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.
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
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,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
