Guys all the car in the world is no good without the tires to back it up!
 

https://www.carscoops.com/2020/04/po...e-blowout/amp/

271 KPH! Thats like 168 Murica Miles!https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4e6c03ebe0.jpg

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He should have swerved to miss that nail in the road.

This guy was going 2.5x the speed limit on a public road and the officer found weed in the car? I have no sympathy for idiots like this. For the sake of other drivers, hope they keep him off the roads for a long time.

The weed would have been perfectly legal if in the trunk or otherwise "not readily available".

The article makes it sound like the road side penalties are it. They are not. He could (and probably WILL) end up with a $10,000 fine, 6 months in jail and a 2 year suspension. Will also cost him around $1,200 to get his car out of impound. Be as much as another $2,000 for the careless driving and $200 for the pot. His annual insurance just went up to about the cost of Denmark's GNP!

Neither do I, but I don't really care about the weed. Better than alcohol by a wide margin or a million other things.

Many states don't have open bottle laws, and in Mississippi you can drink and drive. You just can't be drunk apparently.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/open-...-law_n_4653013

Tcoat said it best.

plus legal fees if he gets a lawyer to speak on his behalf, which could easily double everything, nightmare. didnt read the article, but the driver is the culprit, not the tires.

Yes, which is also why I joked that he should have avoided the nail in the road, but now I am thinking, is the OP right?

Take a look at the tread on those tires. I mean, it is April, and he is in Canada. Winter tires? Look a little narrow? I guess they could be 275s. Probably aren't meant for 168 mph.

I prefer to take the facts as they are. You could also say his speeding would have been perfectly legal if he was on a track or if he was on a private road, but that's not reality...

Yes and he will deserve all of those penalties. If you're going to be stupid enough to go 160+ mph on public roads in your 707 hp, 4400 lbs car, don't have weed or any other reflex-impairing drug/alcohol anywhere near you. Just compounding risk needlessly.

Might be better than alcohol, but still impairs reflexes.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...affect-driving

They tire on the left doesn't look all that worn though. I assume these are positraction now a days? I mean they don't do one-leggers right? So I would think it wasn't rated for speed but he could have hit something too.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I fixed it...

:clap:

That happened about 10 minutes from my house. I know the area, definitely not a great spot to speed. I'm fairy certain they're Quebec plates too.

There has been a lot of people getting nailed with 50+ stunt driving the last month.

This popped up on our local FB club. Not a member but pulled at the 401 near the 416 @200km.

https://imgur.com/a/ycSqB5L

The facts as they are is that pot is legal in Canada. If he did not have it readily available there was nothing to charge him with. Your statement he was a fool for having pot n the car. He was only a fool for having it in the wrong place in the car. He was not charged with impaired so there is no indication he was high.

My statement remains accurate and factual.

The bolded parts are where you're changing the facts. Those "if" statements are actually false. The driver did, in fact, have the weed in the car where it was accessible to him.

Actually my statement was that he was an idiot for going 2.5x the speed limit on a public road with weed with him in the car. If he was simply driving around like a grandma with weed on him, well... actually I'd still think he was an idiot. Just much less so than while also blazing down the road at 160+ mph in a neon green car with "707 hp" written down the sides. What a douche :lol:

The weed ticket is irrelevant to the speeding. It is as if he received a ticket for tinted windows or no front plate after being caught. You are placing far more importance on it then there is. The "if" statement is a clarification of the requirements and as such is not false.
The only way the weed would have factored in is if he had been charged with impaired.

It's much closer to an open container/bottle charge than a tinted window or front plate violation. It factors in precisely because the guy was going 160+ mph on public roads.

I'll put it this way. If a guy arrived to a track day with a bag of weed or alcohol in his cupholder, I absolutely would not run in the same group or session as him. It may not have been proven that he's high or drunk, but certainly the risk is there and moreover there is circumstantial evidence that he is or is intending to be. And that's just with a track day in a controlled setting! The danger is much higher with some random guy deciding he wants to go 160+ on public roads.

I'm pretty sure even the cops don't even care about the weed they just wanted to throw the book at him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Busted for among other things "driving stunts"?

In NASCAR that's called feature and would be cheered.

The driver, the cop who would have pursued him, and those around both of them were lucky he maintained control, wow.

We dealing with facts or circumstantial evidence?
He was stunt driving and was caught.
Pot is legal here he just happened to have it in the wrong spot.
The ticket was issued in conjunction the same as any other one would.
Assuming he was impaired is not a fact as you have stated.
There is zero indication he was charged with impaired so if the pot was in his cupholder, glove box or anyplace but the trunk doesn't make him dumber just for having it in the car while speeding.
Doing over twice the limit makes him dumb.

THIS ^ This is all it is.
There is no higher (no pun intended) meaning with his being ticketed. It isn't even a criminal charge just a ticket.
Having pot in Canada is totally meaningless.

The devils lettuce, OH NO!

Simply saying pot is legal doesn't mean it's legal in all circumstances. That's like saying alcohol is legal so you can drink while driving or have an open container in the car. Just like alcohol, there are circumstances where having or smoking weed is illegal, such as when you're driving, much less doing 160+.

It was done around 1-2am on a dead part of the highway. Nobody would be driving around there at that time of night with the C-19 stuff happening. The traffic is dead here already during the day as it is.

What's stupid is that there are a lot of people doing 100+ in 60km residential areas. I've had more dumb encounters with people the last month than I have in the last year. Cops must be having a field day with racers.

And you are assuming he was. There is no fact involved there. His only pot related offense was that it was not stored properly. Like I said before it is totally meaningless to this situation. He could indeed be driving around with a factory sealed bottle of booze on his lap and it would be legal. He could have had the pot in his pocket if it was still factory sealed and it would be legal.
The FACT he had it in the car does not automatically mean that there is a FACT he was using it.
They obviously did not think he was since there was no impaired charge. You can bet that if the thought he was he would have been!

Can confirm: Those plates are Quebec business plates.

I'm not assuming anything. He was charged with driving with marijuana readily available, in addition to stunt and careless driving for going 160+ mph. That's fact. And for doing so, the dude is an idiot. If you've got some problem with the driving with marijuana readily available law, that's a different story.

He was ticketed with having it available. That does not mean he was charged with impaired or under the influence. It is a simple storage issue.
I have no issue with the law I have a big issue with how much credence you give it. It is totally meaningless in the scope of the actual CRIMINAL charges.

For the life of me I can not see how that blurry dark pic looks like anything beyond a normal Ontario plate.

Not sure why you underlined ticketed. If you're arguing he wasn't charged with driving with marijuana readily available, here it is straight from the OPP:

Also not sure how you're assessing how much credibility I'm giving to the marijuana charge vs. the stunt and careless driving charge, but regardless that doesn't matter to me. It's not worth having an internet debate over the relative importance of them, but sufficient to say that the charge (and those similar to it, such as open container) are on the books for a reason.

They used the term as part of the overall write up. The pot is just a ticket not a criminal charge as the others are. I live here. I know the laws here.
I am not for one second saying there should not be a ticket. He was a moron for speeding but the pot had nothing to do with that.
I will point out that this debate was the result of my clarifying a point and you seemingly to not being able to accept that the only issue with the pot was it's location.

The location is the violation. Simple as that. You can argue that if the weed was somewhere else or if it was sealed or if it was medical or if it was <insert modified facts here> that it would have then been legal, but that's neither here nor there. As I said, I prefer to deal with the facts as they actually exist. He had the weed with him in the car. He was rightfully charged with driving with cannabis readily available.

Also I don't get your issue with the term "charged". That is the proper usage of the word. Simply because it's a ticketable offense doesn't mean there isn't a charge.

There are literally dozens of other examples of this from Canada:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4594705/p...lable-charges/

http://www.thealgomanews.ca/opp-char...tored-cannabis

https://www.karinahunter.com/2019/08...river-charged/

I'd go on, but you get the point.

This is what happens when you take away hockey in Canada. Both this driver and two pages of silly arguments.

DANG, HE was about to win the debate and then you had to go put a damper on the thread - :sigh:

:popcorn:

Meh. There is no winning. His version of the "facts" and mine do not jive and are not going to.
I will leave it with the statement that with the criminal charges of stunt driving the fact that he was ticketed for easy access to pot is so small a consideration that it will have zero impact in the sentencing. They will probably max out all of the possible fines and jail time and not even mention it.

I show up to every trackday with alcohol in my cupholder.

The day before the track day starts.

Exactly! Thankfully I don't know anyone who's ever been stupid enough to try to keep alcohol or drugs with them in the car while actually doing a track day.

Hah true, too much time with CV and an argument going in circles.

We have a new record!


https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1..._960/image.jpg


“This is the fastest speed that I’ve ever heard of,” OPP Sgt. Kerry Schmidt said in a video posted to Twitter Sunday morning.
Schmidt said that the 19-year-old driver was in his father’s car at the time of the incident with another 19-year-old passenger alongside him.
“Unbelievable speeds, we’re talking 191 miles an hour, we’re talking 85 metres a second, 280 feet per second,” Schmidt said, questioning how a driver could properly react to potential obstacles on the highway at those speeds"

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/unbelieva...hway-1.4932981

That's gotta be one unhappy father.

Nice typical Canadian light sentence....license suspended for only 7 days and car impounded only for 7 days......

Those should be changed to 7 years each so that the punishment really hits home.

Edit: oh n/m i guess thats just the immediate action, and the actual charges isnt determined yet.