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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[thegarbz]

We'll be over shortly.

- The Police

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[Xest]

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

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: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?

[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.

Read the article

[ctid]

He pleaded guilty to this.

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. :)

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

[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

[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

[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: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?

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).

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: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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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

[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

[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

[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

[djrosen]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.