I was at 70, not even 10 feet from the sign
If you're admittedly doing 70 before the sign, then the officer would be correct.I even looked at my speed as I passing the cop and it was at 60, but he tried telling me I was doing 70, which I know I most certainly was not.
Statistics: Posted by bend — Wed Mar 02, 2022 8:04 am
Statistics: Posted by ??? — Wed Mar 02, 2022 2:25 am
Statistics: Posted by DCamM — Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:34 pm
Statistics: Posted by High-miler — Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:07 pm
Statistics: Posted by dadtoandrew — Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:42 pm
Statistics: Posted by whaddyaknow — Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:25 pm
Statistics: Posted by radek — Wed Jun 19, 2019 8:55 am
Statistics: Posted by brandon.smith786 — Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:41 am
Statistics: Posted by bend — Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:17 am
Statistics: Posted by brandon.smith786 — Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:38 am
The charge is hand-held devices prohibited. There's no obligation to prove that the handheld device is in use (texting) and it sounds like it was given correctly.Same MP who claimed he was texting at a stop sign when the MP was 3 cars away, "saw him look down 10 times" so MP followed him to work just to give him a 500.00 fine for texting while driving.
My partner wasn't texting, he took his phone out of his chest pocket as the seatbelt was pressing on it and put it in the console as he was stopped.
Statistics: Posted by bend — Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:50 pm
Statistics: Posted by Zooolooo — Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:46 am
Statistics: Posted by Zatota — Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:42 pm
Statistics: Posted by 2zeus2 — Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:39 am
Statistics: Posted by whaddyaknow — Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:16 am
Statistics: Posted by whaddyaknow — Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:48 am
Statistics: Posted by Steffie — Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:55 pm
Statistics: Posted by Steffie — Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:05 pm
Statistics: Posted by KMoo — Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:44 am
Statistics: Posted by ynotp — Sun May 14, 2017 8:15 am
Statistics: Posted by zhechaojin — Sat May 13, 2017 1:19 am
Statistics: Posted by bend — Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:03 am
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:00 am
Statistics: Posted by gaelin — Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:00 am
Statistics: Posted by Observer135 — Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:11 pm
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the crosswalks where it's a long yellow rectangle above with x's on it? There's one on Esna Park just north of Steeles in Markham (the one I'm referring to, anyone can google maps it if they like). It applies to those ones correct? I know they don't apply at intersections (traffic lights)The new crosswalk law to what I read does not apply to what you describe. It applies to a
Just adding onto this, the new crosswalk law, where you need to wait until the person completely exits the intersection. There is one right near the entrance of my work, and 9/10 times, someone is usually crossing. So I stop, wait for them to completely finish crossing, then proceed. I'd say out of all the times I do that, 50% of the time, people honk at me, and then speed right past because they don't know the new law. I feel like every renewal (5 years), drivers should redo a written test (similar to the G1) just to be re-familiarized with the rules of the road.
1) crossover - where overhead signs indicate pedestrian crossing Ont Reg 402/15
2) intersection which has school crossing guards HTA 176(3)
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Fri Mar 25, 2016 9:05 pm
The new crosswalk law to what I read does not apply to what you describe. It applies to a
Just adding onto this, the new crosswalk law, where you need to wait until the person completely exits the intersection. There is one right near the entrance of my work, and 9/10 times, someone is usually crossing. So I stop, wait for them to completely finish crossing, then proceed. I'd say out of all the times I do that, 50% of the time, people honk at me, and then speed right past because they don't know the new law. I feel like every renewal (5 years), drivers should redo a written test (similar to the G1) just to be re-familiarized with the rules of the road.
Statistics: Posted by UnluckyDuck — Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:59 pm
Statistics: Posted by Stanton — Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:06 pm
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:44 pm
Statistics: Posted by newb — Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:08 pm
Statistics: Posted by argyll — Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:36 am
Statistics: Posted by UnluckyDuck — Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:18 am
Statistics: Posted by hwybear — Thu Mar 24, 2016 9:13 am
Recently I was checking out how insurance companies price their policies, they have added "other minor conviction" to the list, there is no clear explanation what it includes/excludes, so they could hike your rate for something like this, after all it would sort of fall under a moving violation since the car would have to be moving for a back spray to exist.
True, but that is not the case here... He did not make changes to the car, therefor he was not required to look up HTA to make sure he is not violating it by the changes he is making. You can not expect every single consumer to go read the HTA cover to cover before buying a car to make sure he/she does not get in trouble on the road. The province and the MTO must bear some responsibility not allowing such cars to be sold.
OK, so can you give an example of such a scenario where a new car being sold by the dealer is in violation of HTA? I am in the market for a new car and I really like to avoid cars that don't cut it. And I am not talking about the plastic license plate frames that the dealers add on, we all know about the issue with those, I am talking about violations that would be due to manufacturer design.
Statistics: Posted by bend — Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:12 am
Recently I was checking out how insurance companies price their policies, they have added "other minor conviction" to the list, there is no clear explanation what it includes/excludes, so they could hike your rate for something like this, after all it would sort of fall under a moving violation since the car would have to be moving for a back spray to exist.I couldn't find anything stating improper mudguards or anything related to fall under any portion of your standard insurance conviction definition bracket.
I don't know how the people I was reading their stories went about it, but basically they had not requested trial before early resolution meeting, so there was several months of wasted time, once they did not come to an agreement and asked for trial, the court date was set within a few months.You have to wait for your Notice of Trial either way, so there's no difference.
True, but that is not the case here... He did not make changes to the car, therefor he was not required to look up HTA to make sure he is not violating it by the changes he is making. You can not expect every single consumer to go read the HTA cover to cover before buying a car to make sure he/she does not get in trouble on the road. The province and the MTO must bear some responsibility not allowing such cars to be sold.Ignorance is not a defense.
OK, so can you give an example of such a scenario where a new car being sold by the dealer is in violation of HTA? I am in the market for a new car and I really like to avoid cars that don't cut it. And I am not talking about the plastic license plate frames that the dealers add on, we all know about the issue with those, I am talking about violations that would be due to manufacturer design.At the end of the day, you're responsible. Manufactures aren't building their cars to meet each individual provinces HTA or equivalent requirements, they build them according to Canadian safety standards, crash standards, etc which may or may not coincide with the HTA. Dealers sell cars every day with possible HTA violations and it's not their problem.
Statistics: Posted by Observer135 — Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:03 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:32 pm
Statistics: Posted by Stanton — Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:22 pm
Statistics: Posted by Mugwug — Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:53 pm
Statistics: Posted by Decatur — Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:48 pm
Statistics: Posted by jsherk — Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:23 pm