Slashdot Mirror
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."
What evidence was there, other than the bloggers post, that an offence had occurred? How could the police charge him without it?
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."
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
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.
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.
There you go
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!
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. :)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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?
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.
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.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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.
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.
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.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
There is a difference between speeding as in being over the legal speed limit, and speeding as in driving too fast for your abilities.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, since the summary was somewhat lacking:
Ref: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/845967--speeding-boast-online-costs-19-year-old-his-licence
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.