Online Forum Speeding Boast Leads To Conviction

Meshach writes "In Canada, a nineteen-year-old man has lost his driving license for six months and is facing one year of probation after the police arrested him for dangerous driving as a result of a post on an online message board. The tip apparently came from an uninvolved American who called the Canadian authorities after he saw the post bragging about how fast the man went."

Comments

Without any evidence?

[tumutbound]

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred? How could the police charge him without it?

Re:Without any evidence?

[odies]

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred?
How could the police charge him without it?

He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life. There also were pictures and videos of his crime.

Same laws apply to Internet as real life. It would be pretty stupid to go tell police that. Well, they can read the internet too.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

(Then again, that's what Obama did)

Re:Without any evidence?

[MaxiCat_42]

It worked for Obama.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Tubal-Cain]

No, but you wouldn't even if you told it to the Nobel committees. Tell a cop you were speeding, on the other hand...

Re:Without any evidence?

[Haedrian]

Bit of a strawman isn't it? If I go tell a police officer "I just killed someone", or he overhears you admit that (and you can't prove otherwise) - aren't you admitting to guilt? The door doesn't swing both ways.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Xest]

The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.

What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?

This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.

This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?

It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.

A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Trepidity]

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.

For things of this sort, I don't think police would normally pursue it even IRL unless there were more evidence (like the photos/video in this case). If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Teun]

The Netherlands is not the only country where the legal system will never convict someone based solely on his own statement.

A fair system of justice should never rely on (such) a single point of failure.

Re:Without any evidence?

[91degrees]

I shot JFK.

Do you believe me? If so, you're extremely gullible. If not - the standards of proof in a court are meant to be higher than personal opinion.

Re:Without any evidence?

[tpgp]

(Then again, that's what Obama did)

I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.

Re:Without any evidence?

[tumutbound]

This is not the same as admitting guilt. It's making a statement that has no supporting evidence. The article referred to made no mention of videos or pictures of the alleged infringement. When questioned by police, the person in question could just say ' I really didn't drive that fast, I just said that to compensate for having a tiny dick". It's not against the law to lie in a blog.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

Well, not word for word, and not immediately, but the intent was there.

Re:Without any evidence?

[macemoneta]

As far as I understand, pictures and video are not evidence unless someone testifies to their veracity. Under questioning, all he has to do is say he photoshopped the "evidence" for his own amusement at the reaction they would provoke in the forum. I suspect what happened instead is that he verified that the media were real to the police, and that's why he was charged. That's speculation though, as the article doesn't have enough information to determine the basis for the charge.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Narcogen]

So, if I said I just caused world peace, does that mean I win myself the Nobel Peace Prize?

No, because your claim is much less plausible than his.

In your case, the implausibility of your claim, and the relative ease with which evidence to refute it may be gathered, gives quick rise to reasonable doubt. Any credible news media claim of conflict anywhere in the world negates your Nobel chances immediately.

In his case, the claim is quite plausible. His car is capable of that speed. Many people speed, every day. There is little incentive to lie about such a feat, and no easy way to positively verify it without eye witnesses. TFA is short on details, but I can easily imagine a scenario where a forum boast generates, at the very least, probable cause, which leads to a warrant to search the home and the car, where a diagnostic tool or perhaps even an onboard navigation system provides independent confirmation of the original claim.

It may even have been simpler than that. He may have arrogantly believed that his forum post was not enough to earn sanction, and perhaps even repeated the claim to police, believing that unless they had personally witnessed the event, anything he said, online or offline, was not sufficient. I seem to recall engaging in conflicts with motorists who were under the impression that traffic police could not take action against any driver for infractions they did not personally witness. This seems not to be the case.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Haedrian]

I don't know how the law works in America or Canada, but where I come from, if you admit guilty and claim guilty in court, they don't bother looking at evidence and just slap the punishment on you. Might be different in this case. Again, you're not claiming that SOMEONE ELSE did it, you're claiming that YOU did it.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Antony-Kyre]

This should be modded up. I was going to say something similar. Someone could be bragging and be using doctored video indeed. But, more importantly, is there a timestamp to the video? Like, maybe someone did it years ago. What prevents from someone being charged multiple times for the same crime if there lacks a timestamp? Aside from one's aging body.

Re:Without any evidence?

[jimicus]

It's a question of magnitude, though.

Someone openly admits to speeding - worst that's likely to happen is they get a fine and (depending on where it takes place) some sort of penalty on their license. Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.

Someone openly admits to murder - worst that's likely to happen (again depending on where) is the death penalty - or at the very least life in prison. And - even though it sounds totally absurd to most of us - apparently the occasional lunatic does confess to a murder they couldn't possibly have committed.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Narcogen]

The problem is there's no way to prove the physical connection between who typed that comment and posted the pictures and the person potentially breaking the law.

What if he had a falling out with his brother and his brother used the computer to try and frame him for example?

This is quite different to someone admitting in front of witnesses they have committed a crime, because there the witnesses have witnessed the perpetrator in question admitting the crime directly.

This is the fundamental problem with computer crimes, people are arrested and convicted on much lower standards of evidence than have come to be expected in real life. Say a computer is used for a crime online, and the police trace the IP back to the house, and they can somehow prove the IP has always been attached to that computer and only that computer and they search that computer and find evidence of the crime, then can they prove the owner of the computer committed it? Say they check for finger prints and DNA evidence on the keyboard even, can they prove someone didn't just plug in another keyboard for the purpose of carrying out the crime?

It's the fundamental disconnect between the system used to commit the crime and the person who used that system to commit it that is the problem, and short of someone making a mistake and incriminating themselves physically in real life or someone physically witnessing the crime being committed I'm not sure it's ever possible to conclusively prove people responsible for digital crimes, at best you can get a decent amount of evidence, but many cases of non-digital crimes upto and including the most serious have fallen flat on such low standards of evidence even where the person is guilty.

I'm not familiar with this case, but I hope he was convicted on the basis that he also admitted guilt in real life, in person, and not purely on an internet posting as that'd be a bad precedent, a green light for smart criminals to frame people for anything from this sort of crime through to child porn crimes to hacking crimes.

A crime being linked to an IP seems fair enough justification to investigate the system or systems behind that IP and their owners, but not enough in itself to fairly secure a conviction.

Such claims are repeated often and aren't quite as meritorious as people think, especially when the standard of proof is merely "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Let's say you trace an IP to a given household during the period in question. On the basis of the forum post and the IP identification, you get a warrant and search the computer. You gain access to logfiles, cookies, browser history. Even if the computer is shared, you'll gain some information that would corroborate the forum post.

You may well allege, at this point, that the IP, the logfiles, the forum post, and all of this other, admittedly circumstantial evidence, points only to the computer. But that's not entirely true. You may gain access to other online identities this person uses.

The site itself may show you the poster's history, corroborating other elements of the story-- that correlate between the individual in question and the online identity which made the claim. If the content of other posts by the same online identity, also made from the same IP address, from the same computer at the same address, are consistent with other details of the individual's life, then that also generates a relatively high level of confidence in the accuracy of the post. Perhaps the poster's own history contains other, similar claims.

At that point, the question does not become whether or not all this circumstantial evidence proves unequivocally that the suspect was the one who actually made that post, and thus committed the infraction in question, but whether that is more or less plausible than believing that this single post, among all others made by that identity on one or more sites, which are consistent with being made by the suspect, was made fraudulently by someone else with ac

Re:Without any evidence?

[jimicus]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person?

You are not the first to have made that mistake. All that has to be proven is beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any shadow of a doubt. While hard proof of a dead person (such as identifiable remains) would obviously give you "beyond any shadow of a doubt", it's quite possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without such proof, as Hans Reiser's trial demonstrated.

IOW, the police only need good reason to believe that there's a dead person.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Elldallan]

Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.

According to the article the accused pleaded guilty which is why he was convicted, not because he confessed his crime in a public forum(although that is why he was sued it is not why he was convicted), had he pleaded not guilty it is extremely unlikely that he would have been found guilty by the court solely based on him admitting to the crime in a forum without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Re:Without any evidence?

[jimicus]

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime. It may be stupid, and it may cause you a lot of hassle as you try to convince police / a judge that you were just making empty boasts, but courts do still have to try to sort that out: if they determine the confession was indeed not a genuine confession, it isn't sufficient for conviction.

Which is not to say it won't fuck your life up royally.

Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
Interviewee: "I was remanded in custody because I wanted to look big and clever and so bragged about a serious crime which I didn't commit"
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"

Re:Without any evidence?

[teh kurisu]

You wouldn't automatically be charged, but you'd probably be arrested or at the very least invited to the police station for questioning. The police would probably examine your claim, compare it with missing persons reports, and decide whether you're telling the truth or just being a nuisance (in which case, you might get a warning or be charged with wasting police time).

(and you can't prove otherwise)

The article has a link to the actual forum post, which is worth a read if you're under the impression that the only proof the police had was a confession. In fact, the driver mentions the location and date of his crime, plus the fact that there were witnesses. There's more than enough information there for the police to conduct an investigation.

In the end, the guy pleaded guilty not just on the internet but in a court of law.

Re:Without any evidence?

[sosume]

Can the police prove that the 19 year old was actually the one who wrote the post? Did they have cameras installed facing his keyboard?

Re:Without any evidence?

[buck-yar]

1. Little Incentive, huh? How many times have you seen "I've gone xxx mph on my ___"? I see regular posts on other forums where people post the top speed they've gone. I'd suspect every single post is an outright lie. That's what ricers and bogans do, make up stories about how fast they've gone.

2. Onboard tool. I'm not aware of any VCM that logs. I regularly modify my VCM with Hptuners editor and it takes a laptop with software to log the engine data. About the only data the VCM keeps is fuel trim cell values to feed to the long-term fuel trim variable (and spark knock retarding values).

3. In the US, you have the right to face your accuser. Who is his accuser, someone that viewed an internet post? That's hearsay in this country and is inadmissible in court.

Re:Without any evidence?

[thegarbz]

We'll be over shortly.

- The Police

Re:Without any evidence?

[sosume]

> I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence.

How are they sure the evidence isn't tampered with? Did the camera correctly register the vehicle's speed? Have the pictures been edited?

Re:Without any evidence?

[thegarbz]

If someone in a high-school hallway tells their friend that they were going 90 last night, that's pretty weak evidence, since it's quite likely to just be bravado.

And if overheard by the teacher it would likely land you in the principles office. And if you then admitted it again to the principle by pleading guilty you'll likely get ... [won't go into if your school can punish you for something outside of school but the point was made].

I'm willing to bet that any dumbshit lawyer could have fought this off, this guy just said "guilty".

Re:Without any evidence?

[zippthorne]

That's why it's better to claim to have saved peace. Preventing further conflict than what occurred. Why, if it weren't for me, it would've been much worse. Can I pick up my prize now?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Runaway1956]

"A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving"

I'm not sure about newspeak. Is there a tripleplusstupid? Speeding on a residential street is stupid. Bragging online was stupid. PLEADING GUILTY was the tripleplus part of it. Had I been stupid enough to pull the first two stupidities, I certainly wouldn't have admitted to a judge that it were so.

"Your Honor, I wasn't going half as fast as I claimed - I was just bragging for all those dilrods on the forum! Hell, man, I'm AFRAID to go fast!"

Definitely tripleplus.

Re:Without any evidence?

[El Lobo]

The CBC story is missing some details. The conviction was only secured against the man because of eye-witness statements that confirmed a 2006 BMW M5S was travelling at a very high rate of speed on the street in question.

His bragging alone would not have secured a conviction. There was also evidence that on the same car forum the man was claiming that he was smoking pot and driving on a different occasion. This however, could not be confirmed and charges were not pursued.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/08/10/facebook-speeding-conviction658.html#ixzz0wIDKdH3a

Re:Without any evidence?

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh - what is your date of birth? Check out my nick for my year of birth. You had better be - oh - at least ten years older than I am. To really be plausible, you better be 15 years older than me. I was sitting in a 3rd grade classroom when JFK was shot - hardly old enough to be stalking political targets.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Vectormatic]

dont they at least have to be sure a crime has been commited at all?

I for instance, can claim i just stole all the gold stored in fort Knox, and hid it in my basement, i can consistently claim i did that. It would however, be rather odd if they convict me off that crime, when a simple visual inspection of either Fort Knox, or my basement (dont have one actually), easily disproves my claim.

If however, all the gold in Fort Knox was missing, and somehow ended up in my basement, then i would agree my confession is enough to reasonably convict me.

Re:Without any evidence?

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
          I pulled up that area in google maps (would have preferred openstreetmap.org, but, the blasted search still is too limited). It is a densely populated area, so I suspect it was hardly an hour's work for a couple of officers to canvass the street and find witnesses to the speeding car. It would be interesting to find out how many times there had been complaints from the area about dangerous driving.
          My bottom line here is that the kid is getting off easy, as there easily could have been a pedestrian stepping out into the road just in time to get smashed by his foolish act. If he wanted to put the pedal to the metal, perhaps he should have picked the Canadian equivalent of an Interstate highway to open it up.

Re:Without any evidence?

[perryizgr8]

wtf is 'high rate of speed'? I didn't know high accelerations carried fines.

Re:Without any evidence?

[xmundt]

Oh yea...and another thing....about half way down the road, it appears that there is a public school on the North side of the street...so no WONDER the LEOs were interested in nailing this kid.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The CBC story doesn't mention photos and videos.

Re:Without any evidence?

[berzerke]

...That's hearsay in this country and is inadmissible in court...

Not exactly true. Hearsay is admissible under the right conditions. One example I know of (maybe the only one, maybe not; IANAL) is the police. In America one of the rights they read you says something like, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Anything you say to the police after your rights are read (and maybe even before; again IANAL) is admissible by the prosecution even though it is hearsay. Of further note, it is only admissible by the prosecution, not the defense.

Re:Without any evidence?

[FuckingNickName]

This short post couldn't be more wrong.

(1) It's English, the language very occasionally spoken on the Internet.

Rate = x per y, where y is likely a time unit.

e.g. miles per hour
e.g. kilometres per second
e.g. dumb assertions made by /. poster per day

High rate = high x per y.

(2) Sufficiently high acceleration in an urban area will certainly attract a fine for your local equivalent of dangerous driving. It may even be in violation of a city noise ordinance.

Re:Without any evidence?

[91degrees]

Okay, let's assume I was born 1939, and it's plausible that I was in the vicinity at the time. I still don't think there's enough evidence for a conviction.

The fact that I can make the claim of having shot him despite having been born in 1976 and never having been to Dallas shos that as far as evidence goes, a forum post is has too much reasonable doubt. It's evidence and useful for building a case, but not nearly enough on its own.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Raynor]

See I disagree.

Like many other people, my computer remembers and automatically logs me into almost all of my internet identities. Anyone sitting in front of my laptop can assume my identity online and pretty much the only thing they won't have access to is my bank account.

"I left my computer on downloading X while I went to the mart. I failed to lock my computer before leaving. Anyone with physical access to the premises (i.e. my roommates) could have easily posted whatever it is I am accused of posting."

While I personally would never leave my computer unlocked during a prolonged absence, it is not inconceivable to forget, let alone those who just leave everything on and logged in (like both of my roommates do... daily.)

IP ties it to a computer and a physical location. It's like saying "We saw your Rideshare speeding and since it was your turn to be driving we're ticketing you."

Re:Without any evidence?

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life.

Ok, ok, I admit it. I invented the original Microsoft OS. I did it, and I meant to do it, and I'd do it again!

(Can I have my billions now please?)

Re:Without any evidence?

[jabuzz]

In the United Kingdom even a signed confession is insufficient to get a conviction. There *MUST* be other corrborating evidence. Unfortuantely people with learning disabilities and other problems have in the past confessed to crimes right up to murder when they where in fact innocent, in the process leaving dangerous criminals roaming free.

Re:Without any evidence?

[jabuzz]

Which is probably why the police officer asking for witnesses.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Trails]

No, in this case, the other user meerly alerted police about the post In question. The actual evidence is the post which is made by the accused. Since this isn't someone's recollection of the statement, rather the statement itself, hearsay wouldn't apply. By your logic, any audio recording would be hearsay.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Wooky_linuxer]

Well, I guess every country - and in the USA, possibly each state, has its own laws, but I've never seen a traffic law with acceleration limits. Your car may be very silent, so you might accelerate a lot and still don't break any regulations.

And about (1), I don't think you are right. Speed is the rate that space varies with time. A speed rate, therefore, is not speed, but something else, by definition, either acceleration or something else like the rate speed varies with position of the sun, the beats in the car stereo, or whatever. Just because everyone says it wrong, it doesn't make it right.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Lumpy]

Or you can do what a guy down the road did.

We had a kid that did that speeding up and down the road. the old guy 4 house down got sick of it and sat in his car waiting for the little asshole to go speeding by and then he pulled out to block the road so the kid had to stop.. The little idiot smashed into the back of his car. Completely totaled that BMW 325 and the old rusted chevy caprice the old man drove was buckled to the rear window but he was unharmed. Kid went to the hospital and the cops later arrested the kid for reckless endangerment after talking to neighbors who all complained about how that car has been doing that for a month now.

Never saw the kid on our road again, although this was over 4 years ago.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

I don't know which country you're from, but in most countries a case won't be prosecuted if there is insufficient evidence. A confession alone is not sufficient since it can be retracted, there'd have to be something else, even if the accompanying evidence was weak and the confession was the only strong evidence. Here in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether a case has sufficient weight to secure a conviction and if it doesn't, it never gets to court.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Andrewkov]

Actually in Toronto acceleration without speeding can get you in trouble, the police label it "street racing" and there are strict laws about that.

Re:Without any evidence?

[CheshireCatCO]

Especially since in his post the driver mentions two guys standing by the side of the street, one with a pencil and paper. So it's not even like there's a question as to whether there were witnesses, it's just a matter of finding them.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

Even then there's incidental evidence - the person disappearing out of any context of having done something like that or shown a tendency to, leaving affairs unsorted so it's unlikely they're running away or committing suicide, motive on behalf of the accused, unusual behaviour patterns on behalf of the accused, etc. If I simply say "I killed Lord Lucan" - the fact that I made a confession and Lord Lucan is missing, whereabouts unknown, would not be enough to secure my conviction. Even in the absence of a body there is always other evidence.

Re:Without any evidence?

[dc29A]

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred?
How could the police charge him without it?

He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life. There also were pictures and videos of his crime.

Same laws apply to Internet as real life. It would be pretty stupid to go tell police that. Well, they can read the internet too.

This morning I drove at about 200km/h in a 30 zone. I ran over two dogs, three cats, four kids and two older people. All this while being high on meth and drunk on tequila. Oh and I took my AK-47 and shot up in the air too to celebrate my murderous rampage.

My name is: John Smith.
Address: 123 Fake Street.
City: Springfield.

Please call the cops so they arrest me. I am sure a judge will sentence me to death or something for admitting a crime on the internet. Especially since all you read on the internet is the absolute truth no?

PS: There was an eye witness. No mention of video/pictures. That's why the driver was convicted.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

Few people openly admit to speeding unless they've actually done so.

He was a teenager. Teenagers admit to all kinds of stuff they've not actually done if they think it will win the approval of or avoid the derision of their peers.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Xest]

I'm not sure how it works elsewhere, but I do not believe in the UK that even that would pass a beyond reasonable doubt test if the problems with such evidence's accuracy were fully understood. Certainly in non technology related crimes people have been allowed to go free even when suspicion is extremely high on such circumstancial evidence.

You still can't prove beyond reasonable doubt even if there are posts on other forums with similar accounts that it's not part of some framing running over a longer period. I'm not saying convictions don't and wont happen, they do, but only because the jury is often not technical enough to know what reasonable is in this sorts of case. Mostly though for these sorts of cases the police just rely on strong arming with plea bargains and pushing for admittance of guilt directly, or alternatively have just involved people too technically inept to understand how they could argue their innocent, hence why someone denying all knowledge is largely untested still.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Abstrackt]

Next time there's a police car behind you at a red light, once the light turns green squeal the tires and floor it until you hit the speed limit. You'll learn quickly that it is actually possible to get a fine for high acceleration.

One of my former roommates showed us all kinds of stupid stunts you can get ticketed for. I'm not sure how he managed to pay for college on top of it.

Re:Without any evidence?

[realityimpaired]

In court, you would.

As Xest says, there's no way to prove that there's a link between the person who wrote the post and the person who committed the alleged crime.

That aside though, the person is a 19-year old male. You don't think it's even remotely possible he was just blustering and that he never actually did what he said he did? I mean yeah, he entered a plea of guilty, but if he hadn't confessed to the police, how would you go about proving that a forum posting is a confession?

Police needed to do some canvassing to find out whether there actually was a crime committed, and they needed to luck out in convincing the kid to admit to the crime... if he'd chosen to challenge it, he could very simply have asked them to prove that it was his car, and that he was the one driving. Unless he was stupid enough to post video/pictures to the same forum, the police would never have been able to prove it, because of what I just said above: he's a 19-year old male. They're prone to bragging about things that didn't necessarily happen as they say it happened. Without a confession/guilty plea, they wouldn't have been able to actually get a conviction, because there would always be that doubt over whether he was actually the driver in question, and over the actual speeds involved.

I think it's good that they did convict the kid, but I think that in large part it's because of the naivety of most youths in traffic court: there's no additional penalty for being found guilty if you've pleaded not guilty, so you have nothing to lose by entering a plea of innocent and placing the burden on the police to prove it. (half the time the police don't even show up in court, but for something like this they probably would).

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

It's nothing more than reasonable suspicion, which gives the police cause to investigate if they choose. Maybe they found some evidence (CCTV nearby, witnesses, etc), maybe the kid was just scared or was sorry for his actions and thus pleaded guilty, either way it was the pleading guilty that earned his sentence not the forum post.

Re:Without any evidence?

[CProgrammer98]

maybe RTFA before posting a wall of text? He admitted his guilt.

Re:Without any evidence?

[kno3]

Well, given the fact that most stories you hear on such internet forums are complete codswallop, I think it would be very hard to get a conviction on a 19 year old who was bragging about how fast he drove his car. Most numbers uttered by a 19 year old have to be divided by 3 before they are close to the truth anyway.
A stupid number of people would be in prison if police could go round internet forums (4chan would be a good start), read some nobheads cock and bull story about how he once smoked 42 ounces of pot in 2 seconds and put him away without any evidence to back up the story.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

Modded up? All that would happen is the police would hire a very expensive expert to determine the photos and/or video were not doctored, and then they'd hit him with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (or whatever the US equivalent for lying about evidence is) as well as speeding. Given how much courts dislike being lied to and having their time wasted, which one do you think carries the higher sentence? As to your second point, all evidence is logged - it would be a simple defence to a future arrest based on the video to point to the previous case.

Re:Without any evidence?

[CProgrammer98]

umm he bragged about it and also admitted to the police he did it so that's pretty much grounds for prosecution regardless of the video and eye-witness evidence.

He should be prosecuted for simply being one of the dumbest asses on the planet.

Re:Without any evidence?

[DJRumpy]

Then why bother with the right to remain silent?

Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.

Self-incrimination has existed for a very long time.

Re:Without any evidence?

[PopeRatzo]

What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred?

On March 8, 2010, at 2:10am, I hit 115mph on Fullerton Avenue, traveling westbound, between Western Avenue and Kedzie. I was completely drunk out of my mind at the time, but the prostitute in the car with me, who had just scored us some coke, said I had to run every red light along the way.

It's a good thing we didn't get caught, because we had just robbed a 7/11 and I there were some old warrants out on me.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

If you assume the guy lies to make himself sound good, wouldn't it be more like:

Interviewer: "So, can you explain what you've been doing for the last 9 months?"
Interviewee: "My main job was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, but in my spare time I also volunteered to go save orphan babies from rabies infested tigers in the congo. Oh, and I 99% found the cure for cancer - I left the 1% for the other scientists to do because I'm not interested in the fame and glory, you can probably expect to hear about it any day."
...
Interviewer: "Okay, so we've established that you're a prat. Have you got any questions you'd like to ask me?"

Re:Without any evidence?

[sheph]

I disagree. The guy is 19. There could be a whole host of reasons why he would say that including, but not limited to he actually did it. He could have been trying to impress a girl on the board, maybe he wanted everyone to think he was cool, maybe he wanted to one up someone else on the board, etc. The point is if the police didn't see him do it they shouldn't be charging him. Pulling his license can be a serious consequence if he has to get to work, and doesn't work near a bus stop.

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

He pleaded guilty. It's likely he is guilty. I know if I was framed for a crime I didn't commit on the basis of video or photographic evidence, I'd certainly not plead guilty, I'd want the "evidence" inspected by an independent expert.

Re:Without any evidence?

[kno3]

Well, where I come from (England) they do not do that automatically, especially not in a murder trial. There would be a lengthy trial to try to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did it. Of course your plea would be factor into that decision, but would not necessarily be conclusive. There are many instances of people protecting loved ones, being blackmailed, etc... There are many possible scenarios where somebody could be entering a false guilty plea.
Only if there is no evidence to suggest that someone else did it, and there is no evidence to contradict your claim (i.e. somebody saw you elsewhere at the time of the murder) could a guilty verdict be reached without any evidence to support it (except the plea).

Re:Without any evidence?

[delinear]

Probably because that wouldn't support their story that it was an online statement rather than a glut of evidence and a guilty plea in court that sent him down. The former is far more likely to sell clicks from angry internet users.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Useful Wheat]

In his case, the claim is quite plausible. His car is capable of that speed. Many people speed, every day. There is little incentive to lie about such a feat, and no easy way to positively verify it without eye witnesses.

Welcome Narcogen! I see this is your first time on the Internet. Stay away from 4chan and you'll be just fine. I would recommend good antivirus protection, and some kind of filter to protect you from Nigerian Prince scams. No matter what they claim, they are not royalty that seeks to give you millions of dollars for a small upfront fee.

Since this is the first message board you've ever been to in your life, let me explain the concept of the "E-Peen". Its like a penis, except it grows based on what strangers think of you on the Internet. To increase "E-Peen" people will often write completely ridiculous bullshit on anonymous Internet forums, so that people will think they're cool. In response, people will typically try to top that with bullshit of their own. As a result, the Internet is an overflowing cesspool of lies.

For further reading, you should visit the world of warcraft forums where approximately 78% of the population is close friends with a GM, and all of them have max level PVP heroes on their other account, with that totally awesome 0.5% drop gear.

Thank you, and have a nice stay Narcogen. Don't feed the trolls.

Re:Without any evidence?

[geogob]

The Police has been over since 1984...

Re:Without any evidence?

[whoop]

A few Google conversions turn up that 140km/h = 87mph, and 40km/h = 25mph (calculators are so 20th century!). 'Round these parts, 25mph is usually a school zone or something. Normal residential streets are 30mph.

Plus, he said he looked out before starting to go. I'm sure he could see whatever distance is needed to achieve this land speed record, plus braking time, plus anyone in their yards who might want to go across the street in the next six seconds. He is a safe driver, he says so right in the thread! Sheesh.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Snassek]

When squealing the tires, it's called 'improper start' by the police.

Re:Without any evidence?

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't know how the law works in America or Canada, but where I come from, if you admit guilty and claim guilty in court, they don't bother looking at evidence and just slap the punishment on you. Might be different in this case.

There is an exception for murder. If you actually commit a murder, admit you did it, go through great lengths to explain how and why you did it in court, plead guilty and give a long story about everything... but you disintegrated the body in acid and dumped it in a turbulent river, no material way to recover evidence, no witnesses, no hair or other DNA left behind, character witnesses that firmly believe there's no way you could have done that, expert witnesses that have analyzed your speech and talked with you and concluded that you're completely rational and not stressed... there's no proof, and you don't seem crazy. There's reasonable doubt, so they toss you back into the street not guilty.

Murder is always a special case.

Re:Without any evidence?

[natehoy]

TFA just mentions they "investigated the case", but given that the guy bragged that he played chicken with and nearly ran down a pedestrian who was trying to slow him down enough to get his license plate number, and described where the old man was, I'm sure that old man's testimony came in real handy, or at least one of the people in the area.

They needed to confirm that the crime occurred. Once an eyewitnesses or two described a car identical to the car the guy owned going at the speeds he claimed in a neighborhood he claimed to speed through at about the time he claimed to do it, the cops had corroborating evidence that a traffic violation occurred. Then they can use his statement to demonstrate it was him.

He's also admitted to several other traffic violations on the same post, but it doesn't appear that there's enough information to follow up.

Original post: http://forums.5series.net/topic/95495-going-140-kmh-on-a-40-zone

Then he pled guilty at trial.

[SLAM!] Case closed. Cops:1, Asshole:$1000 and 6 months.

He got off lightly - playing chicken with a pedestrian could have been a far more serious charge.

Re:Without any evidence?

[thegarbz]

The Police has been over since 1984...

Tell it to the 2007 reunion tour :)

Re:Without any evidence?

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, I guess every country - and in the USA, possibly each state, has its own laws, but I've never seen a traffic law with acceleration limits. Your car may be very silent, so you might accelerate a lot and still don't break any regulations.

It is generally called reckless driving. However, while the statement "high rate of speed" may be redundant (since speed and rate are synonyms in this context), there is nothing about the word rate that implies that the speed is changing. In general English usage it is accepted that "high rate of speed" means very fast.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Haedrian]

Murder is always a special case.

What about speeding?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Attila Dimedici]

The difference being that Obama was the first to get a Nobel Peace Prize for just claiming that he was going to make peace (without giving any particular details about how he was going to do that). This topic is not really a criticism of Obama, but instead it is a criticism of those who awarded him a Nobel Peace Prize (although one could argue that only someone who was guilty of hubris would have accepted it under these circumstances...not an argument that I feel stands by itself, there are several other reasons that would explain accepting it when it clearly was undeserved at that time).

Re:Without any evidence?

[natehoy]

For things of this sort, I don't think police would normally pursue it even IRL unless there were more evidence (like the photos/video in this case)

http://forums.5series.net/topic/95495-going-140-kmh-on-a-40-zone

The guy described eyewitnesses in his forum post. That's enough for the cops to go find those eyewitnesses and get testimony. The guy's own comments, once corroborated by eyewitness testimony, should be enough to make a valid case. Or, in this case, a formal guilty plea.

Re:Without any evidence?

[FuckingNickName]

And about (1), I don't think you are right. Speed is the rate that space varies with time.

That is correct, but you're misinterpreting the language in the phrase "rate of speed". It doesn't mean "the rate at which speed changes", rather "the rate, out of all possible rates, which is speed". IOW, the phrase does not refer to some derived quantity but to the nature of speed itself.

To give another example, I have the thought of victory in this Internet grammar nazi argument. This merely means I have the thought that I am victorious, rather than some derived quantity of victory which is the thought of it.

TBH, "rate" here is at best redundant and annoying. At worst someone will mentally add "change of... with time" and completely misinterpret. But it's not wrong.

Just because everyone says it wrong, it doesn't make it right.

To the layperson, since English is not prescriptive, word usage is by definition correct if everyone uses the word a particular way. This doesn't apply in a professional context, of course.

Re:Without any evidence?

[m.ducharme]

The courts tend to take a dim view of the "street racing" charges unless the person is actually racing another car (I've seen the case law), but of course, most drivers who get their cars taken away for 7 days and automatic roadside suspensions don't know that.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Hatta]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard required for conviction. Probable cause is the standard required for arrest.

Re:Without any evidence?

[m.ducharme]

I hate to be nit-picky (but I'm going to anyway). Making an incriminating statement in public is not the same as pleading guilty, which you can only do in front of a judge or local equivalent. This kind of boasting alone would probably not be enough to secure a conviction (claiming that he was lying on the Internet to make his e-peen look bigger would probably be enough for "reasonable doubt"). So yes, the police needed more evidence, which they apparently found (though the article never stated that).

Re:Without any evidence?

[hey]

Its a redundant police-ism. As speed is measured "kilometers per hour" (in Canada) then "rate of speed" is
"rate of kilometers per hour". Just saying "speed" is enough.

Re:Without any evidence?

[blackraven14250]

Well, not word for word, and not immediately, but the intent was there.

You're as delusional as the Nobel prize board.

You think he intends to make war?

Re:Without any evidence?

[Ensign_Expendable]

If you make a declaration against your own interest, it is usually admissible against you. At least in the States. So no, admitting you caused world peace won't make it true.

Re:Without any evidence?

[mdwh2]

No. Sure, he'd rightly investigate it, but a statement alone wouldn't constitute proof, especially in the lack of other evidence, or that a crime had even occurred in the first place. Even when it's known that someone has been murdered, and even when people confess in police interviews, it's well known that confessions may be false, and shouldn't be taken as sole proof.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Xest]

I wasn't really making a comment on the article per-se as should be clear by the fact I pointed that out in my post by mentioning I wasn't familiar with the case. I was just responding to someone making the suggestion that an online based admittance is enough to convict.

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:

A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving

Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.

(Sorry for the repost, but what does one expect to an identical question, if not an identical answer...)

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

(Then again, that's what Obama did)

I don't recall Obama saying he caused world peace.

By the Nobel standards he did. He in fact uttered the following words many times over:

I am not George Bush

Since he had scarcely been inaugurated before the decision was made, this was clearly enough to trump every other peace-loving human on the planet and to win the award.

Re:Without any evidence?

[haruchai]

Is that standard procedure for the cops where you live? My local finest would probably haul the young punk in for a good browbeating - hiring an ex(pensive)pert would be way down on the list.
And our courts are happy to waste time - they just don't like other people, who aren't judges or politicians, doing it.

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?

Yes, it seems clear he intends to at least perpetuate war, which is equivalent to making it in terms of disqualifying one from any 'Peace Prize'.

Particularly since, thanks to WikiLeaks, we now know that Obama knew what a hell hole it was on the day of his inauguration. Anything short of evacuation, knowing that the cause is lost, is 'making war' for some sake other than 'peace'.

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

In a case like this, where you're pleading guilty (which the defendant here actually did wind up doing), it only matters if the judge believes you. They can accept the plea and sentence you or deny the plea and make it go to trial, wherein the evidence would be required. But if said cop (or DA, actually) thinks the judge will agree to the plea, off you go to the courthouse.

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

Again, in this case the defendant plead guilty. No need for a doubt standard at all, other than the judge's duty.

Re:Without any evidence?

[spmkk]

In the end, the guy pleaded guilty not just on the internet but in a court of law.

He's a scared 19-year-old up against a police department that wants to have him up on a cross. His parents (who obviously failed to teach him when it's OK to push your luck and when it's not) are probably siding with the cops to now "teach him a lesson", so he's got no one in his corner.

Put yourself in that position, and imagine the DA (or whatever Canadian equivalent) gives you a choice between pleading guilty and not driving for half a year, or facing jail time if you contest the charge. You'd plead guilty too, even if it IS a gross violation of due process - you don't have the requisite tools/experience to fight the system, and knowing that you were legally right is of little consolation when you're being savaged by your cell mate.

This guy may or may not have been speeding.If he actually was (which I personally do think, but that's irrelevant), there is no way a witness could identify him. At 87mph, you can't read a license plate or even identify the model of the car. The best you can do is say a white BMW went by really fast. If we're really saying that's good enough to convict someone who has a white BMW because, well, he's a teenager and should be taught to slow down -- despite how the law is written -- then we may as well do away with police and courts altogether and go back to lynch mobs.

(Incidentally, if you actually read the thread where he posted his boast, you'll see that after enough people pointed out the error of his ways he came around and agreed with them. Lesson learned. The best education comes from your peers and the people you look up to, not the people you're afraid of.)

As an aside, the snitch in question who thought the best use of his time in the U.S. was to call Canada and report that one of their citizens might have been speeding should be outed and dealt with appropriately.

Re:Without any evidence?

[drinkypoo]

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court. People do sometimes brag about things they didn't actually do, especially in pseudo-anonymous environments, and that isn't a crime.

IANAL, of course... but saying you did something on your blog, or at a coffee shop, should be admissible evidence if it appears it was an accurate confession. If that was all you had to work with, though, it would be difficult to obtain a conviction except against someone with numerous and/or similar priors. In this case, there was additional evidence, also created by the suspect... er, perpetrator, which pretty much proves that the whole thing is a cry for help from his subconscious, which is worried that if someone doesn't stop him that he will kill himself.

Re:Without any evidence?

[smithmc]

wtf is 'high rate of speed'? I didn't know high accelerations carried fines.

Oh, aren't you just so clever. Do you feel smarter now?

Re:Without any evidence?

[smithmc]

You pleaded guilty in public. It came out of your metaphorical mouth. You basically incriminated yourself of your own free will.

Do you need any more evidence?

So, in other words, everything that anyone says on the Internet is true? OK, then - you're an idiot.

Re:Without any evidence?

[smithmc]

No, but you wouldn't even if you told it to the Nobel committees. Tell a cop you were speeding, on the other hand...

Yeah? And what do you think would happen? "Go away you annoying kid, I've got real police work to do."

Re:Without any evidence?

[MikeBabcock]

High rate of speed means speed.

High rate of change of speed means acceleration.

"Rate of speed" is redundant, but still means speed, not acceleration.

Re:Without any evidence?

[tsalmark]

A high rate of acceleration be itself will not get you a street racing charge unless there are two or more vehicles involved (as in a race).

Re:Without any evidence?

[Stewie241]

I don't know if it is worth repeating or not. But, the police did not charge him based on his online confession. The police investigated based on his online confession. The investigation led the police to canvass the neighbourhood for witnesses.

According to http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence , "police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco."

Based on this, I don't see anything wrong with the police charging him.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Charliemopps]

He wasn't under oath. That's the point.

Re:Without any evidence?

[EMCEngineer]

Sweet! I am totally going to 'admit' that I have a 12" penis. Someone please report me to the Swedish bikini team.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Nesman64]

I don't see why not. People have won it for less than that.

Re:Without any evidence?

[kevinNCSU]

Yes, and fingerprints can be manufactured, hairs can be stolen from a hairbrush and placed at the scene and the witnesses might have just seen someone wearing a movie-set quality mask that made them look like you carrying the body out to a different car that's the same make and model as yours with fake plates. But it's called reasonable doubt for a reason. In addition, that level of doubt is only needed for a jury to convict and this never got that far. It's a much lower standard to simply charge someone with something. And you don't require much proof at all if someone is willing to plead guilty.

Re:Without any evidence?

[krovisser]

I got a ticket for "running a stop sign" after a rent-a-cop was chasing me with his lights on for a couple miles. I hadn't done anything wrong, other than anger him. I got tired of looking like a retard with a little rent-a-cop car behind me with it's blue light flashing around. So I stopped at a small town's police department. On the way, I rolled through one of the stop signs. I said this guys been following me for no real reason. Me, the real officer, and the RAC argued for a bit. He accused me of speeding. I said, "How fast was I going?", he said "too fast". I said, "You're just mad because I flicked you off, and you want some kind of revenge. Get over it." Then he claimed that I "ran a stop sign" within this town's jurisdiction. The guy was yelling and clearly agitated... and insane.

After the RAC finally calmed down the police officer I was speaking to was letting me go. Then the chief came out and told the officer to write me a ticket for running a stop sign. There wasn't a solid time or location put on the ticket. Long story short, I show up for the court date and it's thrown out. After getting lectured by the judge about what an "amateur" I am and that I would have "buried" myself if I kept asking questions. You know, questions like: "Which stop sign did I allegedly run?"

I could have picked a better town to stop at, or just continued to school and gone to class. That probably would have been more hilarious

I'd go on about how they made me wait till last to discuss my not-guilty plea, accused me of being "the loudest in the court room after repeated requests to be quiet" as part of my "character" for prosecution, but that's another story. The town's not known for it's nice police and justice force...

Re:Without any evidence?

[karlzt]

>>There also were pictures and videos of his crime.

Re:Without any evidence?

[jd2112]

I hit 170mph on the way to work this morning.
Of course, if charged with speeding I will point out that (1) I am lying, (2)my Hyundai isn't capable of anywhere near that speed, and (3) the traffic on most of my commute made travel above 30 MPH pretty much impossible.

Re:Without any evidence?

[superdave80]

Well, it was good enough for the Nobel committee last year...

Re:Without any evidence?

[DragonWriter]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

No, in the US at least, the police only need probable cause (a very low threshold) to believe that you committed an offense to arrest you.

The state needs to prove to the trier of fact (usually, a jury, though the right to trial by jury may be waived) beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offense to convict you, if you are charged with the offense, and if you contest the charges.

At no point is it necessary to eliminate all possible doubt that you committed the offense, or even that an offense occurred.

Re:Without any evidence?

[paeanblack]

I think the pictures and videos are the important elements, because they constitute actual evidence. Otherwise, there are fairly stringent tests for what makes something a legitimate confession that's admissible in court.

Similar to the US, Canadian law does not recognize an inalienable right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. The privilege of driving is not a fundamental human right. (Even though there are some areas of the US and Canada where the inability to drive will put someone at a severe disadvantage)

As long as the criteria are applied fairly across the populace, there is nothing unconstitutional about revoking a license for reasons less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt". A simple preponderance of evidence that the accused is incapable or unwilling to operate a vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner is sufficient.

I'm having a hard time summoning any sympathy for this kid.

Re:Without any evidence?

[The_mad_linguist]

Man, yesterday I totally went speeding at over nine thousand kilometers per hour. It was intense!

Re:Without any evidence?

[AK Marc]

What evidence? He confessed in open court. Is a plea of "guilty" given in court to the judge not enough for you? What else would you like?

The police charged him with it because they had reason to believe a crime had been committed and that he committed that crime. His description of the crime was specific enough to generate a charge. Are you similarly restrictive when it comes to a video rather than a written description of a crime? They shouldn't investigate those people that post videos of them committing vandalism because it can't be proven that it wasn't staged? That's just silly. When there's a reason to believe a crime was committed, then the police can investigate. And he stated he committed a crime. That's sufficient.

If you don't want to be investigated for a crime, stop stating that you committed one.

Re:Without any evidence?

[PingPongBoy]

He admitted it himself. Admitting your crimes on the internet are no different than admitting them in real life

There's a difference between admitting to an authority versus talking big to impress people, and even so-called hard evidence can be faked to gain more credibility.

However, this guy doesn't look like the kind to back away from the story in court, so I see nothing wrong with prosecuting

Re:Without any evidence?

[Some Bitch]

The best you can do is say a white BMW went by really fast. If we're really saying that's good enough to convict someone who has a white BMW because, well, he's a teenager and should be taught to slow down -- despite how the law is written -- then we may as well do away with police and courts altogether and go back to lynch mobs.

No, what we're saying is that having witnesses say "A white BMW went by really fast" in conjunction with him basically saying, "Yeah, that was me. LOL!" is enough to convict someone.

Re:Without any evidence?

[dcw3]

I was pulled over for nearly the same reason, minus the squealing tires. This was in CA, and the officer threatened me with reckless driving for "exhibition of speed". It was bullshit, and he knew it, and let me off with a warning. FWIW, I was driving a '78 TransAm (yes, Smoky and the Bandit style), that had a whopping 185hp, and an automatic transmission. The only way it could squeal the tires was if the road was a little wet, but it sure looked hot.

Re:Without any evidence?

[westlake]

Why shouldn't it swing both ways? Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that there's actually a dead person? Or say instead, I told a policeman that you just stabbed me in the face. Doesn't the policeman have to make sure that actually happened before he arrests you?

The police need nothing more than a clearly intelligible reason to make an arrest.

An arrest doesn't always end in a conviction - but it does take a serious contender for the rope off the street until you can sort things out.

   

Re:Without any evidence?

[im_thatoneguy]

That article is short on details but this one is pretty clear:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence

"Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched," said Const. Serguei Barmakov.

He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.

"He knew it was coming and he was remorseful for his actions," Barmakov said.

Barmakov said the Apple Blossom Dr. incident wasn't an isolated occurrence -- many of Rigenco's neighbours were concerned about his driving.

Also why he had a $40k+ car:

Spektor said Rigenco's parents, who don't know much about cars, bought the M5 for him as a reward for doing well in school

It goes on to say that the parents took away his car as a result of his reckless behavior.

Re:Without any evidence?

[blackraven14250]

Didn't he just replace the general who said we'll never win in Afghanistan, simply for saying as much?

No, he didn't. Obama replaced general McChrystal for remarks made by McChrystal and his staff about the administration, not about the war itself.

Since you didn't know that, and therefore the premise of the rest of your post is invalid, here's the Rolling Stone article where those comments came to light, for your reading pleasure.

Re:Without any evidence?

[BobMcD]

I read the article, and all the follow-up coverage. More closely than you did, it seems.

McChrystal made it absolutely clear that without a distinct shift in policy, the war would take decades to win, if ever.

He got fired for illustrating that Obama and he did not agree, and that there was no 'unified vision' on the war.

Again, Wikileaks eventually came along to tell us why this was the case.

Re:Without any evidence?

[ergrthjuyt]

So, uh, you know, don't lie about committing a crime you didn't do. If this really happened, it wouldn't be anyone's fault but the idiot who made up the story in the first place. I mean, it's not illegal to be a lying prick, but if its going to cause you a boatload of trouble, then just don't do it. It's not like law enforcement is psychic, so please dont turn this on the cops like its their fault if the kid's life is ruined.

Re:Without any evidence?

[blackraven14250]

"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's that?" "Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

At one point on his trip to Paris, McChrystal checks his BlackBerry. "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke," he groans. "I don't even want to open it." He clicks on the message and reads the salutation out loud, then stuffs the BlackBerry back in his pocket, not bothering to conceal his annoyance. "Make sure you don't get any of that on your leg," an aide jokes, referring to the e-mail.

The president said he had no disagreements with McChrystal's policy or conduct in the war in Afghanistan, and the change in personnel does not mean a change in policy. He said the two were on the same page in terms of war strategy, but no "diversion" to the mission was acceptable. "I don't make this decision based on any difference in policy with General McChrystal, as we are in full agreement about our strategy. Nor do I make this decision out of any sense of personal insult. Stan McChrystal has always shown great courtesy and carried out my orders faithfully. I've got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform," he said.

If not insubordination, the remarks in the Rolling Stone magazine article were at least an indirect challenge to civilian management of the war in Washington by its top military commander. Military leaders rarely challenge their commander in chief publicly, and, when they do, consequences tend to be more severe than a scolding. -FOX article

What was that again? Even according to FOX it had nothing to do with the strategy being used in the war, or the comments about the war, but rather the insubordination of a superior office. Obviously you missed something.

Re:Without any evidence?

[ergrthjuyt]

+1 and I wish law enforcement would be more willing to exercise this right, we need less psychos on our roads.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Elldallan]

Yes if you incriminate yourself while under interrogation or while testifying for example, but a forum is hardly a credible or reliable source. The accused could easily have claimed that what was stated in the forum was a lie which isn't much of a stretch.
Sure, that might or might not be perjury depending on wether the accused actually committed the offense but without any other evidence or witnesses than a forum post the government has no way of proving guilt if the accused denies the offense.

Incriminating yourself while in custody is very much different than incriminating yourself in a random forum on the internet.

Re:Without any evidence?

[Psaakyrn]

But is either the case, based on just a comment post?

Re:Without any evidence?

[teh kurisu]

You'd plead guilty too, even if it IS a gross violation of due process - you don't have the requisite tools/experience to fight the system

He was driving a BMW M5. I doubt that he is (or more likely, his parents are) so strapped for cash that they can't afford a decent enough lawyer to contest a careless driving charge.

As an aside, the snitch in question who thought the best use of his time in the U.S. was to call Canada and report that one of their citizens might have been speeding should be outed and dealt with appropriately.

Excuse me, what? Someone provided a tip-off and evidence to police that resulted in a prosecution. I have no idea what you mean by 'dealt with appropriately', but personally I think that person should be applauded for his or her actions.

Re:Without any evidence?

[DJRumpy]

I'm guessing you haven't been reading the rest of this thread. There was other evidence. The forum post led the police to him. They canvased the neighborhood he was bragging about. Found witnesses who would testify to the event, and he pleaded guilty as a result.

“Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched,” said Const. Serguei Barmakov.

He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.

Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence

Re:Without any evidence?

[Abcd1234]

I'm sorry, any fucker who's willing to endanger the lives of (stupid, often not-terribly-observant) kids by speeding past a school in their piece of shift car deserves to be nailed to the wall. That's Harley-level douchebaggery, right there.

Re:Without any evidence?

[AnthonyHarald]

Reckless driving and DUI or DWI offenses are separate crimes. Reckless driving isn't a lesser-included offense of DUI or DWI because each crime is separate and distinct and can be proved by different evidence. Reckless driving involves how a vehicle was being operated; it isn't necessary to show that the driver used drugs or alcohol to prove a violation of a reckless driving law. In a prosecution for DUI or DWI, on the other hand, how the vehicle was being operated might tend to show that the driver was impaired, but it's not a necessary ingredient of the offense. The potential consequences of and punishments for a conviction of reckless driving can be severe. A reckless driving conviction can result in: A misdemeanor criminal record Deportation Revocation of parole Automatic suspension or revocation of your driver's license A substantial fine and a jail sentence DUI Lawyers

A BMW?

[cgenman]

Doesn't he know he should be driving an Audi now?

Re:A BMW?

[Xest]

I'm not sure why that's posted on a spoof site, in my experience it's quite fucking true! BMWs seem pretty common and run of the mill in the UK now and I don't really encounter many that are driven badly above the norm for most cars, One series seem common as muck and I even saw one with one of those learner signs on the top of it the other day which made me chuckle.

Most Audi drivers on the other hand, there's generally two types, there's the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who drives one because her husband bought her it and she thinks it makes her cool but actually scares the living shit out of her to drive so she sticks to 30mph on safe 60mph roads, and then there's the dickhead, who drives 60mph on safe 30mph roads, overtaking on blind corners down country lanes because he thinks the national speed limit sign means "Drive as fast as you fucking can at a minimum of 60mph down every part of this road", when in reality it means something along the lines of "Drive whatever speed is safe for the section of the road you are on, upto 60mph on safe open straight parts with good visibility".

But then it's also no suprise that on the 25 mile commute each way a day I do, that the cars I see in bushes are also nearly always Audis, driven by both types of driver- the dickhead who lost control, and the middle England Daily Mail reading wife who did a 90 degree turn off the side of the road into a ditch because a tractor was coming the other way on the other side of the road towards her at 10mph and that made her panic.

Still, it could be worse, at least they're not the annoying Nissan Micra and Fiat 500 drivers that seem to exist solely to slow the flow of traffic down to something like 5mph on every stretch of road possible whilst still managing to drift across the other side of the road because turning the wheel to navigate a 2 mile long 10 degree turn is just too much for them!

Re:A BMW?

[zippthorne]

On my 45 mile commute each way, the only cars I ever see in the bushes have red and blue lights bolted to the top, and everyone slows down by 10-20 mph when approaching one whether speeding or not. They're a real menace.

Re:A BMW?

[Teun]

He was referring to the UK, for starters they commonly drive on the other side of the road.

Re:A BMW?

[Lumpy]

on mine they don't have the lights visible until they are on. and I typically see 5 of them on the side of the road with a little blonde in a SUV or other idiot that thought 95mph is correct for a 60mph construction zone.

$250 fine and a 45minute wait on the side of the road for being stupid enough to speed through construction areas in Michigan. The cops love them as they make it really easy to sort out the really dumb drivers.

Re:A BMW?

[Xest]

I think the problem smaller cars like the Micra face is also that many new and older drivers go for them because it's smaller and hence easier for them to maneuvre when it comes to parking and such which is the real reason many of them are also a little slow and not too great at controlling the vehicle.

When I drove a Peugeot 207 for a short while I noticed the difference in acceleration as you mention, it took a few days to get used to giving it more revs and lower gear than I was used to. Always thought it was quite a nice looking car though even if a little underpowered!

Re:A BMW?

[Xest]

The difference is I don't put people's lives at risk (or sometimes more than at risk and actually cause people to die) when I'm being an arsehole.

Re:A BMW?

[demonbug]

I'm not sure why that's posted on a spoof site, in my experience it's quite fucking true! BMWs seem pretty common and run of the mill in the UK now and I don't really encounter many that are driven badly above the norm for most cars, One series seem common as muck and I even saw one with one of those learner signs on the top of it the other day which made me chuckle.

It hasn't gotten to this point yet in the U.S. (as far as I've seen). BMWs are certainly more common than Audis, but in general it is still the BMW drivers that are self-important assholes. Audis aren't popular enough yet for them to be seen as the same kind of asshole-symbol, and certainly haven't replaced BMWs in this regard.

It is very sad, really. By all accounts BMWs are wonderful to drive, but you can't buy one because everyone will think you're an asshole. It's like having an Oakland Raiders sticker on your car, only it's the whole car. So it still seems to be BMWs that the yobs (I think that was the term I recall from Top Gear when they discussed this subject... yes, everything we Americans know about the British comes from either Monty Python or Top Gear) prefer in this country, they haven't made the switch to Audis (yet).

Sorry to any Raiders fans out there, but the "Raiders sticker = asshole" rule has thus far failed me only once, and I see a quite a few of them around where I live.

Re:A BMW?

[Xest]

Miles are still the standard measure of distance for motoring in England on every road sign, every map, and in every car.

Re:A BMW?

[zippthorne]

So, I take it in the UK, they don't have a road tax lottery?*

*What would you call it when the three sigmas of traffic are always** within 5% of 80mph where the speed limit is 65mph?

**Except in the direct view of the aforementioned red & blue lighted vehicles.

Re:A BMW?

[zippthorne]

Out here in the Northeast, the cops love them, too. Double the fines, and apparently there doesn't even need to be any evidence of actual construction occurring.

Traffic here is so closely spaced that I'm not even sure it's possible to be a "dumb driver" speeding through a construction zone. At least, not speeding any more than the rest of the traffic.

Up here, we have a "road tax lottery." The speed limits are way lower than the actual speed most people travel at, and the cops just pick off whoever they feel like, sometimes even people who deserve it, but you can't tell which is which just from passing the traffic stop.

Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1

[captain_dope_pants]

Heisenberg got pulled over for speeding. The cop says "Do you know how fast you were going?" And Heisenberg sayd "No, but I know exactly where I am."

I broke the Universial Speed Limit!

[feedayeen]

I am here telling you guys that my car was traveling at 299,792,459 m/s along the I80 free way, it only took me 1/10,000th of a second to reach my destination though so nobody else saw.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit!

[bennomatic]

Too bad that in your 1/10,000th of a second, the rest of the world aged 1,000 years, so nobody you knew was around to brag to.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit!

[KiloByte]

Except that the speed he stated was 1.0000000033c, and that means he went back in time, at least for some observers.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit!

[zwarte piet]

So you were basically driving backwards very slowly.

Re:I broke the Universial Speed Limit!

[thatskinnyguy]

And let me guess, you also did it while drinking whiskey. If a car got in your way, you simply moved through them.

What?

[Serious Simon]

He was speeding as a result of a post on an online message board?

Re:What?

[MrFurious5150]

Down here in the states he would've sped, and then pled guilty.

I always thought "pled" was correct for American English, but recently I've noticed "pleaded" is used quite a bit on the local news. Finally looked it up, and apparently either is acceptable. Pled sounds better to my ear, though. (IANAL)

Re:What?

[kevinNCSU]

No, he was speeding as a result of pressing the accelerator down until his car reached a speed over the speed limit. He was caught due to bragging online with specifics which allowed witnesses to corroborate.

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude. The road is not a race track.

Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[HonestButCurious]

There you go

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[SeaFox]

I'm actually rather impressed at the attitude of the other forum members. Most of them felt it was a bad choice and put pedestrians who might have been in the area at risk, suggesting the racer should go to a local track instead to wind up his wheels.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[Robert Zenz]

He went 90mph in a residential street? And then he's saying that he's a careful and experienced driver with 19? I do not own a drivers license (because I didn't needed one or cared about it) so I'm not going to pretend that I know what I'm talking about, but...can we get a ban for some years on such people?

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Excerpt:

#1 by bmw550ifreak > The title says it all basically. Anyways, yesterday I was going back home during the day time after the GYM, and when I hit the street next to my house " Appleblosom dr" the zone there is 40 km/h, as soon as I turn into that street, I stopped the car, pressed the (M) button, DSC off, max short shift, and take off 1st gear ( 8000 RPM, switch) and so on... I hit 140 in like 6 or less seconds lol, some old guy was standing on the sidewalk tlaking to another guy, he had a pencil and a paper, he decides to run into my car to stop me, but I was too fast. Do you think he could tka emy liscence number ? lol I think I was too fast, I really doubt that. Though, I gotta admit, I cant stop racing with this car, beleive it or not, I killed a black E63 AMG Last week on Dufferin street. It was almost equal but in the end I had more power.

Basically starts off with a few hundred posts of people telling the guy to stop speeding/being a moron/etc, then things get juicy around the end of page 22

#329 by YRG (somebody made an account and posted this single post): Any witnesses that wish to come forward on Apple Blossom Drive, Vaughan about the dangerous operation of 2006 BMW M5S please contact Sergeant Morash, of York Regional Police, Community Response Unit at
581@yrp.ca

#331 by bmw550ifreak > Maybe it was just a lie about going 140, so I can show off in the forums ( maybe its an option?) maybe I did not even get into an accident or it turned up in a different way. Chill ok? if you want to create problems PM we'll talk. Think about your family, your job etc.. dont put your nose into non of your business, you dont even know me..k?.. thanks.

#333 by bmw550ifreak > Ok I agree, but I dont like the fact that he comes on these forums like a freaking hero and tries to scare me or something. DELETE this thread its getting old,

#340 by bmw550ifreak > lol obviously I am not going to kill his familly, I am not that bad of a person I dont even think about it, I just said to mind his own business and not trying to show off power here on the forums because its annoying how people do it over the internet in person MUCH better. 2nd :twoup: I quit weed 2 1/2 weeks ago

#341 by sdg1871 > Vlad, have you ever given any credence to the possibility that the poster you threatened is indeed a police officer?
She specifically identified [sic] himself by name and by his department.
Threatening a police officer could send you directly to jail for a long long time. My advice: stop posting on this thread immediately because you may be making an already perilous legal situation infinitely worse.
I think that you should get a lawyer immediately as you seem to be heading for big trouble. You may want to Google Sgt. Morash. Look at what I found: http://www.town.rich...ases_06_05_2009 -- notice who the last member of this road safety committee is -- Sgt. Elaine Morash.

#342 by bmw550ifreak > Ok sorry for everything. I will stop posting, I just want to let everybody know that I do not do anything stupid on the roads anymore and I dont speed anymore on any major streets. I took this into my consideration, sgt.Elain morash if you see this please PM me back.

http://www.globaltoronto.com/Vaughan+gets+driving+after+online+post+about+speeding/3381185/story.html

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[Malc]

What an idiot. Should have locked him up for two years... see how fast he can race out of the showers.

IIRC, some kids racing in Toronto (Mt. Pleasant area?) one evening at 140 caused an accident that killed a taxi driver a couple of years ago. He left a family with young kids behind him. I've driven in a lot of countries, but some of the worse driving (yes, worse than in Shanghai!) has been in Toronto and along the 401 and 400 (overly fast, tailgating, etc). People in that area seem to have no clue about driving, which probably starts with the pathetic driving test and lack of enforcement. Anyway, it's good to see the police and Crown prosecuters getting some of these moronic boy racers off the streets.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[socrplayr813]

I've actually been a part of a few car forums and that's usually the attitude I run into. It's generally just the occasional young asshole who openly admits to speeding like that. The rest either speak out against it or at least don't admit to it.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[A Friendly Troll]

Here's a story with video and more information:

http://www.globallethbridge.com/Vaughan+gets+driving+after+online+post+about+speeding/3381185/story.html

His mother had no clue. Why doesn't that surprise me?

BTW, he actually wrecked his car a few days after starting that thread.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[Abstrackt]

I LOLed. What you posted reads like the police were looking into this incident anyway and just happened to find that thread. Maybe they just punched the details into Google on the assumption the guy was stupid enough to brag about it "anonymously" and struck gold.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[Born2bwire]

I'm actually rather impressed at the attitude of the other forum members. Most of them felt it was a bad choice and put pedestrians who might have been in the area at risk, suggesting the racer should go to a local track instead to wind up his wheels.

Rational thinking and behavior???

Good sir, this is the internet. We will have none of that thank you very much.

Re:Of course, why bother to link to the forum?

[SleazyRidr]

Depends which forums you visit. I've spent some time on forums dedicated to 'modified' cars, and you get this crap all the time.

Now I spend more time on the classic car forums, where people have a much better attitude.

While I'm at it, if anyone reading this thinks he's hot shit for speeding on the roads, come meet me at MSR Houston, and I'll show you how a grown-up drives.

Read the article

[ctid]

He pleaded guilty to this.

Re:Read the article

[Xest]

At least that means there's no precedent being set where the conviction is based only on the comment then which is good and really how things should be. As I say, the comments are fair enough reason to investigate, and if he then admitted guilt then it seems a reasonable conviction as it's the admittance of guilt that effectively got him convicted in the end so I don't think there's really any news here.

Re:Read the article

[sosume]

How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.

Re:Read the article

[Lloyd_Bryant]

How will the police be able to prove that he actually drove that fast? First, he may have been bragging about his speed. Second, it may be possible that he didn't write that forum post at all. And third, while he's an idiot for confessing, in my country a confession without factual evidence of an actual crime or offense cannot be prosecuted.

1. He wasn't charged with speeding. He was charged with "careless driving", for which they don't need to prove you were speeding.

2. He admitted in his post as to the when and where, and mentioned that there was a person writing something down as he passed, probably a license plate number, but "he was too fast for them".

Given this, the police probably went to that neighborhood and asked around (if no complaint had already been filed, that is). That would give them evidence that a crime was committed. If they got a partial license plate number, a description of the car, and a description of the driver from witnesses, then they probably had enough to charge and likely convict him.

He was *not* convicted based on his forum post. He was *identified* as a result of the forum post, which later lead to police arresting him. He then pled guilty to the charge.

Re:Read the article

[Xest]

By confessing he's effectively acting a witness to his own online admittance of guilt. The police are effectively using the comment as a witness statement that someone has made, and he's confirming it's truth making the comment valid evidence in itself.

So the evidence is there, but only because he admitted guilt, if he had not admitted guilt they would not have had verified evidence, nor would they have had his admittance of guilt.

Re:Read the article

[delinear]

Witnesses - he claimed people saw what he did, if the police can track down witnesses they can prove his crime. This would be impossible before they knew a crime even existed, but once they knew dates and times, speed and other details it would be much simpler to collect evidence (ever noticed those "A crime was committed here on , can you help?" boards the police sometimes put up?

Re:Read the article

[natehoy]

His post mentions pedestrian eyewitnesses, one of which he almost ran down because the guy tried to slow him down so he could get a plate number. What, pray tell, do you think the investigation might have included? Perhaps a brief stop in the neighborhood looking for some old guys with pencils and paper trying to get plate numbers of speeders? A brief canvas of, say, the area around the corner the guy described nearly running down the old guy?

http://forums.5series.net/topic/95495-going-140-kmh-on-a-40-zone

There would not have been a precedent of conviction based solely on Internet comments anyway. The comments were fair enough reason to investigate, and that's what the police did.

The comments cannot be treated as a sworn statement. However, they can be treated as evidence. The comments, plus corroborating evidence from eyewitnesses, was obviously enough to get Mr. Testosterone-head to 'fess up.

Re:Read the article

[mobby_6kl]

> He pleaded guilty to this.

So what, this is how the police/prosecutors work. They offer you to plead guilty and accept a relatively small punishment, or threaten you to take through the whole process, possibly taking years and costing a lot of money, with a chance of a much higher punishment. Of course if you decline to plead guilty, they'll be pissed off and there will be a higher chance of getting railroaded.

Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1

[Jedi Alec]

In this season's last episode of Top Gear there was a review of iirc a Ferrari where the same screen was used for the satnav and the digital speedometer, so one can have either one or the other, but not at the same time. The perfect car for Heisenberg. :)

Guess what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just drove 230mph through a school zone, hit 3 children without stopping at the scene of the accident, failed to use my turn signal while driving the wrong way down the road with expired tabs and a burnt out tailight after drinking 13 long island iced teas!

. . . . .

. . . . .

wait for it. . .

Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1

[Kilrah_il]

I posted the same joke a few days ago. Maybe I should issue a DMCA notice :)

Might not be as bad as it sounds

[abhi_beckert]

As someone who owns a motorbike with similar performance to that M5 (though it's almost 10 times cheaper!), I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.

I don't know if these particular circumstances were safe... but he may have been able to accelerate to that speed and drop back down to safe speeds over a very short stretch of road... one where you may have perfect visibility of potential dangers.

Laws based on fixed speed/rules suck. There should be only one offense: driving dangerously under the conditions. Traffic police should be required to prove that it was dangerous every time.

Disclaimer: I was recently fined $300 for something that would have, at the very worst, given me a few bruises if I'd fallen off my bike.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[black_lbi]

You should read some of his posts on the 5series.net forum (the link is a few posts up).
There is nothing defensible in his behavior. As someone already mentioned it was a heavily populated area with a school near by.
His answer on the forum was that he is careful when driving and that he made sure the road is clear before pulling the stunt. That comment alone should give you an idea about his total lack of maturity.
He even managed to crash his car a few weeks after the speeding incident. Enough said.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[garyok]

Laws based on fixed speed/rules suck. There should be only one offense: driving dangerously under the conditions. Traffic police should be required to prove that it was dangerous every time.

Ha - you wish! The purpose of the rule of law is that everybody knows where they stand with respect to the law - and that sometimes means arbitrary limits are placed on behaviour. You might not agree with what limits are set but here's a thought: tough titty. Posted speed limits are simple, unambiguous (unless the signs are unclear), and easily tested. They're not unfair as long as they apply to everyone. Except coppers (sadly).

You seriously want to waste a court's time when you know you're in the wrong? When they've got murderers and armed robbers and sexting teens to deal with? There's fighting the man, and there's being a bit of a narcissistic arse...

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[hey!]

100 km/hr over the speed limit safe?

Not on public roads. 100 km/hr period is not safe on a residential street or any other roadway that gets significant pedestrian traffic crossing.

Part of driving safely is being predictable, and nobody expects somebody to overtake them from a quarter km back in under ten seconds. I had a friend who once pulled this stunt on me. We were on a relatively deserted stretch of interstate in his brand new sports car when he turned to me and said, "watch this." Then he punched it. It was like going to hyperspeed. We hit 155 mph (200 km/hr).

At 200km/hr the horizon comes up very fast. There was an underpass with a slight rise past it, and as we zoomed under it I thought, "what if there's a little econobox trying to pass a big rig up this grade?"

As important as control is to driving safety, it's a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. A machine that gives you plenty of control allows you to drive faster than is safe with the illusion of safety, until you discover you need inhumanly fast reflexes to avoid trouble. Furthermore, my friend was totally focused on what was in front of him (as was I). For all we knew we were leaving a dangerous trail of startled drivers behind us.

If I'd been a cop, I'd have arrested my friend on the spot, friend or not. If I'd been the judge, I'd have thrown him in jail. It was an incredibly stupid, inconsiderate, and unnecessary thing to do. Fortunately my friend got the message, and shortly thereafter he found a closed track and got the need for speed out of his system, becoming an exemplary driver after that.

Nobody's impressed by your ability to drive faster than most people would on a residential street. That doesn't take balls, it just takes a willingness to endanger other people who, by the way, don't get to share in the fun. Go to the track, where you can push yourself as far as you dare, and we'll see what you're made of.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[ffreeloader]

Really? You can justify speeds of 80+ mph or so in a residential zone? At that speed a kid could run out into the street a couple hundred feet in front of you and you wouldn't miss him in a car. You couldn't stop in twice that distance from that speed. You would travel at least a quarter of that distance just getting your foot on the brake. Or how about if someone backs out of their driveway in front of you. What was a fender-bender at the speed limit just very possibly became a fatal accident.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[SpeedyDX]

You misunderstand the point of the rules of the road. They're not to punish drivers after they've driven dangerously. They're an attempt to prevent drivers from ever driving dangerously. So when you get to the point where a situation may turn dangerous, the law should have the power to stop you. Driving is not some game. Lives are at stake. Nobody gives a shit if YOU bruise your knee, or if YOU fall off and die because of a stupid decision you make. That's why there are tracks that let you drive faster than normal road conditions allow - go sign a waiver and use those tracks if you want to go fast. What we care about is even the remote possibility that you may end a human life - or, perhaps worse, not quite end a human life.

Speed limits generally take into consideration road conditions and population density. They're not simply arbitrary. If you go significantly over the speed limit, you are driving too dangerously for us. Take your bike off the road and go to a track if you want to go fast.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[ergrthjuyt]

one where you may have perfect visibility of potential dangers.

Speeding is always perfectly safe until it isn't. It's one of the leading cause of accidental death in developed countries and is THE number one cause of teen deaths.

Laws based on fixed speed/rules suck.

Translation: Speeding laws suck, they shouldn't apply to me. Only other people are bad drivers.

Traffic police should be required to prove that it was dangerous every time.

Yes, they I should have experiments and arrive at some sort of a "maximum speed." They could even put it on a sign.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[Abstrackt]

As someone who owns a motorbike ... I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.

(and that says enough)

Don't be an idiot. Seriously.

I was driving safely under the conditions once, following the speed limit, wearing the gear, and a truck didn't stop at a stop sign. I hit that truck at highway speeds and spent nearly two years in rehab, and that was when doing everything right. The day after I landed in the hospital some kid had hit a dog in a residential zone and ended up in a coma, and from what I heard he did everything right as well. One guy I knew put his bike down and broke his leg when a bee flew into his helmet and stung his face.

Enough shit happens to those of us who ride without asking for it. People like you are the reason everybody else thinks bikers are asking for all the things that go wrong. Come back here after you've snapped your femur and tell me asking for trouble is worth it.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[smithmc]

As someone who owns a motorbike with similar performance to that M5 (though it's almost 10 times cheaper!), I have to say there really are times when 100KPH over the speed limit is still safe.

I don't know if these particular circumstances were safe...

The guy was in a dense residential area, near a school. There are no circumstances under which what he did could reasonably be considered safe.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[tehcyder]

Speed limits generally take into consideration road conditions and population density. They're not simply arbitrary.

Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.

The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.

The motorway might be crawling like the M25 during rush hour orbe light on traffic with two clear lanes and excellent visibility.

There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.

I can't believe the number of posts on this thread which on any other subject would have attracted a derisory "but think of the children" flood of sneers.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[tehcyder]

Speeding is always perfectly safe until it isn't. It's one of the leading cause of accidental death in developed countries and is THE number one cause of teen deaths.

There is a difference between speeding as in being over the legal speed limit, and speeding as in driving too fast for your abilities.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to be in the minority here but oh well. I agree, at least to a certain point, that there should have to be a realistic chance that one could have caused harm to others to be charged with a motor vehicle infraction. I think society these days has too much say in the personal responsibility & safety of individuals, even going so far as to place arbitrary, inconsistent, and sometimes even contradictory restrictions on people for the illusion of safety. I've heard of people literally being arrested for being "Under the influence" while mowing their own lawns, we all know of that some police purposefully set up speed traps right at speed limit signs JUST so they can rack up tickets from the people that don't slow to that speed the phemtosecond the cross it, And don't even get me started on seatbelt and helmet laws..... That being said, If you ACTUALLY cause harm to someone other than yourself I think they should chuck the law book at you.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[SleazyRidr]

sudo-mod-up

Anyone trying to defend this kind of idiot behavior has clearly no sense of what's safe and what isn't.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[jcinnamond]

Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.

The single track road might be a congested winding country lane or an empty dead straight smooth A-road.

The key word here is limit. It doesn't mean 'always go at 60mph'. It means 'use your judgement, but don't exceed 60mph'.

There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous. The middle of a city is *obviously* not one of them.

There are probably a few times when you could get to 180mph and not be dangerous, but there are probably more times when you think you can get to 180mph and not be dangerous and be wrong. Plenty of people crash doing stuff that they think is safe but misjudged. I image that relative few people crash while doing something they think is dangerous.

Of course speeding isn't the only cause of crashes, but it does make crashes worse. It also makes them more likely. If you are at 180mph in a clear lane on the M25 you stand much less chance of avoiding the idiot who pulls out in front of you than you do if you're travelling at 70mph.

Speed limits aren't always perfect, but they're not arbitrary either. The more you deviate from them the more you put yourself and others at risk.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[ergrthjuyt]

The distinction doesn't matter, the legal speed limit applies to everyone regardless of ability. Paradoxically, the people who think they are the best drivers cause the most accidents precisely because they think the laws don't apply to them. And I've never met anyone who deserved a speeding ticket (according to them anyways).

If you need any proof people are both terrible at driving and completely delusional about their own abilities, look at the percentage of people who rate themselves as above average drivers, then look at the vehicular accident rates.

tl;dr - nobody is special, if you use a public road, the legal limit applies to you.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[SpeedyDX]

Ridiculous. Saying that exposing someone to a naked tit is dangerous is a questionable practice. Saying that running into someone with a god damn car is dangerous is stating fact.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[neminem]

You could probably experimentally determine a speed beyond which it's rarely going to be safe regardless of road conditions, an actual "maximum speed". It is well above the speed limit in most places (except, perhaps, the limit on residential areas near schools...), because the real point of speed limits (on the freeway, at least) is for cops to have an excuse to give people tickets, so their department can stay alive. As someone who recently got a ticket, I would say, if that weren't the case, they wouldn't feel the need to add so many obvious unnecessary nickel-and-dimey fees and charges to the already obscene initial ticket (and I wasn't driving at all unsafely. Past the speed limit, yes, but not like this guy).

Obviously, though, I'm not defending this particular idiot.

Re:Might not be as bad as it sounds

[ergrthjuyt]

So its the police's fault that you exceeded the speed limit you agreed to when you got your license?

It helps to not be ignorant when talking about things like road safety. Speed limits allow people to do things like merge onto the highway safely, not just travel in a straight line without regard for others. Things like light timing, sign placement, and the actual construction of the road itself also take speed limits into consideration. The safe speed is the marked speed.

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, not speeding but bragging that you did so is typical human nature.

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable.

Fixed that for you.

And then, it still depends on how much you speed and context. Point in case, there is a school (i.e. 30 km/h for about 50 meters) directly after a normal out-of-city street (i.e. 100 km/h). During the last school holidays, they left the limit signs up. Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Dont worry, Google and Verizon will slow them down

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Wakka Wakka

Re:Snitch

[Spazztastic]

Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Depends if you can prove in court that the school was no longer open and no classes were in session during this day of the holiday season. Schools sometimes do have extracurricular activities that go on during the 1-2 weeks that they have off, public especially. The past two I worked in the IT department for it was not unusual to see students come and go during the holiday breaks for band practice or any other number of things.

Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty

[andersh]

A quantum memory may be all scientists need to beat the limit of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, according to a paper published in Nature Physics.

According to a group of researchers, maximally entangling a particle with a quantum memory and measuring one of the particle's variables, like its position, should snap the quantum memory in a corresponding state, which could then be measured.

This would allow them to do something long thought verboten by the laws of physics: figure out the state of certain pairs of variables at the exact same time with an unprecedented amount of certainty.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/quantum-memory-may-topple-heisenbergs-uncertainty-principle.ars

The Track

[whisper_jeff]

From the thread, skelevirus had it right:

How about this rocket scientist, take your baby to the track. Go as fast as u want

Bought a kickass cool car that goes fast fast fast? Go for it - take it to the track and drop the hammer and see what the car is really made of. The public streets, with kids and grandmas and, you know, everyone else in the damn world, is not the track. Getting someone else killed just so you can enjoy an adrenaline rush is disgusting.

I'm glad the cops nailed him - I wish they'd confiscated the car (100kmh above the speed limit is, to say the least, excessive).

Re:Snitch

[Golddess]

Speeding in excess of what current road conditions say is appropriate and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. "Speeding" and then bragging about it just gets you in trouble with the law.

FTFY, but no, I do not know which the person did.

Re:Snitch

[DJRumpy]

No. The man basically confessed to a crime. The forum post is their 'evidence'. It's not even hearsay, as it came directly from the 'horses mouth' so to speak. If you're going to brag about a crime, you damn well better make sure you did it, because your liable if they choose to prosecute, and those bragging rights will cost you. I'm assuming those above who are rightfully being modded as trolls and crying about 'snitches' and 'minding their own business' don't have children, or have ever thought long enough to think about everything that can go wrong when racing in a residential area. An automobile which is ok to drive on public roads is not a recreational vehicle, and has been considered a deadly weapon when used in such a manner and things took a turn for the worse.

What if such a person killed one of your family?

Would you be so forgiving then?

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

Public forums are PUBLIC, dumbass!

[EWAdams]

It's just a shame that this moron didn't weed himself harmlessly out of the gene pool and save Canada the cost of prosecuting his sorry ass.

It doesn't need evidence, just an admission.

[petes_PoV]

So the police asked if he'd been speeding as he had bragged. he admitted it. Where's the need for any evidence. The guy doesn't sound particularly bright (for oh, so many reasons) and I would guess that he wasn't too good at thinking up plausible excuses.

Oblig. Canada joke

[antifoidulus]

100 kph over the speed limit?! I didn't even think you could get a moose to run that fast! Whats he feeding him?

Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1

[maxwell demon]

When Schrödinger was caught speeding, he claimed: "I didn't have that high speed before you measured. It was your measurement which caused my speeding."

Einstein, on the other hand, simply replied: "I've just proven that the true speed limit is the speed of light. I was clearly slower than the light, so your claim that I was speeding is wrong."

Re:Snitch

[CheshireCatCO]

But online statements are sufficient reason to have a chat with him. The fact that he confessed ("plead guilty", says the article) means that they had all the evidence that they needed when the time came.

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

Yes, it's wrong. What makes you so special that you can ignore posted limits, regardless of what you think their reason is?

I'd also like to know more about this power of clairvoyance you have that makes you so certain there wasn't remedial school in session, or a youth program, or any other activity that might have been a reason to leave the signs up.

On the other hand, perhaps the local officials just realized that when they take the signs down, people get used to going 50 km/h through there, and they continue speeding for a few weeks after the signs go back up.

Re:Snitch

[realityimpaired]

School might have still been in session. Summer school, or some other special program going on.

But you're right that context is everything. Driving 120km/h in a residential zone (normal limit of 40km/h in Ontario) is ridiculous to the point of insanity. Driving 120km/h on a limited access 400-series highway is considered normal (the limit is 100km/h), and on some 400-series highways, is considered driving slower than normal. Road conditions also play a part in the decision over whether that speeding is unreasonable... using that same 400-series highway, some of them are arrow-straight with no on/off ramps for tens of kilometers in parts (think 401, 416, 417 and QEW). On a beautiful sunny, dry day with no traffic, driving faster is not really a dangerous thing... you can safely drive 160-180km/h as long as your car is in good repair and you're paying attention. Try doing that in a rainstorm or heavy traffic, and you're an accident waiting to happen.

And the speed limit on normal highways is 80km/h, not 100km/h. Some of them have limits of 90km/h, but that will be posted. The only highways with limits of 100km/h are limited access highways, which will always have separated lanes for each direction (freeways).

19 yr old with $40,000+ car?

[iamhassi]

am i the only one surprised that a 19 yr old could afford a $40,000+ car? Even on eBay they're $40 grand http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200504383411

beautiful car, but i wouldn't want to pay the gas bill, with 12/18mpg.

Re:19 yr old with $40,000+ car?

[MikeyO]

In the thread he says his parents paid $40k (canadian I'd guess) and pay for the insurance, and he paid the rest.

Re:19 yr old with $40,000+ car?

[Syberz]

Apparently his parents paid for most of it. Seriously though, what kind of irresponsible parents give a race car to an 18 year old??

This kid does not have the experience or maturity required to drive this car.

Re:Snitch

[Totenglocke]

Ah, I see you believe the urban legend that speed in and of itself is dangerous. Speed in itself is no more dangerous than a fork is on it's own. However, speeding and not following basic road safety (not leaving a safe distance, not using turn signals, weaving through traffic) is dangerous.

But yes, this kid did learn a lesson - people are assholes. From now on, he'll (hopefully) be careful of the fact that everywhere you go, there's some asshole who wants to get you in trouble because they think they're funny.

I'll say it yet again

[Chas]

Don't post anything on the internet you wouldn't feel comfortable showing or demonstrating to a police officer, your parents, your priest, etc.

Re:Similar case in France

[neutrino38]

Here we had a guy on a motorbike that mounted a camera and recorded his feats.

[fr] http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Faits-divers/Actualite/Un-motard-filme-ses-infractions-205788/

The policemen had the good idea to seize the device and review the recorded video and just found 65 counts of infraction to the road regulations.
One of them was a HUGE speed excess and the guy even recorded the speed indicator just to "prove" it to his friends. Bad idea ...
Of course the difference is that this material was not posted on the Internet. The video was directly extracted from the camera mounted on the bike. So the driver could not really deny that it did not happen in real life.

Re:Snitch

[sheph]

Agreed, but how do you know he wasn't just spouting off? Saying you did something and actually doing it are two different things. If the police didn't catch him in the act I don't see how they can arrest him for it.

Re:Snitch

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude.

Yep, in the future he will make sure not to brag about it and everybody will be safe.

Think about what you are saying

[ctid]

He claimed to be driving at 140kph in a built up area. You're suggesting that this might be safe?

Re:Think about what you are saying

[whoop]

Sure, just get half a dozen friends to go along with you at that speed. Then if you were to be going the speed limit, you would be causing an accident. Safety first!

This guy is stupid on several different levels...

[moxley]

This guy must be stupid on several different levels.....

In all reality that sort of speeding is reckless and stupid - and if a cop actually saw it, then I am all for this guy having to pay for the crime. Too many people treat their vehicles like toys and risk others lives for no reason at atll....

With that said though, I cannot see how it is possible for this guy to be convicted, unless he is a TOTAL idiot and actually confessed to the police, because people post bullshit on internet forums all of the time....For example, everyone should know that I stole a police car last night and drove it exceeding speeds of 160MPH between Philly and Atlantic City and ran it right into the ocean....well, wait, maybe that was actually MY car.....I must be hallucinating from the LSD lab that I built inside of the Police car as I was flying down the parkway.

What he should have done, when confronted about the post by the police, (which I am assuming is what happened) is said "I was making it up," or "I was just trying to impress the forum." I just have a huge problem with someone being charged for a traffic infraction based on a forum post when a officer clearly wasn't present and is basing the entire case/evidence on an internet forum post.

There were witnesses!

[gnasher719]

It's probably much too late to post this, but the police actually went to the street where he was supposed to have been speeding, and they found witnesses. That would probably have been enough to convict him, but he also confessed in court.

Now maybe that is just my opinion and feel free to disagree, but if you boast about exceeding the speed limit in a criminally dangerous way, then that puts your ability and more importantly your willingness to drive a car safely and according to the traffic rules very much into doubt. Even if it wasn't true. And we should also consider that his boasting, even if it wasn't the truth, could easily encourage others to actually do it, so that kind of boasting should be strongly discouraged. So I would see a good case for taking away his driving license for the boasting alone. I would also say that if he didn't do it, then he should at least be charged with wasting police time. (Interesting question: Would that apply if he did do it but they cannot prove it? )

Re:Snitch

[mdwh2]

What if such a person killed one of your family?

In that case there'd be other evidence. Plus, you're making a circular argument, by assuming we already know the person did it - here the question is whether he is guilty or not.

Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).

What if it was another crime - someone claiming they'd taken drugs, or drunk when they were under age, or describing their first sexual experience which was under age? Okay for the police to charge all of them, too?

Re:Snitch

[c0lo]

Speeding and then bragging about it is unacceptable. That's willfully risking the lives of other people. It is good that a young driver learns this lesson early, before he kills someone with that attitude. The road is not a race track.

<kidding>Cannot agree more: bragging on the road is risky and a killer, a very good lesson that the young driver just learnt.</kidding>

Seriously, do you really think the driver leant that speeding is a no-no or just that bragging about is stupid?

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

FWIW, this is a basic school; they do not have summer school or similar.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Yes, it's wrong. What makes you so special that you can ignore posted limits, regardless of what you think their reason is?

Interesting approach. Are you telling me you never ever in your whole life assessed a situation, came to the conclusion that whatever a sign tells you is wrong and/or it was left in place by mistake and did something else instead?

You are free to disagree in this specific situation, but unless you are a holy sage, you broke some rules, somewhere, sometime.

> I'd also like to know more about this power of clairvoyance you have that makes you so certain there wasn't remedial school in session, or a youth program, or any other activity that might have been a reason to leave the signs up.

It was a basic school so no summer school or similar takes place, ever. And yes, I would have known if stuff happenend there.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> School might have still been in session. Summer school, or some other special program going on.

No. German basic school does not know summer school.

> But you're right that context is everything.

Aye :)

> And the speed limit on normal highways is 80km/h, not 100km/h.

Not everyone lives in the USA; point in case, I live in Germany. When I drove to work this morning, my top speed was 240+ km/h and it was completely legal.

Re:Snitch

[m.ducharme]

TFA says that he was doing 100 km/h over the limit. As far as I know, there are no road conditions in which it's safe to do 140 km/h (minimum) in a residential neighbourhood.

not even red light cameras can hit your license wi

[Joe The Dragon]

not even red light cameras can hit your license with points no a real cop needs to do it. Speed camera with real on site running them can but they still need your face shot and not just the plate as they need to prove the car owner was driving it and that it was not some other person driving it.

what if a valet did it?

[Joe The Dragon]

what if a valet did it? they have ways to mess with you if you don't tip good.

Re:Snitch

[m.ducharme]

The brag was sufficient cause to place the charges, and the kid pleaded guilty. End of story. Though if further evidence was warranted, I'm sure they could have (and maybe did, the TFA doesn't say) seized the "black box", if there is one, out of the car and gotten some corroborating evidence that way. They also could have canvassed the neighbourhood for witnesses: a beemer doing 150 km/h through a residential area is going to be noticed and remembered. The police may even have gotten complaints from neighbours before they got the tip. The article doesn't say, and we don't know.

Re:Snitch

[HopeOS]

It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions about how that facility is used. Unless you are omniscient, the correct response to signals that are not in sync with expectations is caution. This applies to traffic lights. This applies to construction notices. This applies to safety guards. This applies to... etc. etc. etc. In any event, if you are wrong, you may be incarcerated for a very very long time. And that's above and above the moral implications. -Hope

Re:Snitch

[DJRumpy]

In this case it was enough. This prompted the local police to investigate when someone directed them to the forum post. They found witnesses to the event in the area where he committed the crime, and the guy ended up pleading guilty as a result.

The story doesn't claim that he was found guilty on his confession alone, but it was enough to get him convicted of a crime.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

It seems that you are making a lot of assumptions about how that facility is set up.

You can trivially view the complete facility all the time. If there are no cars parked, and there weren't, you can literally see everything. On the other side of the road, there is a closed hedge. The single street that crosses off to the one side can also be viewed and has a gentle slope, not a 90 degree corner.

Also, what tells you I was not cautious? Believe me, I am. Especially so when driving through a residential area.

The funny thing is that, even though this is an assumption, if you have a driver's licence yourself, you will definitely have been over the speed limit at some point. Most likely in a situation similar or worse than the one I described. :)

Re:Snitch

[JWSmythe]

    Nah, it's always speed that kills when someone is hit by a car. How often have you heard of a parked car hitting someone. :)

    Just kidding. I agree with you totally.

    I find it hard to believe that the local police even bothered with this nonsense. People post anything from embellishments to downright lies all the time. Like this one time, a guy told me his car was faster. He was about 1,000 miles away from me, but my car is specially souped up so I can do 500 mph. I was at his place in a couple hours, and then we raced. Well, we had a few beers first, just to keep it interesting. I almost lost, if it wasn't for the pterodactyl that swooped down in front of him.

    People are generally under no obligation to tell the truth. Hell, they will lie under oath, after a judge reminds them what perjury is. No your honor, it really was a pterodactyl! :)

   

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

However, speeding and not following basic road safety [...] is dangerous.

A speeder's lack of following basic road safety is implied, or in this case pretty fucking obvious from reading the article. You can not drive 140km/h safely in a residential area.

People are not wired for understanding the speeds and risks when driving a car. Modern cars feel much safer and in consequence people believe much higher speeds to be safe. However, their surroundings are still filled with the same squishy people who do not benefit from the safety improvements.

Here's a little math for you: Say you're going just 10% faster than the speed limit (55km/h instead of 50km/h for example). At what speed do you hit an obstacle that you could just so have stopped in front of without speeding? For the sake of this quiz, ignore the distance traveled until you hit the brakes. The answer is: 45% of the speed limit. In the example, that's a 23km/h collision that could have been avoided by not speeding. 45%=sqrt((1.1^2)-1) Now repeat that with 70km/h in a 50km/h zone. Is your result 50km/h collision instead of just so not hitting the obstacle? The guy we're talking about did 140km/h in a 40km/h zone.

How did they discover his identity?

[assertation]

I wonder how his identity was discovered. Anyway, I bet Mark Zuckerberg feels relieved the idiot was exposed as a result of bragging about it on facebook :).

Re:Snitch

[kent_eh]

Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable.

Fixed that for you.

And then, it still depends on how much you speed and context. Point in case, there is a school (i.e. 30 km/h for about 50 meters) directly after a normal out-of-city street (i.e. 100 km/h). During the last school holidays, they left the limit signs up. Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Does the school playground cease to exist outside of school hours?
And does that playground stop attracting young children outside of school hours?

Alternately, it it a good thing for drivers to get out of the habit of slowing down and paying extra attention in the vicinity of a school?

Re:Snitch

[HaZardman27]

He doesn't live in the USA either; I'm assuming he's from Canada.

Re:Snitch

[Rary]

Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general. Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof. People may confess for a variety of reasons other than them being guilty (protecting someone, being intimidated; in this story, reasons might include thinking it's cool to claim you were going fast).

The police don't need proof. The police need enough evidence to make an arrest.

The courts look for proof. If there's not enough evidence, he won't get convicted.

If he didn't do it, then the lesson is simple: don't confess to a crime you didn't commit, because, surprise surprise, you might just get charged with that crime.

Re:Snitch

[Haffner]

Most sites that have forums for potentially illegal topics usually have people use SWIM - Someone Who Isn't Me - to describe themselves. For exactly this reason.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

Seriously, you don't think it's remotely possible that the police did some investigating. Maybe went to the location of the alleged offense and asked around if anyone saw anything. Maybe checked any nearby traffic/security video footage.

And if they had just arrested him on the basis of an online post that maybe, just maybe, his lawyer would tell him to shut the hell up (or even to say he was lieing to show off) and not plead guilty?

Or are you saying that police shouldn't ever investigate potentially illegal activity unless they already have sufficient proof?

Or are you really dumb enough to think they got a conviction based solely on an online post?

Unbelievable

[kenbo0422]

This is bullshit. Its after the fact, witnesses or not, there is no absolute proof of it. What kid doesn't brag, anyhow? Sounds like an easy case for a first time lawyer, to me.

Re:Unbelievable

[Kijori]

Bullshit?

At the very least - and disregarding the fact that the kid pleaded guilty - the police had:

- An account of the crimes, and long justification of them, posted under his forum account and his real name. Since there's been no indication that these were falsified it seems likely that they were made by him on his computer, which could have been produced as further evidence that he made the posts.
- Multiple witnesses who could testify that the kid's car was doing 100+kph in a residential area near a school
- The event took place near the kid's house
- Evidence suggesting that the kid habitually drives recklessly - days after this event took place he wrecked his car while speeding.

Remember that the standard of proof isn't "beyond any doubt", it's "beyond reasonable doubt". I don't think that the police would have had any trouble, based on that evidence, in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the kid was guilty.

Re:Unbelievable

[DragonWriter]

Its after the fact, witnesses or not, there is no absolute proof of it.

Its most common for crimes to be charged after the fact, based on witness testimony and other evidence that falls short of "absolute proof", which is not, in any country's legal system that I've heard of, required for a conviction.

Sounds like an easy case for a first time lawyer, to me.

Based on your extensive understanding of and experience with the Canadian criminal justice system?

There were witnesses

[caseih]

One person in the forum claimed that he and his son witnessed this stunt. So it is likely the conviction was not based just on forum posts. The forum posts were merely the tip-off for the police. Unlike the American justice system, in Canada, it seems to get a conviction the prosecution still has to prove the case, even if the defendant admits something.

Re:Snitch

[Captain Centropyge]

Again.. so you're special so you can ignore posted signs? How can you be sure they were left up by mistake? Even if you're 99% sure, I wouldn't be surprised if you were pulled over for violating a posted sign, despite the fact that it "shouldn't be there". No one's saying we have never been speeding or that we've never broken the rules of a posted sign. All we're stating is that you can't just assume a sign is incorrect just because you feel like it. You can't break the law just because you disagree with it without having consequences.

Re:not even red light cameras can hit your license

[ledow]

It depends on your country, and the exact laws. I wouldn't be so certain. In the EU, for instance, a photograph of a car breaking the law is enough to send a ticket to the house of the owner of that car. They are then legally required to identify the driver at the time of the incident - not doing so runs you into all sorts of "obstruction of justice, harbouring a criminal, etc." laws and also a lot of court time even if you just "forgot" who was driving that day - you have to basically put the court into the same doubt as yourself about who was driving, which isn't easy or cheap.

And a vast proportion of the cameras in the EU are forward-facing to catch faces. Those that aren't can normally capture enough of the inside of the car to prove male/female just from the silhouette (my father-in-law found this out when he said it was either himself or his American female friend driving, but he couldn't prove conclusively which it was at which time, so they sent another image from the same incident which proved which it was - they even chased her down to the US from the UK and sent her a ticket).

In the US things might be different, but if someone is driving - with permission - in your car and breaks any law, and the police ask who was driving at the time of the incident, you're in deep legal water if you start lying or saying you don't know. Same as if you'd knocked over a traffic light, been chased by police and were both found in the back seat of the car - they won't just let you off because they couldn't prove who was driving, they'll charge you both with obstruction. It's obvious that the legal owner of the car must know who was driving, or he'd report the car as stolen. If he does report the car as stolen, you're driving a stolen car. If he doesn't, you were driving with his permission and therefore he's obliged to identify you.

Sometimes it's not worth the hassle. Sometimes it hits a million and one legal trip-ups. But to just claim that a "real cop" must see you do something is barmy.

Re:Snitch

[poetmatt]

okay, and the possibility that the man could have been BS'ing?

What if I had a post saying I went 200MPH (in a car that can do maybe 120 tops) on my facebook. Is someone going to assume it's fact, too?

Most places, including canada, rely on actual evidence, of which there is none.

Re:Snitch

[poetmatt]

what if I said "damn, going 160mph on the highway last weekend kicked ass" even if I had done no such thing. You going to say it's still evidence?

no, it's hearsay.

maybe you might want to learn your law, as that is exactly what hearsay is.

Re:Snitch

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Yes. Selectively ignoring roadsigns is treacherous and irresponsible habit to get into. You can't assume you have perfect knowledge of the reasons behind a road sign, even if it seems obvious. The traffic authority probably has a more complete perspective of the road's conditions and the reasons behind the sign. At worst, it's a bureaucratic error, and you end up driving a little bit more slowly and safely for a little while.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

In what universe does it make a difference if a person has done something "wrong" in the past in determining whether some action is "wrong" now?

I stole a transformer toy from k-mart when I was little, does that mean I can no longer say that stealing is wrong in any situtation?

I got into a fight in high school and punched someone in the face, does that mean that I'm forced to accept that it is OK for someone to punch their wife in the face because she burnt the toast?

I'm not allowed to hold ideals that I fail to live up to in all of history?

And of course it's impossible that the officials in charge of the speed limits might have decided to leave them up without informing you of the reason, because you are omniscient.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Does the school playground cease to exist outside of school hours?

No.

> And does that playground stop attracting young children outside of school hours?

Yes. There is none.

> Alternately, it it a good thing for drivers to get out of the habit of slowing down and paying extra attention in the vicinity of a school?

You are assuming that there is a causation, or at least correlation, between deciding not to speed down and not paying attention. I don't know where that is coming from.

Re:Snitch

[VisiX]

I speed everywhere. I drive a performance car, I drive at a speed I feel safe. If a tractor trailer can do 65 safely I can certainly do 75 safely given I have half the stopping distance, 1000 times the handling ability, and I am awake and alert. Most speed limits make very little sense.

Re:Snitch

[BobMcD]

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

Do bear in mind the following, tiny fact:

A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving

Doesn't matter if they had "evidence" or not, if the judge accepted the plea, the case is closed.

Re:Snitch

[Painted]

... and remember that school gates are made more dangerous by the proliferation of the parents doing the school run and parking their ma-hoo-sive chelsea tractors any-dam-where they please to drop off little Tarquin and Jocasta, who then miss out on the learning experience of walking to school with mum/dad and being shown how to cross the road, etc.

On my daily commute, I pass a schoolyard where the precious snowflakes are far, far more often than not jaywalked across the street rather than walk the 30 feet to a lighted crosswalk. What does that* teach the kids? A few seconds convenience is definitely more important than safety!

Re:Snitch

[HaZardman27]

Understandable. If I hadn't grown up in Wisconsin, I wouldn't have recognized some of the highways he was referring to.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> I wouldn't be surprised if you were pulled over for violating a posted sign, despite the fact that it "shouldn't be there".

Of course. I would not be surprised, either.

> You can't break the law just because you disagree with it without having consequences.

I break the rules, I get to live with the consequences. This seems to be painfully obvious to the point of triviality.

That does not change anything with my initial statement, though "context is everything". That the context for me as a driver can be different from the context of a policeman watching me... obvious...

Re:This guy is stupid on several different levels.

[Kijori]

With that said though, I cannot see how it is possible for this guy to be convicted, unless he is a TOTAL idiot and actually confessed to the police, because people post bullshit on internet forums all of the time....For example, everyone should know that I stole a police car last night and drove it exceeding speeds of 160MPH between Philly and Atlantic City and ran it right into the ocean....well, wait, maybe that was actually MY car.....I must be hallucinating from the LSD lab that I built inside of the Police car as I was flying down the parkway.

There were multiple witnesses to the crime, at least one of whom - according to the perpetrator - had a pen and paper with him to write down the man's tag number. The main function of the forum posts seems to have been to demonstrate such a reckless attitude and lack of respect for other peoples' safety that multiple forum members contacted his local police, who then investigated it.

As the AC rather more bluntly pointed out, all of this information was available to you had you stopped to read the article before making pronouncements. (I know, I must be new here..)

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Selectively ignoring roadsigns is treacherous and irresponsible habit to get into.

Habit? I chose one specific sign with specific reasons. Yes, I am not omniscient, but I still know a bit about what happens around me.

Decelerating from 100 km/h to 30 km/h just to accelerate to 50 km/h 50 meters later seems to be wasteful, at best.

Re:Snitch

[drsmithy]

Point in case, there is a school (i.e. 30 km/h for about 50 meters) directly after a normal out-of-city street (i.e. 100 km/h).

German road engineering is typically very good. I'm a bit sceptical that they have a 30km/h school zone in the middle of an otherwise 100km/h open road, that doesn't at least step down through an 80km/h zone first.

During the last school holidays, they left the limit signs up. Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed? Especially since they removed the signs during this holiday season and in the ones before?

Yes. This is especially true if the school is the one responsible for putting the signs up and down, because they might know something about what's happening there that you don't, and hence have had a good reason for putting the signs up.

There are times and places to drive fast. Urban areas are most definitely not one of them.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

My point was "what makes you so special that you can ignore speed signs?" Let's not take eternity, let's take the last year. Not a single speeding incident, not even 1 km/h too much for one second? Not counting outside circumstances or "this guy has one arm less, we need to get to the hospital NOW" and other extremes, of course.

If you had even one of those incidents, and you most likely did, it's not special. And the "special" was the word I was referring to.

Re:Snitch

[lupinstel]

I hereby retract any and all statements I made regarding having hacked the Gibson. Furthermore I have never even attempted to hack the Gibson, have no knowledge of the location of the Gibson, or evidence that said Gibson even exists.

Re:Snitch

[mdwh2]

Nice collection of straw men. I was responding to someone who claimed that an online confession alone should be sufficient. If that wasn't relevant to this case, then great - but you need to direct your comments to the person I replied to, not me.

Re:Snitch

[smithmc]

The road is not a race track.

And the whole world is not your damn jurisdiction for dealing out justice willy nilly, then fucking off and letting everyone else clean up your shit.

BURN!

Sending an email to the police is not "dealing out justice". The police, OTOH, act on tips from other people all the time. Are you suggesting that they should not do their jobs?

Re:Snitch

[Spazztastic]

What about camp or daycare? The elementary schools in the district also have daycare and summer classes. They also have classes for the mentally handicapped over the summer.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> German road engineering is typically very good. I'm a bit sceptical that they have a 30km/h school zone in the middle of an otherwise 100km/h open road, that doesn't at least step down through an 80km/h zone first.

100 km/h for a few kilometers, 30 km/h for about 50 meters, 50 km/h after that. Yes, it sucks. And yes, they changed it in the meantime though I think they step down to 70 km/h not 80 km/h before the city sign.

> Yes. This is especially true if the school is the one responsible for putting the signs up and down, because they might know something about what's happening there that you don't, and hence have had a good reason for putting the signs up.

They are not. It's the city's responsibility. Related & near, but not the same. As stated in other posts on this minor shitstorm I caused there was nothing else going on.

> There are times and places to drive fast. Urban areas are most definitely not one of them.

I would argue that someone in a modern car with good brakes, good tires, excellent view over all the area and attentive at 50 km/h is saver for everyone involved than someone who is careless, can't drive his crap car and goes 30 km/h. But tbh, I don't want to drag this on endlessly.

Re:Snitch

[HaZardman27]

Sorry for the double post, but I envy you and your Autobahn. Freeways can get so irritating in the US.

Re:Snitch

[MikeBabcock]

As a blanket statement, I disagree with you.

Speeding without causing any damage or accidents and then bragging about it is evidence that speeding isn't always dangerous and that sometimes our speed limits are stupidly low.

For a thought experiement, if you do not admit to speeding, how do you argue that driving over the current speed limit could possibly be safe if you believe they should be raised?

Re:Snitch

[dubbreak]

Speeding is a civil charge. It just has to be shown as more likely than not he did speed.

Drugs? That's criminal. That would require a much higher standard of proof. Sex? Canadian laws are much more flexible than american (youths can have sex with youths.. we just raised the age of consent though.. to 16). If you are implying statutory rape charges, again that is criminal so a single post isn't going to be proof enough either.

My best guess is that the person in question has a driving history as well. That combined with the online bragging made the judge believe it was more likely than not he did do something along the lines of 140km/h in a 40km/h zone.

It only takes 20km/h over the limit to be charged with excessive. That combined with previous speeding offences can result in having your license suspended. 6 months is the norm in my province (he may be able to get it reduced though). What is really disturbing is that he was in a 40. Going 200km/h on a stretch of highway rated 100km/h is entirely different from doing 100 over the limit in a reduced speed zone (normal limit is 50km/h so 40 is an area that requires a reduced speed. There is usually a good reason for that.).

Re:Snitch

[stanlyb]

Were you punished for your crime as a kid? No? Really? Why? So, you punched others' people head, which is good for you, but receiving the same from some other guy, even if it is 20 years later is now becoming a crime? Man, you need to learn some lessons the hard way.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> What about camp or daycare? The elementary schools in the district also have daycare and summer classes. They also have classes for the mentally handicapped over the summer.

OK, can we just say that I know my local area better than you? I know, this might stretch things very far as this is /., but things are starting to get ridiculous.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Sorry for the double post, but I envy you and your Autobahn.

Yes, it's one of the nicer things about Germany. And the option to go fast if you need/want to is nice. Also, it helps in curbing street races and the like. What's the point when you can just drive up and down on a highway, legally?

> Freeways can get so irritating in the US.

Agreed. My somewhat limited experience across the USA and Canada can be summarized as sssslllllllooooooowwwwwwww.

Re:Snitch

[stanlyb]

Okey, okey, not the speed, the IMPULSE is the killing machine, lol. Wait a minute, P=M*V....so, is it safe to say that the speed is the killing factor?

Re:Snitch

[Seumas]

It's too bad the kid was speeding, instead of driving drunk. You can seemingly get away with *that* countless times before anyone bothers to take away your "god given right" to be behind a speeding chunk of metal death in public.

Re:Snitch

[kevinNCSU]

Yes, generally if you admit to a crime in writing it is enough to arrest you. It is then up to the courts to decide whether there is enough evidence to try you. And when you plead guilty as this guy did, it's generally consider enough evidence to convict and punish you. People don't generally plead guilty because they think it looks cool and all those reasoning you provided are defenses that could be brought up in court when the case is tried. If someone is in a public place shouting to the world that they committed a crime it's the police's job to arrest them and then the court's job to determine guilt based on evidence collected.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

What are you talking about? Exactly what lessons do I need to learn? And what is the hard way?

Of course I received the same, you do know what a fight is right? It's where two people hit each other. Hence it involved me getting punched (in fact I was a scrawny nerd, it involved me getting beaten to a pulp).

Re:Cue 'speeding' jokes - here's #1

[jez9999]

They were just trying to make the car innards as practical as the Ferrari itself.

Re:Snitch

[Dan541]

Yes, next time he will use ToR.

Re:Snitch

[geminidomino]

Speeding is a civil charge. It just has to be shown as more likely than not he did speed.

Not in the US, and it seems kind of odd that it would be in Canada since the government is the one bringing the case.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

I have not had a speeding ticket, ever. I have speed once that I recall - in order to avoid an someone with a different approach to merging that I had been taught.

I have not driven even 1km/h too much for one second in the last year.

And yes I stop at stop signs, even when I *know* there is no need to. And yes I indicate when changing lanes even when there is not another car in sight. And yes I will drive 10 miles down the freeway and take the next exit instead of crossing the solid lines if I slightly miss my exit.

And yes the wife gets annoyed at me because I always follow the damn rules.

Then again, I'll happily watch an unauthorized video stream on the interweb...

The topic at hand wasn't 1km/h too much, it was 20km/h over. It wasn't going 5km/h over the limit to keep up with traffic flow, it was ignoring posted speed limits because you *know* better. That *knowing* is the special being referred to.

You are right that most people don't consider going a little over the limit to be a bad thing. I suspect most people do think that 20km/h over the limit in a school zone is a bad thing - even if the driver *knows* the school zone shouldn't have been in operation that day.

Re:Snitch

[adwarf]

You left off an important part of what hearsay is... Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event that the one person was not present for...

Re:Snitch

[zotz]

I was thinking along the lines of untrue boasts myself.

You can have the obvious kind:

Man, I was driving down Bay Street yesterday doing about 5,000 miles per hour, weaving in and out of traffic and jumping over jitneys.

Or the not so obvious kind:

I was clocking 50 yesterday on my way home.

Odd to think of even being investigated on such boasts much less convicted.

Now a video shot from the moving car and posted online might be different.

all the best,

drew

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

Are you telling me you never ever in your whole life assessed a situation, came to the conclusion that whatever a sign tells you is wrong and/or it was left in place by mistake and did something else instead?

Not that I can remember, actually. I assume that I'm not omniscient, and there's probably a reason for the sign being there. I find a legal alternative. I'm fairly certain I've never knowingly and intentionally broken the law for the sake of saving time. I'm just not that kind of asshole.

And yes, I would have known if stuff happenend there.

Are you the only one with a key to the gate in the mile-high wall surrounding the premises?

I seem to distinctly remember students visiting my high school during breaks for school meetings, extra-curricular school activities, and simply meeting friends.

Of course, as you said, the situation might have justified it. Maybe the roughly 10 seconds you saved was worth sacrificing the safety of children.

Re:Snitch

[masmullin]

damn having sex with your mom last weekend kicked ass!

Re:Snitch

[moeinvt]

"You can't assume you have perfect knowledge of the reasons behind a road sign . . . The traffic authority probably has a more complete perspective of the road's conditions and the reasons behind the sign."

Seems to me that the driver on the road, aware of the present circumstances and who has driven over it 1000 times is in a better position to judge than the government agents who put it up however many years ago. Whether they follow their judgment . . .

I understand what you're saying, but I'm frustrated by the absolutism of traffic laws. I think it would be nice if things like speed limit signs were more of a "suggestion" and the government would take into account the dynamics of changing driving conditions when enforcing them.

Re:Snitch

[Captain Centropyge]

Of course, context is everything. But the issue with your original statement is that the context that matters is the one of the policeman watching you. (Of course, if there isn't a cop, then it really doesn't matter, since you won't get a ticket.) Violate the sign, you get a ticket. Doesn't matter what your context is, unless you can prove that you were right when you take the issue to court. But if there's a posted speed limit (whether it's correct or not), I can't imagine how you'd argue the ticket simply by saying, "I know it's not the right speed limit!"

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

If everything above is true, accept my apologies, you are clearly more self-controlled than me. One might wonder to what end, but that is a different matter.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> I'm just not that kind of asshole.

Ad hominem, but OK.

> I seem to distinctly remember students visiting my high school during breaks for school meetings, extra-curricular school activities, and simply meeting friends.

High school != basic school.

> Of course, as you said, the situation might have justified it. Maybe the roughly 10 seconds you saved was worth sacrificing the safety of children.

Again: What children? There were none. If you read the other postings instead of thinking up sneaky ways to feel superior, you would know why. And yes, that was my own sneaky way to get back to you. You're welcome ;)

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

Other people have to live with the consequences of your actions, too. This seems to be painfully obvious to the point of triviality. Let's run through a comparisons, shall we?

Going 50km/h instead of 30 km/h for 50 meters saves you 3 seconds. Let's expand that to 10 seconds, to account for slowing down before the school, and speeding back up afterward.

Let's say that one time out of million, you fatally hit a kid in the school zone. That's assuming a 50% fatality rate, and a 1-in-500,000 chance of collision. Assuming it's a secondary school, that puts the kid at about 18 years old. Also assuming an average life span, you just cost that person 50 years of life.

In those million times through the school zone, you saved yourself ten million seconds. That's 116 days.

The consequences of your saving 116 days is someone else losing 50 years, plus the trauma their family gets to go through. If you're perfectly fine living with those consequences, then I hope I'm never near you.

By the way, the chance of collision must be roughly 1 in 79 million for this comparison to break even.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

Since one good turn deserves another, I think what you meant to say is:

"Speeding in a residential area is unacceptable. Well, unless I decide that the sign is silly and probably not valid based on some things that happened a year ago around the same time, and besides I'm a super-careful driver, so the signs don't really apply to me, I can see everything and am never surprised by anything on the road, ever."

There. I fixed that for you!

Re:Snitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi, my name is Leonardo DiCaprio. In 2006, I shot and killed 50 people. Last week, I drove 70mph on the interstate near a playground full of kids. The cops will never know because I am so smart, see, I posted it online! Muahahaha! Also: You read it on the interwebs so it must be true.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> You're getting very defensive when all I am doing is being inquisitive in a non-malicious manner.

True, apologies. It's just that while you are in _one_ thread, I got about 20 replies by now which gets tiring.

> I'm merely trying to make sure that you realize the implications of speeding in a school zone when there may or may not be kids present.

Yes. As noted elsewhere there were none. Yes, I am sure and yes, I could be sure quite easily.

> Rule of thumb should be as long as that sign is flashing you should slow down.

Flashing? There is a sign that says "30" in a red circle and "mo-fr 0700-1500" below that.

> Don't chance the life of another just because you are in a hurry. It's irresponsible.

You chance the life of others every time you leave the house. And you do the same by not leaving. Ignoring outliers, I did not.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> But the issue with your original statement is that the context that matters is the one of the policeman watching you.

Not really. If I get a ticket because I broke a rule, that is an accepted risk. It does not factor into my decisions (unless some policeman is directly behind me)

> I can't imagine how you'd argue the ticket simply by saying, "I know it's not the right speed limit!"

I wouldn't. My decision, my risk, my consequences. No weaseling out.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

Yes, I've even been ticketed for speeding! I have violated the law in the past by ignoring posted speed limits, rolling through stop signs, and one time I was distracted and got bagged for cutting through an intersection when the light was turning red. I've paid my fines, and I readily admit that I have broken rules.

That does NOT make it "okay" or "not breaking the rules." Just as your assessment that the rules are unreasonable, and therefore may be broken, does not mean that you are not breaking the rules. Unless you are omniscient, or are the guy responsible for putting up and taking down those signs, you have NO clue why they might be up.

I've actually learned from my youthful indiscretions in the car, as well - now I obey speed limits, and am a much more cautious driver. A close call where I was speeding and barely had room & time to brake before hitting a guy on a motorcycle taught me that. Scared the shit out of him, scared the shit out of me - I'm not proud of it, but I have learned the wisdom of obeying the posted rules on the road.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Let's say that one time out of million, you fatally hit a kid in the school zone. That's assuming a 50% fatality rate, and a 1-in-500,000 chance of collision. Assuming it's a secondary school, that puts the kid at about 18 years old. Also assuming an average life span, you just cost that person 50 years of life.

Assuming is fine and dandy, but let me repeat what I said again and again:

1) basic school
2) nothing like summer school, no playground
3) perfect view over all the schoolground, no parked cars to hide behind
4) well-kept car with extremely aggressive brakes and new tires
5) attentive driver, especially since he goes past a school; no matter what i wrote above

All that, plus I still maintain someone doing 30 and not paying attention is a _lot_ more dangerous. Yet, I doubt that half the effort that various people extended just now would have been extended to someone who does 30 and talks on his cellphone.

Re:Snitch

[djrosen]

Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice. Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

Let's not take eternity, let's take the last year. Not a single speeding incident, not even 1 km/h too much for one second?

Nope, not for me. Not even in the last 4 years. I've found that turning on some music, and setting the cruise control a mile or so below the speed limit is a wonderfully relaxing way to drive - no worries about speed traps, plenty of time to react to the traffic you're approaching, and - bonus - better gas mileage generally.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

There is no end. I just happen to follow road rules - annoys the wife which is an added bonus and possibly an end in itself there.

I guess I don't see any point in not following them. I don't drive enough for it to make a difference if I get everywhere 5-10km/h faster. And figure (somewhat naively and foolishly probably given revenue production is a likely motivation) that the rules were made up by people more knowledgabe than me in order to make things better for everyone.

Of course in practice driving at the speed level on the freeway/highway is likely more dangerous than going 10 over and not being overtaken every few seconds. But I like relaxing in the slow lane :)

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

You are late. Read the rest of the shit-storm I caused before posting :)

Re:Snitch

[djrosen]

Did you read some other story? They didn't find any witnesses in the TFA that was linked, they found other people on a forum that 'lambasted' him.

Re:Snitch

[emt377]

Odd to think of even being investigated on such boasts much less convicted.

You won't be arrested without evidence of a crime (no judge would issue a warrant), however it's enough for search warrants and holding you for questioning. Most likely this driver shot and posted his own video - dumb criminals and all that.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

Congratulations on your self-control.

But you are aware that a car always shows too much speed? I.e. if you set it a mile below, you will prolly end up driving about 6-7 miles below the limit. If you are blocking others behind you by doing that, that is wrong as well. Obviously, if you live in ten-lane-country, that is not a concern.

Re:Snitch

[DragonWriter]

Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice.

Hearsay is when one person testifies that another party made a claim.

A forum post that is verified to be from the person is not hearsay.

Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.

That's actually true of all evidence used in court -- no court system sets a standard of proof that requires evidence that logically excludes alternative explanations. At any rate, the conviction here was not based on the forum post, it was based on the suspect's guilty plea. All the forum post and the report of it did was lead the police to initiate the investigation, the investigation led to charges, and the guilty plea was entered in response to the charges.

The Real Story..

[kevinNCSU]

If you read the original forum, his real problem is he admitted he was a telemarketing manager. After that he was pretty much fucked.

Re:Snitch

[dcw3]

Well, we had a few beers first, just to keep it interesting. I almost lost, if it wasn't for the pterodactyl that swooped down in front of him.

OMG...We need to report him to PITA!!!

Re:Snitch

[DJRumpy]

Yes, since the summary was somewhat lacking:

“Just looking at forums is obviously not enough, so an investigation was launched,” said Const. Serguei Barmakov.

He said police canvassed the neighbourhood and found a person who had witnessed the speeding incident and was willing to give a statement. Soon after, they found Rigenco.

Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> There is no end. I just happen to follow road rules - annoys the wife which is an added bonus and possibly an end in itself there.

Not married yet, but you might think about marriage counseling. Seriously.

> I guess I don't see any point in not following them. I don't drive enough for it to make a difference if I get everywhere 5-10km/h faster.

Which also makes you less save while driving (generally speaking) as you lack experience. Which in turn, gives you less base for your arguments imo.

> And figure (somewhat naively and foolishly probably given revenue production is a likely motivation) that the rules were made up by people more knowledgabe than me in order to make things better for everyone.

I know quite a few people in official positions. Public entities lack the need to be cooperative and it shows in both internal culture and selection of employees.

> Of course in practice driving at the speed level on the freeway/highway is likely more dangerous than going 10 over and not being overtaken every few seconds.

Apples and oranges. Speed in and as of itself is not dangerous; it depends on context. How fast is Earth revolving around itself? Around the sun? The sun around the center of our galaxy? Our galaxy hurtling towards whatever?

The allowed speed on normal out-of-town speeds is 100 km/h in Germany. Passing a car that drives in the other direction, you have 20 or 40 cm distance between the mirrors, tops. Yet, it is safe to pass each other at a relative speed of 200 km/h with _no_ protection whatsoever.

Driving over a deep pothole at 50 km/h can break stuff and send you into the nearest wall.

Context, context, context.

> But I like relaxing in the slow lane :)

As long as you stay in the slow lane, that is more than fine. Really, it is. Unfortunately, most people seem to think the right lane is poisonous and they will die if driving on it.

Re:Snitch

[DragonWriter]

Statements made online are neither the equivalent of testifying in court nor expected to be 100% TRUE. If the only "evidence" the cops had was his online statement, they had no evidence at all.

If that was the only evidence they had (which seems unlikely, given that TFA refers to them launching an investigation prompted by the online statement, and has them characterizing the behavior of others on the road at the time), then the suspects decisions to plead guilty was ill advised.

However, the conviction is based on the guilty plea, not the forum post.

Believable

[OrangeTide]

Maybe he shouldn't go around admitting to the times he violated the law?
You have a right to remain silent in most countries.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

Ah, I see you believe the urban legend that speed in and of itself is dangerous. Speed in itself is no more dangerous than a fork is on it's own.

You are wrong. "A car" in itself is no more dangerous than a fork on its own.

The "danger" of speed increases in proportion to the increase in speed. How, you say?
1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road...
2) F=ma. When your car, traveling at a given velocity, suddenly and rapid decelerates due to impacting something, that Force is transmitted into you, the fame of your car, and the object you've hit. The higher your speed (velocity), the higher your deceleration (negative acceleration) when you come to a stop due to slamming into something. Therefore, the force involved in the crash is directly proportional to the speed at which you strike an object. More speed = more force, given the same car.
3) Increased braking distance - meaning the time it takes you to *safely* stop and not kill yourself or someone else is greater the faster you are going.

Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

You didn't bother to read the actual post, did you?

Re:Snitch

[DragonWriter]

Plus, you're making a circular argument, by assuming we already know the person did it - here the question is whether he is guilty or not.

I'm not sure why this is a question since he was convicted based on his guilty plea. The entire debate seems to center around the supposition, that:

1. The only evidence the police had was the report of the online forum post, and
2. He was convicted at trial based on that evidence alone.

#1 seems an unreasonable inference from what is reported in TFA, which reports that an investigation was launched based on the report, and has the police characterizing the behavior of other drivers on the road at the time.

#2 is directly contrary to what is reported in TFA, which is that he entered a plea of guilty to the charges.

Yes I have no sympathy for people actually speeding, but it's not clear that online confessions amount to proof in general.

Since, AFAICT, there is no published report that the police treated the online confession as anything other than a trigger to begin an investigation, I don't see why that is even relevant.

Note, even if people confess in a police interview - and even for crimes such as murder, as you suggest - a confession is not necessarily sufficient proof.

That's true, but its much less likely that a court will set aside a guilty plea made with cognizance of the charges. Since he was convicted not based on the online forum post, or even a confession in a police interview, but a guilty plea entered in response to the charges, your statement, though true, is again not obviously relevant to the case at issue.

What if it was another crime - someone claiming they'd taken drugs, or drunk when they were under age, or describing their first sexual experience which was under age? Okay for the police to charge all of them, too?

Well, no, at least to the last, which isn't a crime for the person in the position described in your hypothetical (it indicates that someone else has committed a crime.)

Also, not relevant, as neither TFA nor anything posted upthread indicates that the police charged based on the forum post alone, only that the forum post triggered the investigation which led to the charges.

Re:Snitch

[tater86]

I think the word for this is hubris.

Re:Snitch

[Anarki2004]

Actually, if somebody is walking down the highway and I hit them, it probably is their fault, whether I'm going 60 or 160. WTF would a pedestrian be doing on the highway? If I nail a construction worker, that's different as there would be warnings and whatnot. A pedestrian has no business being on a highway (I'm talking about interstate highways and whatnot, not heavy traffic surface streets, FYI). I agree, speeding in a residential area isn't cool, or for that matter speeding anywhere that you may be putting somebody else in danger. In conclusion, a pedestrian on the highway is a really bad way to argue against speeding.

Re:Snitch

[Retric]

Your analysis forgot to take into account the fuel savings from not slowing down and speeding up and 50 meters is a tiny school including parking area my high school was about 450m long.

But far more important is a 1 in 500,000 chance of collision with a 50% fatality rate is ridiculously high, considering there is 180 school days in a year and over 100,000 schools with an average of say 10,000 trips past them per day you would expect something like (180 * 100,000 * 10,000) / (500,000) = 360,000 accidents in front of schools per year. Chancing that chance to 1 in 50 million = 3,600 pedestrian accidents per year which a reasonable number. (Ignoring fatality rate because that relates to speed, where number of accidents are fairly independent of speed.)

So assuming there was a 5% chance he was wrong and the school was in use and a 1 in 100,000,000 chance of a fatal accident per drive by of a school with students, the actual numbers work out to saving 20 billion * 10 seconds = 633.7 years vs. 50 years.

Re:Snitch

[djrosen]

Ah, much clearer picture now. Thx!

Re:Snitch

[The_mad_linguist]

I can't imagine how you'd argue the ticket simply by saying, "I know it's not the right speed limit!"

Actually, if you can prove that the speed limit posted is in violation of the regulations, you can get out of your ticket.

Re:Snitch

[MachDelta]

Most traffic laws in Canada are handled by the provincial gov't, but certain 'major' infractions, like dangerous driving (one of the original charges) or impaired driving (DUI), are considered criminal offenses. AFAIK the charges were lessened because of his guilty plea.

Re:Snitch

[ffreeloader]

Actually, if somebody is walking down the highway and I hit them, it probably is their fault,

That's not even close to being reasonable, responsible logic . If you hit a pedestrian it's your fault. Period. You should be alert enough, and driving far enough ahead of your vehicle, to see any pedestrian or brake lights coming on and slow down while looking for the cause of everyone hitting the brakes. You should be looking ahead at least a half-mile by default. That means you will see potential problems before they you get to them. If you don't, it's your fault as you weren't engaging in logical, practical, defensive driving practices. It's a form of reckless driving as looking ahead is taught by every knowledgeable driving instructor and taught in all pamphlets put out by the DMV in the state in which I live, and in the state in which I learned to drive.

The only way hitting a pedestrian is never your fault is if they are in the traffic lane, wearing dark clothing, and it's at night. Then you have no chance to see them. Other than that, it's your fault whether it's inattentiveness or speed high enough on your part that makes the pedestrian underestimate how much time they have a chance to cross your lane safely.

Re:Snitch

[Syberz]

Was it wrong to go through those 50 meters at 50 km/h, which is the normal inner city speed?

YES, the law (the signs) say 30.

Does it makes sense to have those signs up? Probably not, but the law doesn't care.

Whether the law makes sense or not has no bearing on how it is applied for a judge. I went to court to fight a ticket for a failed stop because I stopped my car at the intersection (to see the traffic) and not at the stop sign which was about 6 meters away from the intersection (where you can't see if traffic is coming). Even though where I stopped was safer (I could see the others and they could see me), the judge said I didn't stop at the sign so therefore I was fined. He said that in that case I should stop twice, once at the sign and once at the intersection.

The law is that law, common sense does not apply.

Re:Snitch

[Anarki2004]

The highway is a place for cars, not people. When I'm traveling down I-94 at 80mph, I'm watching the other traffic; tractor-trailers, taxi's, cell-phone talkers, and all that noise. This is not a place a pedestrian should be, so I will not really be looking for one. In fact, there are generally signs posted at the ramps that explicitly forbid pedestrian traffic. And while, yes I will do my best to avoid hitting a pedestrian on the interstate, if I do hit him, chances are pretty good that no charges will be brought against me because the pedestrian in question was in a place he didn't belong. Being on foot does not guarantee the right of way in every situation.

Re:Snitch

[dubbreak]

Speeding is a civil charge. It just has to be shown as more likely than not he did speed.

Not in the US, and it seems kind of odd that it would be in Canada since the government is the one bringing the case.

Depends on what the actual charges are but there are generally both civil and criminal charges that can be applied.

For example: my vehicle was struck by a drunk driver. Criminal charges would not stick as he ran from his vehicle into his own home (and he can claim he drank more inside, which pushed him over the limit.. thanks to a precedent setting case). Instead they applied all the civil charges they could. They were able to revoke his license for a period due to his blood alch level, charge him for leaving the scene of an accident and a few other misdemeanors. A criminal DUI charge wouldn't have stuck.

Re:Snitch

[Captain Centropyge]

Yes. But simply saying, "I know it's wrong!" doesn't constitute proof. As my original post was stating (and as RichiH seemed to be saying the same thing, despite attempting to argue with me for some reason), ignoring a posted sign means assuming a risk. You could get fined or arrested, requiring a court appearance. If you're correct, great! But you'd better know your stuff before assuming anything. And you'd better be prepared to defend your position in court. I'd rather just drive the posted speed limit or follow the signs and avoid a fine than assume it's an incorrect sign.

Re:Snitch

[BitterOak]

Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice. Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.

No, but it may get you charged with reckless driving. A confession is a confession: it doesn't have to be uttered in court or in a police interrogation room. As to your hearsay comment, most jurisdictions have an exception to the hearsay rule when a defendant makes a declaration against his or her own interest.

Re:Snitch

[alexo]

Wanted to moderate in this thread but I'll post instead.

Again.. so you're special so you can ignore posted signs?

I am not the PP but I'll answer in his stead.

Posted signs are ostensibly put up for safety. However, there are a couple of points:

1. It was proven time and again that the safest speed is at the 85th percentile of traffic speed, yet the posted limits are usually way lower. On the 400-series highways in Ontario the posted limits are 100Km/h yet, when there is no congestion or visible police presence, the observed speed of the rightmost (slowest) lane is 115-120Km/h. Near where I live there is a school with a sign advertising lowered speed limits "when lights" are flashing, yet a short distance from there there's another one with reduced speed in effect 24/365 (at least one person that I know was ticketed at 1AM on an August weekend).

2. Police vehicles are allowed to go over the speed limit only when they have their lights/sirens on, yet people constantly observe them speeding without being ticketed.

Therefore: When (1) speed limits are routinely set too low for the conditions and (2) are routinely broken by those in charge of enforcing them. they lose their moral strength and become arbitrary coercions set up for revenue generating reasons. In such case, obeying or disobeying them becomes a personal choice. After all, if Sgt. Whatsisname can go 60Km/h in a 40Km/h zone, right past a speed trap, and not get stopped then it is obviously not endangering anyone.

Interesting reading: Report No. FHWA-RD-92-084

How can you be sure they were left up by mistake?

He cannot. But if they were removed afterwards -- without any change in the conditions -- he can conclude that. And if he observes similar occurrences multiple times, he can extrapolate.

Even if you're 99% sure, I wouldn't be surprised if you were pulled over for violating a posted sign, despite the fact that it "shouldn't be there". No one's saying we have never been speeding or that we've never broken the rules of a posted sign. All we're stating is that you can't just assume a sign is incorrect just because you feel like it. You can't break the law just because you disagree with it without having consequences.

When you disobey a bad law the fact that you may still get punished is still a consideration. After all, if you refuse to give a bully your lunch money, he and his gang may still beat you up even if morally they are in the wrong.

I've publicly admitted here on /. that I"ve gone

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

>130mph on "public" asphalt several times.

Now what?

Re:Snitch

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

" not in the US?"

Yes, Speeding is a Civil charge, yes it's a slam dunk if there is just preponderance of the evidence.

Re:Snitch

[nedlohs]

Just because I don't drive enough to care about saving the travel time given by going 5-10km/h faster doesn't mean I "lack experience". Maybe I just have a lot of free time?

And it seems pretty damn obvious to me that driving slower than the main traffic speed is more dangerous at the main traffic speed. Under the assumption that the main traffic speed is a safe speed for the road and conditions. You are more likely to have an idiot run into you from behind for one. Making lane changes is clearly more dangerious than not making lane changes - by driving slower than traffic there are more lane changes happening near you as other drivers go around you.

Obviously I don't think those extra dangers matter - if I did I wouldn't drive the way I do. But they clearly exist - remember all other things are equal, the only difference is you are travelling at a speed different from the main traffic flow.

The right lane is the fast lane where I am, you insenstive clod!

Re:Snitch

[geminidomino]

What definition of "Civil" charge are you using?

At least in Florida, It's a criminal charge (misdemeanor) and paying the ticket amounts to "pleading guilty" (this is written right on the ticket itself).

Re:Snitch

[nmos]

Yes, it's wrong. What makes you so special that you can ignore posted limits, regardless of what you think their reason is?

He's nothing special, he's being normal in that he's evaluating the total circumstance rather than JUST the sign. Around here, the road construction crews often leave their signs up by mistake, especially when a project has been going on for a while. If you actually try to follow this lower speed limit when there's no actual construction going on you end up being a traffic hazard, traffic backs up, people make unsafe passes etc. Luckily their hours are predictable and your eyes can tell you what's going on and as a result the vast majority of the traffic makes the decision to obey the signs when work is ongoing and ignore the signs when it isn't. If he knows the school, can see the area around the street, see the school parking lot etc. there's a good chance that he really does know with a reasonable amount of certainty if there is something going on there or not.

Re:Snitch

[wastedlife]

Not a Canadian, but maybe "civil" is similar to "misdemeanor" in Canadian law? I don't think he meant it in the context of a civil suit.

Re:Snitch

[nmos]

Not that I disagree with you but you also have to consider the speeds of the other traffic on the road. Some of the most dangerous situations are ones where you have traffic traveling at wildly different speeds on the same road. Setting unreasonably low speed limits can cause this by creating one class of traffic following the limit and another class traveling much faster.

Re:Snitch

[nmos]

I should add that high speed limits can cause the same problem. Around here it's pretty common, especially at the beginning of winter, for some people to insist on driving the whole 75mph that is printed on the signs even on ice/snow and when they meet up with people driving at a reduced speed bad things tend to happen.

Re:Snitch

[ffreeloader]

So, if you're driving down the freeway, and a pedestrian is walking in your lane at any time other than a moonless night, you won't see him because you're too busy looking everywhere but what's ahead of you in your own lane of traffic? Sounds pretty strange to me.

If a pedestrian is walking on the shoulder of the road the only way you are going to hit him is if you leave the paved surface That makes it your fault. You failed to maintain control over your vehicle and you didn't see what was right in front of you. That makes you drunk, asleep, or simply not paying any attention to the road. No matter how you slice it you come up guilty.

It seems to me that you're a mighty poor driver as you are very inattentive according to your own arguments. That you believe you cannot/should_not pay attention to the edges of the roadway and that under most, if not all, circumstance you should be innocent when running over another human being makes you a dangerous driver as your attitude affects how you will drive. I wouldn't want to ride in a car that you're driving.

There's just no excuse for hitting a pedestrian 99% of the time.

As to your opening sentence, what kind of foolishness is that? There are situations where someone will be walking alongside the road. Their car breaks down and they have to walk to get help. Their car runs out of gas. How about someone who happens to be riding with a drunk, and makes them stop and let them out? Those are all legitmate reasons why someone might be walking down the side of the road.

People don't stop to help one another the way they used. Thirty years ago if you had car trouble, someone would stop and help almost immediately. Today? You might sit in your car for hours with no offers of help, so walking to get help might just be your best bet to get back on the road again in a reasonable time frame. As I said before, there's a lot of legitimate reasons for someone to have to walk down the side of road.

Re:Snitch

[Toonol]

I think one of the worst things we instill in young people is the idea that you shouldn't snitch. That sentiment seems to be especially strong in young, poor, and uneducated circles. Sure, there's a problem with little kids tattle-tailing on their playmates... but crimes? Snitching is pretty much always the right thing to do. It's called "HELPING CATCH THE CRIMINAL."

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

There were 543 collisions per year in Toronto involving children under 18, across 1050 schools, from 2000 to 2005. That's 0.518 collisions per school per year. That's 1 collision per school per 705 days. That's 1 collision per school per 16900 hours. On a busy street with 2000 vehicles per hour, that's 1 collision per school per 33,800,000 vehicles.

Assuming a more average rate of 1000 vehicles per hour, that's one collision per school per 16,900,000 vehicles.

It looks like the actual odds, as measured in Toronto, are about 1 in 20 million. 50 years of someone else's life actually saves 200 million seconds, which is 6.3 years. I apologize for the mistake.

Taking into account the increased proportion of kids hit during peak hours (before/after school and lunch), the odds only decrease by 50%. That's still 50 years vs. 12.6. Speeders are still selfish.

I'm intentionally placing no trust in the statement that nothing was happening at the school. First, because I've never known a school (of any level) to be completely empty. Second, because I've never known a driver to hit someone they saw well ahead of time. Third, because if observation were being considered, I'd have to go compare reaction times to speed, and frankly I'd rather spend my time going slowly through school zones. The comparison is unequal by a factor of 4. Is the GP really four times more observant than the average Toronto driver?

Re:Snitch

[kent_eh]

Actually, I equate speed with stopping distance.
However increased awareness does contribute to stopping distance as well.

also,as a general statement, people who drive at excessive speed in inappropriate places tend to be the same people who are less attentive drivers.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

m=miles; mph or m/h is common enough notation in the states, even if it's ambiguous to those using the metric system.

Not everybody uses the metric system, unfortunately.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

I can't disagree, there needs to be an element of realism to the speed limit. You don't put signs up on your 4-lane highway indicating the speed limit is 35 miles per hour anymore than you put a sign up on your residential road with hairpin turns indicating the speed limit is 90 miles per hour.

However, in a collision on a road with a clearly posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour, a collision between somebody doing 60 mph and somebody doing 90 mph, the increased danger comes from people *exceeding* the speed limit because they have unilaterally decided that the speed limit is too slow. The solution there is more, and more aggressive, enforcement of the speed limit.

Re:Snitch

[SleazyRidr]

I hope that wasn't the lesson that he learned. I'd hope that the lesson he learned was that he in no way has any right to endanger other people just to get his kicks.

Doing 100 over the limit in a built up area will always be dangerous.

Re:Snitch

[SleazyRidr]

ToR doesn't help much when you're posting to a forum using your real name.

Re:Snitch

[SleazyRidr]

You might be able to do 75, but you probably can't do 175. This isn't a case of being booked for 10 over the limit, this is about doing 100 more than the limit past a school zone.

He is a complete idiot, and shouldn't be allowed back onto the roads.

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

Ad hominem

An ad hominem attack would imply that because you drive poorly, your argument is invalid, such as saying "people like you can't possibly know anything about safe driving". Rather, that was just a subtle insult.

basic school

Regardless of level, I've never seen a school that wasn't active all year long in some form. Hence my comment regarding a mile-high wall. It's the only way to be even slightly certain nobody's there.

What children?

The ones you may not have seen because you were speeding. Going 166% of the legal speed means your available time to see, recognize, and react to a condition is reduced by 40%. That means you missed 40% of the sensory observations available at that time. If those observations had indicated there were children present... ...well I guess that'd just be too bad, wouldn't it? Those 10 seconds were important!

Re:Snitch

[Captain Centropyge]

1. It was proven time and again that the safest speed is at the 85th percentile of traffic speed, yet the posted limits are usually way lower. On the 400-series highways in Ontario the posted limits are 100Km/h yet, when there is no congestion or visible police presence, the observed speed of the rightmost (slowest) lane is 115-120Km/h. Near where I live there is a school with a sign advertising lowered speed limits "when lights" are flashing, yet a short distance from there there's another one with reduced speed in effect 24/365 (at least one person that I know was ticketed at 1AM on an August weekend).

Again, does not mean you can ignore posted speed limits just because there's no traffic or you think the speed is too slow. Ignore the signs and you may be fined/arrested.

2. Police vehicles are allowed to go over the speed limit only when they have their lights/sirens on, yet people constantly observe them speeding without being ticketed.

Therefore: When (1) speed limits are routinely set too low for the conditions and (2) are routinely broken by those in charge of enforcing them. they lose their moral strength and become arbitrary coercions set up for revenue generating reasons. In such case, obeying or disobeying them becomes a personal choice.

Just because a cop doesn't obey it doesn't mean you don't have to. It's a LAW. If you don't like the law, either run the risk of a fine/arrest by breaking it, or write a letter to your congressman/local politician/local police chief/whatever to have the speed changed. Sure, a cop speeding looks bad. But again, it's not an excuse to do it yourself.

How can you be sure they were left up by mistake?

He cannot. But if they were removed afterwards -- without any change in the conditions -- he can conclude that. And if he observes similar occurrences multiple times, he can extrapolate.

You're making an assumption by "extrapolating" from "evidence". Just because a sign is put up or taken down doesn't mean the sign doesn't need to be followed. You can choose to ignore the sign and assume you know what the posted speed SHOULD be. But you run the risk of fine/arrest by doing so.

When you disobey a bad law the fact that you may still get punished is still a consideration. After all, if you refuse to give a bully your lunch money, he and his gang may still beat you up even if morally they are in the wrong.

This is exactly my point. Even if you don't agree with it, it's a LAW. Follow it, or be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking it. There's really no gray area here.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

Or common sense.

Agree to disagree and all that.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> Actually, I equate speed with stopping distance.

Agreed. Though factors like better brakes etc matter a _lot_.

> also,as a general statement, people who drive at excessive speed in inappropriate places tend to be the same people who are less attentive drivers.

Maybe, maybe not. From my personal experience those are either the really bad & inattentive drivers or the really good & controlled ones.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> An ad hominem attack would imply that because you drive poorly, your argument is invalid, such as saying "people like you can't possibly know anything about safe driving". Rather, that was just a subtle insult.

True. I thought it was just any personal attack during an argument.

> Regardless of level, I've never seen a school that wasn't active all year long in some form.

And you know all schools? I have not seen a school in which any pupil was during the holidays. Never, ever.

> Hence my comment regarding a mile-high wall. It's the only way to be even slightly certain nobody's there.

Or a wide schoolground covered with grass, easily viewable completely.

> The ones you may not have seen because you were speeding. Going 166% of the legal speed means your available time to see, recognize, and react to a condition is reduced by 40%. That means you missed 40% of the sensory observations available at that time. If those observations had indicated there were children present... ...well I guess that'd just be too bad, wouldn't it? Those 10 seconds were important!

So, I missed 40% of nothing? Also, please factor in the average driver, who is not attentive, and me, who is attentive, especially in the situation above. What percentage does that come to? If someone is texting, I would say the difference would be about 100%.

Anyway, the point of missing details such as children is moot. There were none. You are welcome to come visit me and have a look for yourself. If you don't want to do that you will have to take my word for it. Or not. Both is fine.

Re:Snitch

[sumdumass]

Basically confess? He actually did confess. The first line of the article starts of with, "A 19-year-old man from a Toronto suburb has pleaded guilty to careless driving.

It doesn't really matter how much evidence there is or how shaky it is, if he plead guilty, he is saying Yea, I did it.

Re:Snitch

[nmos]

However, in a collision on a road with a clearly posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour, a collision between somebody doing 60 mph and somebody doing 90 mph, the increased danger comes from people *exceeding* the speed limit because they have unilaterally decided that the speed limit is too slow.

Agreed.

The solution there is more, and more aggressive, enforcement of the speed limit.

The thing is, around here at least the vast majority of accidents happen in poor weather. It's not a matter of someone exceeding the speed limit but rather someone going the speed limit even when it's not safe to do so. The other thing I've seen several times is as follows:

I'm on a highway with a speed limit of 75mph

The road is snowy/icy and the safe speed in my estimation is 50mph.

Someone is going 30mph in the right lane and the left lane is so poorly plowed that the safe speed there is only maybe 20mph. A cluster of people then builds up around the slowpoke until someone gets up the guts to pass. That person spins out taking out the entire cluster.

The only thing that will fix that kind of thing is better driver education/training as well as enough smarts for the slowpoke to move to the left and let people pass on the right even though that would normally be backwards.

Re:Snitch

[cyber-dragon.net]

I love it when people say "learn your law" when they are so blatantly wrong.

If you tell me you were speeding at 160 last weekend and I tell the cops, THAT is hearsay, which is enough for them to investigate, not enough to convict for the simple reason I could claim you said anything.

If you write a letter and sign it saying you did the same and I take it to the cops, that is not hearsay, that is you stating something you did in your own words. Very different.

Learn the law before you spout off at other people for not knowing it.

Re:Snitch

[dstar]

Speed, in and of itself, is dangerous. There are conditions where "60m/h" is a generally safe speed. There are conditions were "20m/h" is generally a safe speed. But no matter how you look at that, the higher speed is "more dangerous" in a given circumstance than the lower speed.

No. It isn't.

If I'm on a road with lots of traffic, and everyone else is traveling at the 65MPH speed limit, it is *far* more dangerous for me to drive 20MPH than to drive 65MPH. It's also more dangerous for me to drive 40MPH than 65MPH.

Speed *differential* is dangerous, not speed itself.

Re:Snitch

[realityimpaired]

She, but yes.

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

When you are driving, it is ALWAYS the drivers' responsibility to drive only as fast as the road conditions allow.

If somebody is on the highway driving 20mph, and I am driving 60mph, and that turns out to be too fast to respond safely to finding someone driving 20mph in front of me, then I am driving too fast.

It is not the responsibility of other people to get out of my way, it is not the responsibility of other people to drive "as fast as I want to drive". If they are driving slow, it is MY speed that causes the danger, and it is my inability to react & safely move around them that causes the crash. The speed is the danger. Unexpected differentials can heighten the danger, but the crash is my fault for driving at a speed that is unsafe for the road conditions.

Re:Snitch

[Sarten-X]

me, who is attentive

So to answer my original question, you're so special that you can ignore posted rules, because you're more attentive than everyone else? An appropriate quote from a friend of mine, a police officer who trains other officers before they get patrol cars:

I tell 'em, 'Go down that street' and we go for a block. Then I ask how many pickups we passed. Nobody's gotten the first one right yet. The next street it's kids, then dogs. After an hour of that, they're pissed at me, but they're starting to watch what's going on in every driveway we go past. These guys already passed their test, but they're just now getting it.

You are welcome to come visit me and have a look for yourself.

Or, you could post a link to any of several satellite images available online, and the community (myself happily included) can point out places children could be missed.

Re:Snitch

[shermo]

Interesting, you promote a black and white rule: "If you hit a pedestrian it's your fault. Period." and then you follow it up by giving an exception to your rule.

It is as be as bad as it sounds

[mjwx]

Of course they're arbitrary.

No they are not. They are numbers that are based on the best speed under all conditions. Multiple factors have been taken into account such as stopping distance, reaction distance, flow of traffic, population density, traffic density, zoning and more.

Of course they're arbitrary. In the UK you have a speed limit of 60mph (max) for single lane roads, 70 mph for dual-carriageways motorways.

I dont know about the UK but here in AU, 50 KM\h (Embrace the Metric system) for built up areas, 60 for main roads and roads not in built up areas, up to 90 for major roads and up to 110 KM\h on highways and freeways. All of these roads have different purposes, conditions and environments as well as speed limits that suit those environments and allow the fastest possible travel with a good level of safety.

There are plenty of times when you can get to 180 mph (talking about bikes) and not be dangerous.

Define plenty. I live in Western Australia, I can literally drive along a highway at 100 KM\h for 3 hours and not see another soul and I would never define the kinds of places where you can safely drive at 290 KM\h as being plentiful. In fact given the results of an impact or loss of control at that speed I wouldn't call it safe at all but if you are going to do it, do it where you'll wont kill anyone else.

Reaction distance and stopping distance are very important so try to pay attention. Reaction distance is how far you travel before your brain registers that you need to stop, braking distance is how long it takes the vehicle to stop once the brakes have been engages and stopping distance is the combination of both.

An alert driver has a reaction time of 1.5 seconds which gives them a reaction distance of 25m at 60 KM\h and 120m at 290 KM\h, a distracted driver has a reaction time of 3 seconds which gives them a reaction distance of 50m at 60 KM\h and 240m at 290 KM\h. So it's reasonable to assume you will travel between 120 and 240 metres before even slamming on the brakes. Now stopping distance varies a lot between vehicle types, tyres, road surface, temperature and so forth. At 40 MPH (64 KM\h), an Ariel Atom will take approximately and additional 40 metres to stop giving it a total stopping distance of 65 metres (Source and Graph).

Now at 100 MPH (160 KM\h) you have a reaction distance of 66-130m and a breaking distance of 180m giving you a minimum stopping distance of 246m. Amusing the graphs trend continues we can say the breaking distance for 180 MPH is around 260-280m and add the reaction distance (120-240m) and your stopping is between 380 and 510m, which means that anything that pops up around 300m away will get splattered and you along with it (any land vehicle capable of 180 MPH is not built to withstand serious impacts).

I can't believe the number of posts on this thread which on any other subject would have attracted a derisory "but think of the children" flood of sneers.

Nice strawman but as I've demonstrated above there is real science behind it. But forget the children, think of the my local council (and they are _MY_ local council) who have better things to do then scrape you and the remains of your bike off of whatever object you smashed into. Far better uses of my tax dollars then fixing up the roads and other objects you decided to take out with an act of stupidity.

Re:Snitch

[mjwx]

1) Less reaction time when something unexpected happens - blow a tire, new pothole, sudden curve, animal in the road, child in the road, broken down car in the road...

A bit of a nitpic but an important one. Your reaction time does not decrease, at higher speeds the distance you travel in that same time increases (reaction distance). The reaction time for an alert driver is 1.5 seconds whilst a distracted driver averages about 3 seconds so the reaction distance at 60 KM\h is 25 to 50m whilst 100 KM\h is 40-80m.

Re:Snitch

[fnj]

But if you speed and do not brag about it, you're fine, right?

Re:Snitch

[smithmc]

Evidence beyond hearsay might be nice. Just because I said I was doing 150 down the interstate doesn't mean I actually did.

He wasn't convicted on hearsay. The tip led to further investigation which led to further information, e.g. independent corroboration that someone driving the same car was indeed driving recklessly in that neighborhood.

Re:Snitch

[poetmatt]

well yes, you are correct. I guess I typed a bit fast there.

Re:Snitch

[gfreeman]

well yes, you are correct. I guess I typed a bit fast there.

Should we take that as some kind of admission?

Re:Snitch

[gfreeman]

But you are aware that a car always shows too much speed? I.e. if you set it a mile below, you will prolly end up driving about 6-7 miles below the limit. If you are blocking others behind you by doing that, that is wrong as well.

For a car shown to be driving at the posted speed limit, and given that "a car always shows too much speed", those cars he'll be blocking will also be showing that they are driving at the posted speed limit - so he'll only be blocking cars wanting to drive faster than the posted limit, ergo his actions are not "wrong as well".

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

Unless you actually know your car and the delta that is applied. That, or you simply have a GPS which is not connected to the on-board computer and thus doesn't cheat you.

I don't think the signs mean "you must display the exact same number on your speed gauge", but "this is the max speed, measured from the outside".

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

I'd say the difference is semantic, but okay, in the interests of clarity, "less reaction distance" when something unexpected happens.

Either term is suitable, honestly - speed = distance / time, so regardless of the speed you're traveling, at a given speed, you either have a shorter time in which to react before covering a given distance, or you need a longer distance in which to react given a static reaction time.

Re:Snitch

[AGMW]

Well I didn't intend it as flamebait ...
I thought it was a pretty good explanation of why many motorists don't rigidly adhere to the posted speed limits (ie because 90% of the time they are wrong so you get used to making your own mind up as to what is "safe"), but hey ho ... I guess not kowtowing to the "think of the children" zeitgeist is always going to rub someone's fur the wrong way ... and today it was apparently a moderator!

Re:Snitch

[Americano]

No, I'm not doing anything "wrong". The speed limit is just that - a LIMIT. Not a minimum. There are actually roads around New England where I've seen posted minimum speeds, these are usually 20 mph *below* the speed "limit", and you may be ticketed for driving slower than that. In other words, the signs tell you, "you should be driving between 45-65 mph on this road."

If I choose to do the speed limit - 65 (and I do it in the right / slow lane, as well, in deference to the asshole drivers who think 65 is the bare minimum and 85 is preferable), how is that "wrong" in any fashion? Because I am driving a bit slower than the people who are breaking the speed limit? I'd say they're in the wrong for speeding. And if they are driving so fast that they can't safely identify that I'm moving slower than them, and then maneuver around me without hitting me or having to execute an unsafe maneuver, then they are driving too fast, and shouldn't be taking that risk with their vehicle and their safety, or mine.

Re:Snitch

[RichiH]

> and I do it in the right / slow lane, as well

No problem, then. Carry on :)

Re:Snitch

[geminidomino]

Maybe, but the way he (and a few others in the subthread) made it sound, the way they were because they were talking about "preponderance of evidence"...

Re:Snitch

[poetmatt]

that I was wrong? yes.

Re:Snitch

[Golddess]

Well that explains it, didn't realize it was in a residential neighborhood. Thanks :)

Re:Snitch

[mjwx]

I'd say the difference is semantic

I did say it was a nitpic.

There's a bit of a difference between distance and time with reaction specifically as it takes you the same time to react regardless of what speed you're going, however when it comes to stopping and braking the two can be interchanged in that context (going faster increases both time and distance for stopping and braking).

Really?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

A civil infraction does not go on your criminal record, in WA it only goes on your driving record, and it's dropped from insurance view every 3 yrs, and police view every 7, and is allways available to the FBI.

I'm sorry to hear about Florida. That's crazy! but then again, that's Florida. (hence Adam Carolla's game...)

Sorry so long to reply, been camping.