Driving a city vehicle while on vacation must be perk! I wonder though if the vehicle is impounded or is it in the OPP parking lot for security reasons, like what happened with Habitual Heidi's unmarked car! Jun 30, 2009 09:58 AM Jesse McLean Staff reporter One of Toronto's highest ranking fire officials has been charged with stunt driving after police clocked him driving 150 km/h on Hwy. 401 in a department vehicle. Ontario Provincial Police pulled over Deputy Fire Chief Daryl Fuglerud around 9:30 a.m. Friday, just west of Port Hope. A helicopter patrolling the stretch of highway spotted a red Toyota Highlander travelling 50 kilometres over the speed limit, police said. The Highlander, which belongs to Toronto Fire Services, has been impounded for seven days and the suspect's licence has been suspended for a week. Fuglerud is the department's deputy chief of staff services, administration and communications, and oversees everything from recruitment to payroll, a fire department official said. He is currently on a booked vacation and could not be reached for comment. He is scheduled to appear in court in Cobourg on Aug. 5. http://www.thestar.com/gta/crime/article/658755
Driving a city vehicle while on vacation must be perk!
I wonder though if the vehicle is impounded or is it in the OPP parking lot for security reasons, like what happened with Habitual Heidi's unmarked car!
Jun 30, 2009 09:58 AM
Jesse McLean
Staff reporter
One of Toronto's highest ranking fire officials has been charged with stunt driving after police clocked him driving 150 km/h on Hwy. 401 in a department vehicle.
Ontario Provincial Police pulled over Deputy Fire Chief Daryl Fuglerud around 9:30 a.m. Friday, just west of Port Hope.
A helicopter patrolling the stretch of highway spotted a red Toyota Highlander travelling 50 kilometres over the speed limit, police said.
The Highlander, which belongs to Toronto Fire Services, has been impounded for seven days and the suspect's licence has been suspended for a week.
Fuglerud is the department's deputy chief of staff services, administration and communications, and oversees everything from recruitment to payroll, a fire department official said.
He is currently on a booked vacation and could not be reached for comment. He is scheduled to appear in court in Cobourg on Aug. 5.
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm :?: :?: :?: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Scuze, me. OK I'm done now, snicker.....no, no I'll stop.......gafaw......sorry, really......teehee.......I think you'd look great in the white smock
Bookm wrote:
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Dr. Bookm :?: :?: :?: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Scuze, me. OK I'm done now, snicker.....no, no I'll stop.......gafaw......sorry, really......teehee.......I think you'd look great in the white smock don't forget the gloves *snap*
Reflections wrote:
Bookm wrote:
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I meant to post that spot in frequent radar spots. I forgot. It is something to see 8-10 people pulled over then drive another mile and still see another cop. It is air radar there. The first time I saw it I didn't think there were that many opp anywhere. Cheers Nadnic
I meant to post that spot in frequent radar spots.
I forgot.
It is something to see 8-10 people pulled over then drive another mile and still see another cop.
It is air radar there.
The first time I saw it I didn't think there were that many opp anywhere.
Cheers
Nadnic
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
And then we would have people crying about favouritism. "Discretion" should be saved for the really, really good excuses (e.g., wife having a baby...explosive diarrhea and rest stop is far away... :shock: ).
And then we would have people crying about favouritism. "Discretion" should be saved for the really, really good excuses (e.g., wife having a baby...explosive diarrhea and rest stop is far away... ).
But that shouldn't matter once the law and the consequences are in the books. I don't know the whole story, but assuming the deputy fire chief had no good reason to be going that fast, then the consequences are set and should not be made more lenient because of his position or use of a department vehicle. It's like how I feel about the speed limit - do it by the book and if it really is unreasonable, public backlash will eventually grow to a point where it will force a change. The "roadside trial" part of 172 is already getting there. Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply. I know, I know...me, Fantino, big gay wedding. :lol:
Radar Identified wrote:
I agree with cruzmisl. No one was protected or safeguarded by seizing that vehicle. 49 km/h over has serious enough consequences.
But that shouldn't matter once the law and the consequences are in the books. I don't know the whole story, but assuming the deputy fire chief had no good reason to be going that fast, then the consequences are set and should not be made more lenient because of his position or use of a department vehicle. It's like how I feel about the speed limit - do it by the book and if it really is unreasonable, public backlash will eventually grow to a point where it will force a change. The "roadside trial" part of 172 is already getting there. Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief) I wonder if that copper thought about the fire department cutting him out of his cruiser one day.......poorly played IMO. I agree with 172. I think it has a place. Assuming the guy wasn't a tool, apologetic, didn't have a horrible driving record and wasn't endangering the lives of others whats the point? A huge ticket would have been a satisfactory slap on his P P.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief)
I wonder if that copper thought about the fire department cutting him out of his cruiser one day.......poorly played IMO.
I agree with 172. I think it has a place. Assuming the guy wasn't a tool, apologetic, didn't have a horrible driving record and wasn't endangering the lives of others whats the point? A huge ticket would have been a satisfactory slap on his P P.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief)
S. 128 would have worked in these circumstances and I don't think most of us would've had any problem with the officer using s. 128 instead of s. 172. Nothing about 172 limits or prevents the use of 128. We've even seen one case on this forum where someone was going 155 km/h a few months ago and was charged under s. 128. No roadside trial or impoundment, but severe consequences imposed upon conviction. So, no argument with you on that point. The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger. The fact that he was pulled over meant the speeding was stopped. Very few people who get pulled over then get back on the road and resume driving the exact same way. It is "the law," but the intent of 172 was to "safeguard the public," supposedly. To me that seems to imply that it should only be used in limited circumstances, not whenever possible. (I'd rather just see the whole thing scrapped.) Just remember: You said it, not me. :lol:
Squishy wrote:
Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply.
S. 128 would have worked in these circumstances and I don't think most of us would've had any problem with the officer using s. 128 instead of s. 172. Nothing about 172 limits or prevents the use of 128. We've even seen one case on this forum where someone was going 155 km/h a few months ago and was charged under s. 128. No roadside trial or impoundment, but severe consequences imposed upon conviction. So, no argument with you on that point.
The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger. The fact that he was pulled over meant the speeding was stopped. Very few people who get pulled over then get back on the road and resume driving the exact same way. It is "the law," but the intent of 172 was to "safeguard the public," supposedly. To me that seems to imply that it should only be used in limited circumstances, not whenever possible.
Regular guy is synonymous with "average Joe":D In this context though a "regular" guy is anyone with no significant driving offence history and has the appropriate attitude.
Regular guy is synonymous with "average Joe":D
In this context though a "regular" guy is anyone with no significant driving offence history and has the appropriate attitude.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
