The law must be different in Canada.

In the U.S., there is no requirement that there be a victim for one to obey
the law. Use of the roads as a driver is a matter of license in this
country. A driver's obligations on the road goes beyond just safety. We have
strong environmental requirements for vehicles, for example. In this
country, driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle may in fact be safe. But
motorists face legal obligations in those areas nonetheless..

But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
presidents bow down to the law. Because of the rule of law, no one from the
government can simply take us away in the middle of the night. It's what
gives us our most basic protections. So for Americans, the duty to follow
the law - whether on the roads or elsewhere - is not so much for safety or
anything as it is to assure us that nobody ... not the president, the cop,
the judge, the millionaire, the TV star, nor the biggest guy or the smallest
guy can take away our basic freedoms. It's kind of ironic in a way - we see
laws as limiting our freedoms while at the same time as guaranteeing our
freedoms.

The other ironic thing is that the judicial branch in this country doesn't
have the guns or army or nuclear weapons of the executive branch. Its only
power is derived from our willingness to accept the bang of the gavel, to
accept the necessity that we acquiesce to the rules that we set for
ourselves as a society, even though no one agrees with every one of them all
of the time. And it's for one very good reason above all else: The law can't
guarantee our freedom if we take the position that we don't have to abide by
any rule we don't agree with. When a cop pulls us over for speeding, he is
not only enforcing someone idea's of safety (or as some say here, raising
revenue), he is, most important, saying that the respect for the law is the
crucial thing. He is saying that for the same reason you can't drive 80 in a
55, I can't take out my gun and shoot you because I don't like your skin
color or religion or because I'm simply wearing a badge. Our willingness to
accept this system - even if it means that we have to drive a little slower
or pay taxes we don't like - is what makes the U.S. great. I thought is was
pretty much the same thing in Canada.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> "Furious George" > wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Thomas Avery" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob Flaminio" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > (the posted speed limit is 65).
> > > >
> > > > Nuff said!
> > >
> > > "Traffic is typically moderate, with ambient speeds of around
> > 75-80mph"
> > >
> > > The majority of people engaging in peaceable activity, hurting no
> > one.
> > >
> > > Under what principle should this be against the law? Or don't you
> > > understand that all of our laws have to obey certain fundamental
> > > principles?
> >
> > If you don't like the terms and conditions of road use (including the
> > posted speed limit) then feel free to not use the road. Maybe you want
> > to build your own road. Then you could set the speed limit to whatever
> > you want.
>
> We all have the right to use the roads. We have a duty to do so in a
> manner that "keeps the peace"; i.e. to be competent to perform in a
> manner consistent with the greater damage that driving a motor vehicle
> can cause.
>
> Beyond a system to show that competence, common law requires there to
> have been a *victim* for there to have been an offense at law. A victim
> can be one who was only endangered by sufficiently reckless behaviour,
> and not actually injured in any way -- this adheres even when one is
> *not* driving, BTW, but a victim there must be.
>
>
> Since the vast majority of people navigate the roads at the speeds in
> question every day without the slightest incident (and since what
> incidents that do occur are more likely to be caused by other factors
> than they are likely to be caused by exceeding the posted limit), there
> is no prima facie basis for declaring "speeding" (exceeding the posted
> limit) as a form of endangerment.
>
> That you wish to throw away your rights shouldn't have any effect on the
> rest of us.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."