Quebec driver charged with stunt driving in northern Ont.
A 23-year-old man from Quebec has been charged with stunt driving on Highway 11-17 in northwestern Ontario.
Ontario Provincial Police said the incident took place near Nipigon on July 5, just before 11 a.m.
'Utilizing the Lidar speed measuring device, the officer recorded the vehicle travelling at 147 km/h, in a posted 90 km/h zone,' police said in a news release Wednesday.
Radar gun Quebec
Police recorded the vehicle travelling at 147 km/h, in a posted 90 km/h zone.
(OPP photo)
Police pulled him over and charged him with stunt driving. The vehicle was impounded for two weeks and his driver's licence was suspended automatically for 30 days.
The driver is scheduled to appear before the Ontario Court of Justice in Nipigon.
'The OPP remains committed to taking aggressive drivers off our roads through enforcement and public education,' police said.
'If you suspect that someone is driving aggressively, it is important to call 911 to report it.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
SIU concludes investigation into Sarnia police chase where motorcyclist was injured
The province's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has finished investigating an incident in Sarnia that saw a 31-year-old man suffer serious injuries in a motorcycle collision. On March 27, 2025, the man fled police during a traffic stop and ended up involved in a collision, resulting in a partial amputation of his left foot, according to the SIU. SIU Director Joseph Martino, found no reasonable grounds to believe a Sarnia Police Service officer committed a criminal offence. You can read the full director's report here. The SIU is an independent government agency that investigates the conduct of officials that may have resulted in death, serious injury, sexual assault and/or the discharge of a firearm at a person. All investigations are conducted by SIU investigators who are civilians.
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Fowl play
Clandestine surveillance, allegations of unsafe chicken and a broken business relationship: the story behind a Canadian lawsuit against Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Susan Krashinsky Robertson Retailing reporter The Globe and Mail Augo Pinho, president and CEO of ADP Direct Poultry, at the company's Etobicoke chicken processing facility. Galit Rodan/The Globe and Mail to view this content.
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.
