This may be old hat for a lot of you, but I think it bears repeating: 613 sect. 10 (b) states "a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly;" and Section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act states: "106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance." Now, if a person were travelling on a county road in Ontario as a passenger in a car; which before entering they were unaware of: a middle seat belt that has been rendered inoperative by an animal chewing it at an unknown time and sit in this seat, as all other positions have been filled. Are they responsible for the inability to buckle up? Also, once receiving a ticket for "fail to properly wear seatbelt" is there any grounds for disputing the ticket? What do you think?
This may be old hat for a lot of you, but I think it bears repeating:
613 sect. 10 (b) states "a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly;"
and Section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act states:
"106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance."
Now, if a person were travelling on a county road in Ontario as a passenger in a car; which before entering they were unaware of: a middle seat belt that has been rendered inoperative by an animal chewing it at an unknown time and sit in this seat, as all other positions have been filled. Are they responsible for the inability to buckle up? Also, once receiving a ticket for "fail to properly wear seatbelt" is there any grounds for disputing the ticket?
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now". If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used. A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak. In some older cars there only lap belts in the center. Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger. Cheers Viper1
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".
If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.
A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.
In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.
Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context. REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies. A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it. For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.
REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.
10.Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;
(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.
A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.
106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.
For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
I think there may have been some foolishness from the passenger, and the passenger did admit to the officer issuing the ticket, that, "The belt doesn't work!" and upon demonstrating, connected the belt to the other, now unoccupied, receptacle. Making it blatantly obvious to the responding officer that seatbelts within the vehicle were functioning. A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it. For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it. Am I right to gather that you're implying there is no grounds for dispute? I did think while reading through these sections that really; the car shouldn't have been driven if the harness was malfunctioning and to push the issue may result in much more hassle for the owner of the vehicle. Do you think that's a correct assumption? Both of you: Thank-you for you time and input on these matters.
viper1 wrote:
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".
If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.
A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.
In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.
Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.
Cheers
Viper1
I think there may have been some foolishness from the passenger, and the passenger did admit to the officer issuing the ticket, that, "The belt doesn't work!" and upon demonstrating, connected the belt to the other, now unoccupied, receptacle. Making it blatantly obvious to the responding officer that seatbelts within the vehicle were functioning.
bend wrote:
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.
REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.
10.Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;
(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.
A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.
106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.
For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
Am I right to gather that you're implying there is no grounds for dispute?
I did think while reading through these sections that really; the car shouldn't have been driven if the harness was malfunctioning and to push the issue may result in much more hassle for the owner of the vehicle. Do you think that's a correct assumption?
Both of you: Thank-you for you time and input on these matters.
i lost my license in an accident i had to due my exceeding amount of demerit points. i went to jail and made bail i was put on a curfew of 9am to 9pm stupidly enough i did not follow and i got pulled over for driving with a different cars license plates, no insurance, and violating my curfew... i…
I was charged for disobey sign (no left turn) in a winter noon time around Bay/Edward (the prosecutor/judge said it to be a Absolute liability offences but disobey sign is actually a strict liability offence, right? And I found this: For example, if you made an illegal left-turn where there were…
so got fined with 69km in a 50km, at bottom of hill...didn't even have foot on the gas. first ticket ever in over 10 years of driving. fine was 62$ and 3 points.
cop says take to court and get demerit points reduced. didn't even let me speak and walks away.
On my way to work today I got a 110 dollar ticket + 2 demerit points.
I was driving north on Bathurst and turned left onto a side street into a residential area before hitting the lights at Eglinton and Bathurst. I normally do this to avoid the big line up to turn left onto Eglinton.
On the 400 extension EB towards Barrie cops like to hide out under an over pass that is Ski Trails Rd. They tag people as the come over the crest of the hill and that is 900m from where this officer was standing.
I'm confused because I knew this, saw the cop, and checked my…
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of…
Today i got caught doing 115 in a 90 at Mayfield and 410 and what I have been reading is that this offence is 3 points. Seeing this is my first offence I'm unsure if the ticket is supposed to I lost 3 points or is that just automatic. Also should I go to fight it to drop the points and just pay the…
I was (recently) involved in a traffic accident where, due to icy road conditions, I slid into oncoming traffic while making a right turn, while they were coming towards me and stopping at a stop sign. This was a residential area and there's no way I was exceeding anything over 20KM/h on…
