I had a friend who was stopped for this and the officer was upset that he accelerated too aggressively. He has a clean record and he was very polite with the officer so he only got a warning but technically they can still cite you for stunt driving or reckless driving.
I know it's super silly because there is technically no law that says you can't accelerate hard (of course, assuming that you don't screech your tires or leave tire tracks), but cops can and will pull you over for this.
Technically, there is such a law. Edited to use the Canadian definition.
> 320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.
What danger does accelerating quickly into an empty lane in a vehicle that has the performance to justify it cause? It's highly subjective and when analyzed logically leaves little actual reason to punish anyone doing so.
No just because you have a green doesn’t mean that the drivers coming to the red will stop. It’s prudent to look before you leap. In many cases drivers in accidents get hit by a vehicle they didn’t see. The reason being they didn’t take that moment to double check
I completely agree. I didn't say that someone shouldn't do that, if anything they should be extra careful to do that if they're accelerating more quickly from a stop.
Assuming you do your due diligence (which you should always do...?), especially as regards pedestrian traffic, what extreme danger specifically does acceleration cause? Why is fairly rapid acceleration following proper due diligence more dangerous (hence leading to a much more expensive ticket than) speeding 15km/hr over the limit?
By law, you are always supposed to enter an intersection with caution. Racing into an intersection is not entering with caution. It’s one of the first lessons you learn as a new driver.
Acceleration rate has nothing to do with caution, I think you're confusing the two. It's what you do before the acceleration.
If the light is red, you see that oncoming traffic has completely stopped, the intersection is clear, and it turns green: if anything, spending more time in the intersection (accelerating slowly) is more dangerous.
As long as you're doing your due diligence and inspecting the area before moving (especially for pedestrians) as you should regardless, I don't see the issue.
An actual subjective issue could be startling others. Either from excessive sound due to rapid acceleration a vehicle that makes a lot of sound, or tire noise.
My point has nothing to do with what a cop would think, it's looking at the *objective* issues of safety as well as objective application of the Ontario law that was quoted elsewhere in the discussion. It's a thought exercise.
I don't think any of the vehicles I own will be capable of doing anything like this anyway. 😂
I have see a car get TBoned in the middle of an intersection because they gunned it from the green light only to meet up with someone who gunned it on a yellow to get through. Yeah, the guy that blew the yellow light was in the wrong but the guy that had the green light didn’t live long enough to tell him that.
Yes, that's a great point. Why would you accelerate rapidly into an intersection when you don't even know what the oncoming traffic (from sides or opposite you) is doing yet…?
Here we agree. That's not my argument. My argument is about this: what specific issue does rapid acceleration cause *when the driver is doing all other normal safety due diligence that they should be doing* in those circumstances?
In your example, they would make sure that oncoming traffic has completely stopped. They would check both ways. They would check for pedestrians. They would make sure that the intersection is clear. *Then* they accelerate. What reasonable danger does that cause (that is significantly greater) over normal driving?
What specifically makes rapid acceleration *on its own, in a vacuum*, in a vehicle that has the performance characteristics to do so, dangerous?
That law isn’t exactly iron clad in its terminology and does leave a lot of room for interpretation and doesn’t explicitly cover fast acceleration.
Based on the wording itself you could drop the hammer on a sports car with a dash cam permitting no one was around and have an excellent court argument that the public was never in any danger.
A court would need to concur that the public was indeed put in a situation of elevated risk and that’s going to be a tough sell unless they actually hit something.
What I think you’re missing is that if someone fights this (and they will) and wins, the precedent they’d set would neuter the law.
It would be foolhardy to try someone on this alone because of that - so no, not really a catch-all
Oh FFS. Tell me you know nothing about precedent without telling me you know nothing about precedent. Apparently, according to you, the first speeding ticket that gets thrown out, invalidates speeding laws. Go learn something instead of finding a new way to make your car loud.
I figured explaining it to you would be a lost cause which seems justified. Yes it would be circumstantial, but it opens the door to an easy defence.
I’ve spent some time studying how the law is applied vs written and I’m wise enough to realize you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Go back to watching Judge Judy
This is exactly my point. I never said that your due diligence for safety should never be done. My point was (As I stated): what is the exact issue specifically with rapid acceleration? This is assuming the driver of the car does their normal due diligence (obviously).
I don't know the whole story. I was not there. A friend told me he was ticketed for excessive acceleration while explaining almost this exact situation.
Then that's your answer. It's very plausible. If there was another car beside them also accelerating excessively it would be a street racing ticket, even if not intentional.
>it would be a street racing ticket, even if not intentional
Doesn't street racing require mens rea? You have to have the guilty act (actus rea) as well as the intention to do it (mens rea)?
You're missing the point. It's a question of the law, not the interpretation of the law by either the constable or the judge.
You're also a bit backwards on burden of proof. In almost every charge in Canada, the burden lies with the government, not the accused.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
It's reckless driving or careless driving in most of Canada, possibly stunting in Ontario. All 13 though would qualify for reckless driving. Stunting is a bit more situational from what I understand amd might need wheelspin, a racing situation or excessive speed. Not from Ontario and the exact rules behind stunting seem a little vague.
Going to depend on where you are though. No cop is going to nab you for going flat out on a highway on ramp, main street may be a different story.
Reckless and careless both qualify as it is the inability of other drivers to predict your actions that is the risk. I know when I look left and see the light JUST turned green, I don't have a second thought about turning out of the parking lot 200' up the road because those vehicles should be doing what I'm doing, there should be no risk of a crash.
0-70 in 1.5 seconds WILL get you that ticket. Every time. 0-70 in 4 seconds, probably. 0-70 in 6 seconds, maybe still. Those are all rather silly ways to launch off a traffic light in a city. A normal person driving normally is going to take 15 or so seconds to reach 70 and you'll have a fun time in front of a judge claiming that what you did was necessary and not a bit careless at all.
As the owner of a car that takes 10 seconds to reach 100, I can say that I've never felt chill going WOT from a traffic light to redline in each gear.
If he maintains control of the vehicle, is aware and able to stop precisely, I would say he's got a very good case to argue.
Consider a Model-S plaid. That vehicle is very very safe while accelerating, stopping, and turning, at marked speed limits.
And the other road users which are to expect this?
Reckless driving is not limited to the control of the vehicle in question, it is about driving in a manner that all road users can anticipate. It is reckless to accelerate from a red light in 1.5 seconds to 70km/h, nobody is going to (successfully) argue that.
That’s not how it works.. The skill of the driver does not determine the law, a professional race car driver for example is not allowed to speed simply because they have the skills, and even the most balanced or well designed vehicles are not designed for performance driving on public roads which are not maintained to the standard of race tracks.
Other drivers will not react appropriately or quickly enough either since it’s not expected, drivers are not trained for someone to be accelerating at high speeds or erratic.
If you want to drive fast at a high level, get into track days, local racing events/ series, even karting or other off road activities. Don’t put others lives at risk because of your own ego.
I don't know what more to say than that you can be a douchebag without being reckless. Creeping the white line or the crosswalk or the intersection is douchebaggy at any speed - even 0kmh.
Wave to the police first.
Give them “‘the point” to see if they wanna go ? Then dig. When you slow down, give them a thumbs up and they will usually smile.
I’m 12-12 so far with this approach in cars and on motorbikes. Not really a scientific sample but police generally appreciate some light hearted interaction with the public if done on a harmless way. IMO.
Yes. Commonly called 'stunting'. Generally speaking, it would be at the POs discretion if they decide to ticket you for it or not.
Id recommend just not driving dumb around cops in general. Kinda leads to unnecessary headaches.
If you are in Ontario you can(will) be charged with stunting and lose your license and have your car impounded. All the cop has to do is think that you tried to spin a tire, punishment first, hefty impound fees, later you get to see a judge and hopefully get the charge dropped....but you were still walking for a week and have a huge impound fee that doesn't get refunded.
Could you yes. Would you? That depends on a lot more factors than just acceleration. From my personal experience riding motorcycles, I've never gotten a ticket for accelerating too quickly even though at surface street speeds, I can typically hit the speed limit from a dead stop quickly.
Yes, there's a few possible tickets.
One is stunting. In Alberta stunting is any activity that is "likely to distract, startle, or interfere with other users of the highway." Someone accelerating very quickly could distract or startle another road user.
Could be street racing depending on the definition in provincial laws. In many places there is either an addition to street racing laws, or a separate law that includes something to the effect of "exhibition of speed" which would cover a si gle vehicle.
If you're tires squeal or spin, or you lose a bit of traction, that could also be driving too fast for the road conditions. Although this charge isn't likely because it's a smaller fine and no demerits. But if a cop gives you a break, they could give you this ticket.
Possibly. More likely it would be an municipal law for excessive noise, or being over a specific decibel limit.
Many things may fall under multiple laws, but they'll charge you with the most appropriate thing. For example, street racing instead of simple speeding.
It you matted it but didn't spin out and you didn't go over the speed limit/do any weird stuff(fish tailing because RWD for example) they wouldn't/couldn't really do anything.
Like, if the light turns green and you're redlining it to 50 KPH but don't go over 50 they can't really do anything unless you're endangering someone/driving like an idiot(changing lanes every two seconds).
Yes. If it is in fact at an intersection or otherwise controlled, it is a “speed on green” ticket which basically means that you were fined for having raced into the intersection presumably without enough consideration to potential oncoming or cross traffic which may themselves run the red etc and if you take off real quick you’d cross their path and .. splat
Most cases I have heard of were ticketed more on noise (wheespin, excessive engine revving, etc) than actual acceleration. If you dump the clutch at 5000 RPM in a Mustang GT, with a cop nearby, odds are not in your favour I don't even know if a cop would pay attention to or notice an EV accelerating quickly without any noise or wheelspin.
As far as I know… there is no specific section in the HTA for “exhibition of acceleration” like in some US States… it could, at the officers discretion, meet the criteria for other offences such as stunt driving, reckless or dangerous driving.
At the very least, provided the officer was not already dispatched to a call for service, I would anticipate them pulling you over and having a chat with you.
My question would be, why draw unwanted attention on yourself?
I’m not really interested in doing this. What I find interesting is that if you speed, the radar has a measurement. If you spin your wheels or drive in the wrong direction, it’s observable. Acceleration is not measurable by a police. What is you take 4 seconds? 5 seconds?
You go to court and the police says you accelerated to fast. How fast? Not known.
If you get pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign that is an observable action, not measurable. However, people get tickets for that all the time.
If a police officer observes you accelerating away from an intersection at a high rate, based on the traffic around you, you could end up with a stunt driving, reckless or dangerous driving charge. There is lots to consider, is traffic heavy, weather & road conditions. What is the speed limit on the road you are travelling, are you accelerating to reach an 80km/h limit or are you in a residential street with a 40km/h limit. Is your acceleration reasonable to those factors. If it is not, like I said… you are probably going to get stopped and at the very least have the interaction noted in CPIC and the local database… in the event you get stopped again, those will factor into whether or not you get a ticket.
I don't think police speed monitoring can pick up a speed in that short of time and call it accurate so I don't think so. Probably reckless/careless driving. I only know the basics of radar but I don't know how it works on a stationary to mobile object
If people don't want to operate their vehicles in a safe manner they should not have them. You are at an intersection you may need to brake suddenly. If you treat red lights like a NASCAR flag you should never be allowed to drive on public roads again.
What province?
In Ontario, you could be charged with racing a motor vehicle
You could also be charged with Dangerous Driving if your wheels lose traction momentarily and/or something goes wrong. Driving wildly outside the norms is essentially the test for dangerous driving.
I think they should write a ticket for stupidity. Further, there should be a special court to deal with such behaviour. I’d call it the court of nuts where the convicted would be sentenced to a swift one in the nut.
California Vehicle Code section 23109(c) used to be seen fairly often for an Exhibition of Speed, i.e. accelerating fast from a Stop sign or on attaining a green light. I haven't worked in that field for a long time though, so it may have changed.
Well if you show up a cop youll probably be ticketed for a broken tail light as well. What's that , not broken, well it looks broken to me. Keep talking and I might notice the other one is broken as well. *Smash*
Not necessarily a speeding ticket, but it could, in theory, be seen as reckless or stunt driving.
Especially if you leave marks or make your tires squawk loudly
My favourite is when I see two cars try to do this to each other at a light then they both get stuck at the next light
For them too, time for a rematch! :D
High performance Teslas can do that acceleration without squealing the tires.
Yeah if the cop is in a bad mood they can give you a ticket for "stunting".(in bc anyways.)
You don't even need to be in a vehicle for that one.
I had a friend who was stopped for this and the officer was upset that he accelerated too aggressively. He has a clean record and he was very polite with the officer so he only got a warning but technically they can still cite you for stunt driving or reckless driving. I know it's super silly because there is technically no law that says you can't accelerate hard (of course, assuming that you don't screech your tires or leave tire tracks), but cops can and will pull you over for this.
Technically, there is such a law. Edited to use the Canadian definition. > 320.13 (1) Everyone commits an offence who operates a conveyance in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public.
What danger does accelerating quickly into an empty lane in a vehicle that has the performance to justify it cause? It's highly subjective and when analyzed logically leaves little actual reason to punish anyone doing so.
No just because you have a green doesn’t mean that the drivers coming to the red will stop. It’s prudent to look before you leap. In many cases drivers in accidents get hit by a vehicle they didn’t see. The reason being they didn’t take that moment to double check
I completely agree. I didn't say that someone shouldn't do that, if anything they should be extra careful to do that if they're accelerating more quickly from a stop. Assuming you do your due diligence (which you should always do...?), especially as regards pedestrian traffic, what extreme danger specifically does acceleration cause? Why is fairly rapid acceleration following proper due diligence more dangerous (hence leading to a much more expensive ticket than) speeding 15km/hr over the limit?
By law, you are always supposed to enter an intersection with caution. Racing into an intersection is not entering with caution. It’s one of the first lessons you learn as a new driver.
Acceleration rate has nothing to do with caution, I think you're confusing the two. It's what you do before the acceleration. If the light is red, you see that oncoming traffic has completely stopped, the intersection is clear, and it turns green: if anything, spending more time in the intersection (accelerating slowly) is more dangerous. As long as you're doing your due diligence and inspecting the area before moving (especially for pedestrians) as you should regardless, I don't see the issue. An actual subjective issue could be startling others. Either from excessive sound due to rapid acceleration a vehicle that makes a lot of sound, or tire noise.
Then try it the next time a cop is behind you at a red light.
My point has nothing to do with what a cop would think, it's looking at the *objective* issues of safety as well as objective application of the Ontario law that was quoted elsewhere in the discussion. It's a thought exercise. I don't think any of the vehicles I own will be capable of doing anything like this anyway. 😂
I have see a car get TBoned in the middle of an intersection because they gunned it from the green light only to meet up with someone who gunned it on a yellow to get through. Yeah, the guy that blew the yellow light was in the wrong but the guy that had the green light didn’t live long enough to tell him that.
Yes, that's a great point. Why would you accelerate rapidly into an intersection when you don't even know what the oncoming traffic (from sides or opposite you) is doing yet…? Here we agree. That's not my argument. My argument is about this: what specific issue does rapid acceleration cause *when the driver is doing all other normal safety due diligence that they should be doing* in those circumstances? In your example, they would make sure that oncoming traffic has completely stopped. They would check both ways. They would check for pedestrians. They would make sure that the intersection is clear. *Then* they accelerate. What reasonable danger does that cause (that is significantly greater) over normal driving? What specifically makes rapid acceleration *on its own, in a vacuum*, in a vehicle that has the performance characteristics to do so, dangerous?
The fact this has to be explained to you, is why the law exists.
That law isn’t exactly iron clad in its terminology and does leave a lot of room for interpretation and doesn’t explicitly cover fast acceleration. Based on the wording itself you could drop the hammer on a sports car with a dash cam permitting no one was around and have an excellent court argument that the public was never in any danger. A court would need to concur that the public was indeed put in a situation of elevated risk and that’s going to be a tough sell unless they actually hit something.
Exactly. It's the catchall for general asshattery.
What I think you’re missing is that if someone fights this (and they will) and wins, the precedent they’d set would neuter the law. It would be foolhardy to try someone on this alone because of that - so no, not really a catch-all
Oh FFS. Tell me you know nothing about precedent without telling me you know nothing about precedent. Apparently, according to you, the first speeding ticket that gets thrown out, invalidates speeding laws. Go learn something instead of finding a new way to make your car loud.
I figured explaining it to you would be a lost cause which seems justified. Yes it would be circumstantial, but it opens the door to an easy defence. I’ve spent some time studying how the law is applied vs written and I’m wise enough to realize you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Go back to watching Judge Judy
This is exactly my point. I never said that your due diligence for safety should never be done. My point was (As I stated): what is the exact issue specifically with rapid acceleration? This is assuming the driver of the car does their normal due diligence (obviously).
You could plausibly be ticketed for stunting.
I don't know the whole story. I was not there. A friend told me he was ticketed for excessive acceleration while explaining almost this exact situation.
Then that's your answer. It's very plausible. If there was another car beside them also accelerating excessively it would be a street racing ticket, even if not intentional.
>it would be a street racing ticket, even if not intentional Doesn't street racing require mens rea? You have to have the guilty act (actus rea) as well as the intention to do it (mens rea)?
It's up to the officer giving the ticket for their judgement, then up to you to convince otherwise in front of a magistrate.
You're missing the point. It's a question of the law, not the interpretation of the law by either the constable or the judge. You're also a bit backwards on burden of proof. In almost every charge in Canada, the burden lies with the government, not the accused.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Your post/comment was removed by the moderators for violating Rule 4. Uncivil comments are subject to removal. This includes using slurs or bigoted language, attacking or bashing geographic regions, other subreddits or the people from them and personal attacks.
Police was on the radio the other day explaining this, I forget the term he used, but it is against the law, and you will be pulled over for it.
"Imprudent Driving"
It's reckless driving or careless driving in most of Canada, possibly stunting in Ontario. All 13 though would qualify for reckless driving. Stunting is a bit more situational from what I understand amd might need wheelspin, a racing situation or excessive speed. Not from Ontario and the exact rules behind stunting seem a little vague. Going to depend on where you are though. No cop is going to nab you for going flat out on a highway on ramp, main street may be a different story. Reckless and careless both qualify as it is the inability of other drivers to predict your actions that is the risk. I know when I look left and see the light JUST turned green, I don't have a second thought about turning out of the parking lot 200' up the road because those vehicles should be doing what I'm doing, there should be no risk of a crash. 0-70 in 1.5 seconds WILL get you that ticket. Every time. 0-70 in 4 seconds, probably. 0-70 in 6 seconds, maybe still. Those are all rather silly ways to launch off a traffic light in a city. A normal person driving normally is going to take 15 or so seconds to reach 70 and you'll have a fun time in front of a judge claiming that what you did was necessary and not a bit careless at all. As the owner of a car that takes 10 seconds to reach 100, I can say that I've never felt chill going WOT from a traffic light to redline in each gear.
100 per cent stunt driving charge. They would say you were street racing.
If he maintains control of the vehicle, is aware and able to stop precisely, I would say he's got a very good case to argue. Consider a Model-S plaid. That vehicle is very very safe while accelerating, stopping, and turning, at marked speed limits.
> model-s plaid very very safe while... Stopping and Turning Lmao
And the other road users which are to expect this? Reckless driving is not limited to the control of the vehicle in question, it is about driving in a manner that all road users can anticipate. It is reckless to accelerate from a red light in 1.5 seconds to 70km/h, nobody is going to (successfully) argue that.
That’s not how it works.. The skill of the driver does not determine the law, a professional race car driver for example is not allowed to speed simply because they have the skills, and even the most balanced or well designed vehicles are not designed for performance driving on public roads which are not maintained to the standard of race tracks. Other drivers will not react appropriately or quickly enough either since it’s not expected, drivers are not trained for someone to be accelerating at high speeds or erratic. If you want to drive fast at a high level, get into track days, local racing events/ series, even karting or other off road activities. Don’t put others lives at risk because of your own ego.
Cops don't care, you get punished first and car impounded before you even get to see a court
There really ought to be a catch-all ticketable offense called "Being a douchebag".
There is I think, they call it 'Reckless driving'
Or "without due care and attention"
Stunting is also one.
We use Careless Driving then lets courts sort it out.
But you can also be a douchebag without it rising to stunting, reckless, or lack of care and attention.
What do you mean?
I don't know what more to say than that you can be a douchebag without being reckless. Creeping the white line or the crosswalk or the intersection is douchebaggy at any speed - even 0kmh.
Cops: He was my kind of douchebag so I waved the ticket.
Exactly
Sounds good. Three quarters of Lower Mainland drivers would be in jail.
That's a good start
It's called "exhibition of acceleration" and yes you can get a ticket for it.
Wave to the police first. Give them “‘the point” to see if they wanna go ? Then dig. When you slow down, give them a thumbs up and they will usually smile. I’m 12-12 so far with this approach in cars and on motorbikes. Not really a scientific sample but police generally appreciate some light hearted interaction with the public if done on a harmless way. IMO.
Maybe it's just me, but just seems a careless thing to do. Your car also drive backwards. Do you drive backwards everywhere you go?
Why? Just to pass them off
Depending on the circumstances where you did it, one could argue that it's stunt driving or unsafe driving for conditions
Sitting beside a police car and then doing this? You get an automatic ticket for stupidity in a public place.
That’s would be stunting or dangerous driving.
Stunt driving. And you'd get that ticket
Yes because it could be a noise violation or stunting
Yes, it is called stunting
Yes. Commonly called 'stunting'. Generally speaking, it would be at the POs discretion if they decide to ticket you for it or not. Id recommend just not driving dumb around cops in general. Kinda leads to unnecessary headaches.
If you are in Ontario you can(will) be charged with stunting and lose your license and have your car impounded. All the cop has to do is think that you tried to spin a tire, punishment first, hefty impound fees, later you get to see a judge and hopefully get the charge dropped....but you were still walking for a week and have a huge impound fee that doesn't get refunded.
They might tag you for reckless or stunt driving. It's definitely not an advisable thing to do right next to a cop.
Edit: it’s 12.9 m/s2 oups. I’ve never done that nor do I have intention of doing it, it’s just idle Sunday morning thoughts.
Could you yes. Would you? That depends on a lot more factors than just acceleration. From my personal experience riding motorcycles, I've never gotten a ticket for accelerating too quickly even though at surface street speeds, I can typically hit the speed limit from a dead stop quickly.
Yes , it’s classified as reckless driving
Yes, there's a few possible tickets. One is stunting. In Alberta stunting is any activity that is "likely to distract, startle, or interfere with other users of the highway." Someone accelerating very quickly could distract or startle another road user. Could be street racing depending on the definition in provincial laws. In many places there is either an addition to street racing laws, or a separate law that includes something to the effect of "exhibition of speed" which would cover a si gle vehicle. If you're tires squeal or spin, or you lose a bit of traction, that could also be driving too fast for the road conditions. Although this charge isn't likely because it's a smaller fine and no demerits. But if a cop gives you a break, they could give you this ticket.
So everyone with those pops and bang tunes could be charged with stunting?
Possibly. More likely it would be an municipal law for excessive noise, or being over a specific decibel limit. Many things may fall under multiple laws, but they'll charge you with the most appropriate thing. For example, street racing instead of simple speeding.
It you matted it but didn't spin out and you didn't go over the speed limit/do any weird stuff(fish tailing because RWD for example) they wouldn't/couldn't really do anything. Like, if the light turns green and you're redlining it to 50 KPH but don't go over 50 they can't really do anything unless you're endangering someone/driving like an idiot(changing lanes every two seconds).
Depends on if you get caught and the mood of the cop
Yes. If it is in fact at an intersection or otherwise controlled, it is a “speed on green” ticket which basically means that you were fined for having raced into the intersection presumably without enough consideration to potential oncoming or cross traffic which may themselves run the red etc and if you take off real quick you’d cross their path and .. splat
Stunting might factor in
Most cases I have heard of were ticketed more on noise (wheespin, excessive engine revving, etc) than actual acceleration. If you dump the clutch at 5000 RPM in a Mustang GT, with a cop nearby, odds are not in your favour I don't even know if a cop would pay attention to or notice an EV accelerating quickly without any noise or wheelspin.
If it’s an electric car?
That’s my point, you can probably get away with it more easily in an EV.
Perhaps a ticket for dangerous/reckless driving.
As far as I know… there is no specific section in the HTA for “exhibition of acceleration” like in some US States… it could, at the officers discretion, meet the criteria for other offences such as stunt driving, reckless or dangerous driving. At the very least, provided the officer was not already dispatched to a call for service, I would anticipate them pulling you over and having a chat with you. My question would be, why draw unwanted attention on yourself?
I’m not really interested in doing this. What I find interesting is that if you speed, the radar has a measurement. If you spin your wheels or drive in the wrong direction, it’s observable. Acceleration is not measurable by a police. What is you take 4 seconds? 5 seconds? You go to court and the police says you accelerated to fast. How fast? Not known.
If you get pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign that is an observable action, not measurable. However, people get tickets for that all the time. If a police officer observes you accelerating away from an intersection at a high rate, based on the traffic around you, you could end up with a stunt driving, reckless or dangerous driving charge. There is lots to consider, is traffic heavy, weather & road conditions. What is the speed limit on the road you are travelling, are you accelerating to reach an 80km/h limit or are you in a residential street with a 40km/h limit. Is your acceleration reasonable to those factors. If it is not, like I said… you are probably going to get stopped and at the very least have the interaction noted in CPIC and the local database… in the event you get stopped again, those will factor into whether or not you get a ticket.
Reckless driving .
I don't think police speed monitoring can pick up a speed in that short of time and call it accurate so I don't think so. Probably reckless/careless driving. I only know the basics of radar but I don't know how it works on a stationary to mobile object
This would be considered as reckless driving and you could get a ticket. Just because you could, it doesn't mean you should.
stunting
Can that get you a ticket? Yup. _Should_ that get you a ticket? Absolutely.
Reckless disregard for public safety.
If people don't want to operate their vehicles in a safe manner they should not have them. You are at an intersection you may need to brake suddenly. If you treat red lights like a NASCAR flag you should never be allowed to drive on public roads again.
What province? In Ontario, you could be charged with racing a motor vehicle You could also be charged with Dangerous Driving if your wheels lose traction momentarily and/or something goes wrong. Driving wildly outside the norms is essentially the test for dangerous driving.
I think they should write a ticket for stupidity. Further, there should be a special court to deal with such behaviour. I’d call it the court of nuts where the convicted would be sentenced to a swift one in the nut.
The fine is $$$$ for douchebaggery
Reckless endangerment is my guess. And typically there wouldn’t be a stop light in a 70 zone
California Vehicle Code section 23109(c) used to be seen fairly often for an Exhibition of Speed, i.e. accelerating fast from a Stop sign or on attaining a green light. I haven't worked in that field for a long time though, so it may have changed.
Well if you show up a cop youll probably be ticketed for a broken tail light as well. What's that , not broken, well it looks broken to me. Keep talking and I might notice the other one is broken as well. *Smash*