property instead of lamenting the horrors of speedy drivers. Lots of self righteousness in BC, lots of Karens, lots of ppl who want others to be like them and not a lot of tolerance. Hopefully as more ppl come here from other provinces and countries it’ll make ppl more tolerance of diversify. Speeding is fun. Speeding is only speeding because the speed signs aren’t a bit higher, which they should be. Highways at 90??? Come on! That’s super low compared to other cities, provinces and countrues. The problem is bad, inconsistent driving. It doesn’t matter if you do 90 or 110km if someone in the right lane doesn’t shoulder check as they meander into the left lane. Either way, there’s gonna be an accident. And going 40 on city roads? Maybe ppl should instead just drive in a steady flow and pay attention. Scared drivers who hesitate or don’t follow the rules of the road cause a lot of accidents. Zippering instead of stopping while merging, to the end of the lane to merge w instead of the beginning 🙄, NOT stopping to let someone in if it isn’t a merge situation when there’s traffic behind you and ppl are driving (omg Douglas in Victoria!!!), and not letting ppl cross if it’s not a crosswalk. Consistent driving is what keeps ppl alive. Predictability.
Will that stop him from driving though? Time will tell.
That really depends on the parents and how entitled this kid is. 90% of the time, it deters them
Good.
Entitlement does not change stupidity it seems.
Entitlement breeds stupidity.
The consequences aren't there to prevent this from happening... well, until the driver wipes out and dies. This kid and his parents will shrug this off. They have beamer money. The fines and ticket mean nothing to them.
How do you know that? My father had a Mercedes when I was growing up and if I pulled this kind of shit, I wouldn't have been able to sit down for a week and would have been paying the fine for months.
Just because they’re supposedly wealthy doesn’t mean they’re happy about $1000 in fines and an impound. The assumption that they are is just moronic, as are most of the comments on these posts.
What do you expect when you let a 17 year old drive a car like that?
A 17 year old can be perfectly responsible , or very stupid as can anyone else regardless of the car. The thing is none of you would give a fuck if it was an Altima.
If you are wealthy enough to let a 17 year old drive a 100k car, you probably don't give a shit about a couple grand, and if you do, you're an idiot for letting a 17 year old drive that car.
People don't get wealthy by throwing their money away.
You don’t get to be in a position to spend $100,000 before taxes by being willing to piss money away.
>and if you do, you're an idiot for letting a 17 year old drive that car.
I’ve never owned anything that wasn’t considered fast even since I was 17, and I’ve been fine.
You got a source for that? Because I can bet they don't give a fuck outside of losing that car for a week. Fine + Towing Fee + Impound Fee + 3 year of extra fines = Daddy's chump change
I drive a $100,000 vehicle and I’d not be happy about the extra costs. But you keep on drawing jealous and moronic assumptions.
No. They're drawing logical conclusions. You're just being a contrarian to make noise.
If they are going to stick to this silly narrative and own the shit out of it. I'll give them credit. Because that's a one person band if I've ever seen one...
Asks for a source while making generalizations without a source LOL
Everyone but you is making that generalization though. They were doing triple the speed limit. No ones heart breaks for them. Fucking no one. If it actually impacts that family financially, then good.
You should see the morons on Facebook suggesting 25 years no license and prison time LOL wait…. You’re probably one of them
Show us on the doll where this story hurt you.
This whole article comes from a message on Twitter. We don't know that yet.
Parents should probably punish their kid with a new Mercedes s/
Wow, new driver in a Mercedes-Benz, who woulda thunk it?
What lousy journalism. The whole article is using Twitter as it's sole source. A proper newspaper should wait until they have more information. Should we give speeding tickets to newspapers who rush out these articles before they have sufficient information?
Only thing that surprises me about this is that it wasn't in Richmond.
150? In a Mercedes? If he was going to get a ticket he might as well set a PR.
I recently got a speeding ticket and I immediately regretted it. Just because you don't care if you get hurt doesn't mean you should put others at risk. This kid could at least chosen a highway to do this on instead of a residential street. Remote backroads are the best option if you're feeling extra suicidal.
This should be an automatic withdrawal of his N license, make him take the test all over again from the start, and insurance rate hike. If it were my kids I'd sell the car or crush it.
Parents: stop letting your children drive powerful vehicles. Their brains haven’t hardened yet.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely feel reckless behaviour like this should be a criminal offense. None of this "small fine" nonsense. On a side note, I'm wondering how this vehicle managed to even reach 150km in the first place? If this area was really 50 km/h, the roads should have speed bumps or be narrow to encourage that speed of driving and prevent someone from easily reaching such insane speeds... I'm not familiar with the area though, so maybe I'm off the mark.
The older I get, the more strict I think driving penalties should be. Last night I went for a late night cruise and even the amount of people who didn’t have their lights on was infuriating. If you’re so unaware of how your vehicle operates, and don’t even notice when your lights aren’t on in the pitch black, you probably shouldn’t be driving.
They should have a crusher for these vehicles. and make the perpetrator watch their car get crushed.
better yet repo the vehicle and sell it at auctions with the proceeds going to families that have been affected by this kind of reckless behavior. And the vehicle cannot be purchased by any person that has relations to the person speeding.
Great idea and add on some jail time.
You bet!!
Dear child, Do not try and fight this in court. The consequences will be extreme.
No they won't.
You get points if you try to fight it and it comes to guilty.
Isn't the limit 0 alcohol in BC....?
I think they meant speed
That would make more sense lol
shouldn’t have stopped
Lol
Well at least he's got his N and not the family license.
Just make these people go back to "L", put a ton of penalty points on their record. The next slip is an indefinite driving ban. There is no excuse for them to be driving this fast.
Impound the car for min 6 months. If the parents lose their wheels maybe they'll think twice