I read the whole article on CNN, it was (as usual) an overblown story. The police got calls about it happening and impounded the cars while the owners were stopped for food. The owners got hit with a <$200 fine, and had to pay impound fees. No big deal, it barely qualified as a moving violation.

Considering the number of $500 tickets I've had over the years, they barely got a slap on the wrist.

Yes, this about covers my opinion on these sorts of things (even if this case turned out a bit different).

Police should be enforcing the law, not raising revenue. Every time the city has budget issues, speedtraps multiply. I just imagine city council sitting around saying "We're short on cash, so obviously traffic violations are up!" I'd like to see some scientific evidence for that correlation.

And "no refusal weekends?" I am opposed to drunk driving. I do not drink and drive. I did not agree to suspending "innocent until proven guilty" or that the burden of proof be on the accuser. So that is utter crap. Even better, Austin's top cop went even further. If you get pulled over while suspected of drinking while driving (note "suspected" part) and you are on any kind of perscription medication, APD takes no chances. They take the driver to jail and let the courts sort it out. An acquaintance of mine got carted off for an asthma inhaler. This was not a 21 year old kid mouthing off to a cop, mind you. This individual was an over 40 working professional, with his wife, and driving a Mercedes.

Austin even tried to enact some stupid ticket for .05 BAC. Their logic? We know and acknowledge you aren't drunk, but at .05 you are getting close to a violation, so we would ticket you with a class c misdemeanor and a $100 fine as a warning. WTF? That makes as much sense as citing someone for going 54 in a 55 as they are "getting close" to speeding.

Now they are shooting for "Extreme DUI" for .18. Once again, it is about increasing the fines.

Then, they try to couch their arguments such that if you are opposed to these assaults on our rights, that you want drunk and unsafe drivers on the streets.

All those who want the US to run a government like a business are frighteningly close to getting their wish, but I do not think they are going to like the results. I certainly do not recall voting my support for any of this sort of nonsense, and I am sure my horror stories are no worse than those in other parts of the country.

Sheesh...this stuff bugs me to no end. Apologies guys. /rant off.

Kids have no business having access to cars like that, majority of teens cant drive for crap anyway! Put them behind the wheel of a supercar is asking for trouble.

mommy and daddy will just pay and get the car back I bet, well at least in a america, they'd just sue somebody and get the car back.

I think I am the only one that is against them even getting a ticket. They got pulled over when they were exiting. The cops didn't see what they were doing and they got their cars seized over hearsay. They all got the same ticket too. Seems awfully unlawful.

I got to drive a vanquish when I was 19 and got a ticket for 112over, they didn't seize the car.
They did pull guns out, pull me out the window and beat me though.
That was the only speeding ticket I ever got.

after a beating it would be the only ticket id ever get too
bet that was a hefty ticket

Yeah, it was pretty huge.

I wonder if these kids parents are Canadian? That might be another reason the cops seized all the cars.

Several people here agree with you Chad. The legality of what the police did in terms of ticketting is suspect. Illegal in the US, not familiar with Canadian law, but I suspect it is closer. It would be legalish in the UK (they are still 'guilty unless proven innocent' there I believe)

However, impounding the cars is what happened, not seizure, which forfeits ownership. Impounding the cars is entirely something I could see happening in the US, legally. The police were notified of illegal actions, arrived to investigate, and during their investigation they determined that the cars were not registered to the people driving them. That is PLENTY of cause to impound the cars. Doesn't happen all the time, but certainly is a possibility any time the driver doesn't match the registered owner.

112 over? i would have beat you after pulling you over for that kinda speed. and thrown you in jail.

mind you if these were my kids and they were out street racing my ferrari/maserati/aston martin/ nissan gtr I would have gone to the impound lot and picked up the car, leaving the kid to sit in jail over the weekend. at least.

update/
http://jalopnik.com/5838842/mounties...id-street-race

Maybe I missed it... but where did you get 112 over? The reports all say they were going over 125 mph on a freeway.... That's still probably about 65+ mph over the limit, but a huge difference from 112 over.

chad got picked up for 112 over

Yup, your all mixed up 8 maniac. :)
I never got a speeding ticket since.btw
You would never want to know what it cost me to insure my 94 rx7 back then. lol

Oops... I used ctrl + F to search both pages of the thread for 112 to see where else that had been posted, but I somehow missed it still. 112 over is a little ridiculous lol. I can only imagine your insurance was obscene. Did you not lose your license for any period of time? If not, that's surprising.

Edit/off-topic: Who had the brilliant idea of adding "policegrab2millionworthofcarsaftercanadianstreetr a ce" as a tag?... I'm not sure that's useful.

I am kinda blow away... I can't even imagine stepping into those cars at that age. I would definitely be dead...

:dragster:

Just playing a bit of a devil's advocate here...

It's probably better for them to be going 125 in a lambo than going 125 in some beat up civic... even a new civic wouldn't compare. Of course the supercars provide the ability to get to higher speeds and have the power to make even lower speeds potentially dangerous, but, at any given speed, the supercar should be more stable than your average car.

Everybody says they are so young, Trevor Bayne won the daytona 500 and he is 20, started racing at the age of 13. Many others begin racing very early, and drive "heavy duty" cars when they are 16-17.
I used to race a super fast shifter cart and do freestyle air with my honda 250 when I was 16.
We don't know their story, all we know is the cops are being overly creative in their charges.
Age discrimination isn't only fo the old.
I'm veteran young guy upset that the kids have to play by different rules than someone 3or four years older.

When I started racing, I was older than everyone in F1 at the time. It's weird when you realize that.

This was a very blatant disregard for the safety of other drivers on the road. They generated numerous 911 calls about high speed driving and blocking traffic.

I personally know one of the police officers involved in this case....likely the only thing that will happen is a lot of money will be spent on expensive lawyers to get any and all charges dismissed.

We have a graduated licencing program here.....one thing that will happen is they will be walking for quite a while :)

This is not a "kids driving fast thing" This is stupidity and total disregard for others safety.

dan im going to need you to be there when they auction those off, m'kay?:)

I'm sure that they will not be auctioned off....if the parents can afford to have them driving those type of vehicles...they will have good lawyers

Best we can hope for is that they loose there driving privileges.........

I'm beginning to think your serious about picking up one of them.

What they do with these cars if no one claims them?