Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NewsFeeder

AutoBlog: Bill to limit Canadian cars to 93 mph seems stuck in neutral

9 posts in this topic

Filed under: Government/Legal, Canada

jim-karygiannis.jpgWhen it comes to cars, they do things a bit differently in Canada. While our neighbor to the north has long been considered more progressive than the U.S., it was the United States that introduced pollution controls, and until recently, Canada never actually had any rules requiring them. The same goes for fuel efficiency standards. A couple of years ago, the government of Ontario passed a law that could result in automatic confiscation of your car if you exceeded a speed limit by more than 50 km/h (31 mph). This was done to attack the problem of street racing.

Member of parliament Jim Karygiannis apparently wants to make sure no one gets their car confiscated by making it impossible to drive that fast. Back in February, Karygiannis introduced a bill that, if passed, would make it illegal to sell, import, build or even loan a vehicle to someone unless said ride is fitted with a speed limiter restricting its maximum velocity to no more than 150 km/h, or 93 mph. So far, the bill has not proceeded past first reading, and it hasn't even gone to committee -- good news for Canadian drivers, to be sure. Frankly, there doesn't appear to be any widespread support for Jim Karygiannis's meddlesome legislation. Karygiannis actually introduced a similar bill during the previous parliamentary session, but that one never got past first reading, either. Maybe he should have taken the hint back then. Thanks to Steve for the tip!

[source: Parliament of Canada]

Bill to limit Canadian cars to 93 mph seems stuck in neutral originally appeared on Autoblog on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

di
di

autoblog?i=r7rOrdIRziU:zrYTStytR7k:wF9xT autoblog?i=r7rOrdIRziU:zrYTStytR7k:V_sGL
r7rOrdIRziU

View the full article
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a 'private members' bill, meaning that if it actually passes, we will be playing Hockey in Hell.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I could care less if it did manage to pass and be implemented. The only place to see those speeds is on the track and off the streets and highways.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I could care less if it did manage to pass and be implemented. The only place to see those speeds is on the track and off the streets and highways.

Ah, yes, but this would likely just be the start. First you pass a 93 mph limiter. Only insane people would reject that... once people are used to it, they pass a 83 mph limiter. More people object, but most people are apathetic enough that it passes. Soon a 73 mph then a 62 mph limiter come into play. Anyone without a limiter going over the limit is automatically harvested by the mounties for speeding (they would stick out like a sore thumb), and treated in the public eye like sex offenders.

Its the same as putting a frog in cool water... it will not notice the water getting hotter and soon is boiled to death.

In 20~30 years, smoking has gone from accepted and fashionable to and shunned and vilified. Its also how how guns and privacy are being taken away in North America.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 20~30 years, smoking has gone from accepted and fashionable to and shunned and vilified. Its also how how guns and privacy are being taken away in North America.

incremental-ism. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One difference, IMHO - Guns and public smoking needed to go. Privacy does not.

Your right, what i do in my backyard that doesn't affect anyone else doesn't need to go, and since i have friends whose backyards are more than big enough to shoot stuff and smoke at the same time, i believe that falls under your definition of privacy :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One difference, IMHO - Guns and public smoking needed to go. Privacy does not.

what about conceal and carry. is what's under your clothes your private right too? i can understand why people want to ban smoking in public, but that would include in your cars on public roads (would also cut back on lots of litter) but be highly unenforceable...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0