Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Discuss the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.


Post Your Traffic Ticket, and Get Help!


The Ontario Traffic Ticket Forum!


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Check It Out
No unread posts New Set Fines Starting Sept 1st, 2015! Read and Learn Here.
  Print view

Fire trucked Siezed under 172
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:04 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:35 am
Posts: 222
http://www.sootoday.com/content/news/fu ... mber=35149

They sieze fire trucks and not police cruisers?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 3:43 am 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/e ... 0455_e.htm

(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, “race”, “contest” and “stunt” do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 4 (2).


Although the driver wasn’t in route to a call he can only be convicted under s. 128, which does not provide for a vehicle impoundment.

The cops are out of control. Totally clueless...and corrupt.

How many cops are getting kickbacks from the towing and storage companies?

The cop controls which towing company will tow vehicles at accidents and possibly impoundments. . If you show up with a tow truck and are capable of towing the vehicle but were not called by the cop, the cop can charge you and you're facing a fine and six months in jail for each subsequent offence.


Tow truck services

171. (1) No person shall make or convey an offer of services of a tow truck while that person is within 200 metres of,

(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or

(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,

on the King’s Highway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (1).

Idem

(2) No person shall park or stop a tow truck on the King’s Highway within 200 metres of,

(a) the scene of an accident or apparent accident; or

(b) a vehicle involved in an accident,

if there is a sufficient number of tow trucks already at the scene to deal with all vehicles that apparently require the services of a tow truck. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (2).

Idem

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who is at the scene of the accident at the request of a police officer, an officer appointed for carrying out the provisions of this Act, a person engaged in highway maintenance or a person involved in the accident. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (3).

Offence

(4) Every person who contravenes any provision in this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000; and

(b) for each subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 171 (4).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:13 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
lawmen wrote:
Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.


Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:00 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
The cars weren't impounded for 7 days though, right?

_________________
Without Justice there's JUST US


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:45 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Trana
hwybear wrote:
lawmen wrote:
Emergency vehicles are exempt under the regulations.


Wish that were true! We have 2 of our officers charged with this offence while in cruisers, only reason the vehicle was not towed....well actually they were towed....on a flatbed!


that's inaccurate

1 officer was charged after his cruiser crashed into 2 horses, killing the horses, totalling the cruiser and injuring the officer.....so yeah, the car wasn't siezed....the officer was charged after an investigation and did not have his license suspended

the other officer was charged for simply driving like a maniac while not on a call.....his car was fine (not damaged) and was not siezed, and he never recieved a license suspension either

my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges......these officers were not charged by other willing officers trying to get some gold star for busting their brothers roadside

so the officers' scenarios are nothing like the FireTruck deal.....far from it...they weren't pulled over by another officer roadside and left walking, which is apparently what happened to the FireFighter

while I think many opposed to 172 would love to see on-duty cops busting other on-duty cops for driving infractions while not on a call....we're not going to see that......nope, if a copper has issues with his/her driving, I'm sure it would be addressed internally as it should

as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty

I cannot see this tactic going over well between the Fire Dept and the OPP in that region...doesn't seem like a great relationship builder.....assuming the Fire Dept has a somewhat limited # of emergency vehicles, so losing one for a week could impair their ability to do their job properly, and ironically their job is to "save lives"

anyhoo....another retarded blow to this ill-thought farce


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:33 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Posts: 2933
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!
PetitionGuy wrote:
my understanding in both scenarios is that citizen/witness complaints were the inspiration for the charges.


Both to my understanding were internal investigations.

I saw the newspapers, but also heard through the grapevine about 50th person hand (more than 2nd hand) what happened......so what if anything is truthful on all that? Only the officers involved directly know what happened or did not. I can not comment on anything more as this is done by our senior command staff.

_________________
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:34 pm 
Offline
Sr. Member

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:57 pm
Posts: 256
Location: Planet X
Cops investigating cops is total Hogwash, though.

There should be a citizen panel that investigates cops complaints for any reason with appeals to the court.

_________________
Without Justice there's JUST US


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:51 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Posts: 1490
Location: somewhere in traffic
Quote:
as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty


In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????

_________________
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 7:26 am 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:43 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Trana
Reflections wrote:
Quote:
as it should have been dealt internally with this FireFighter.....pretty simple IMO.....copper clocks him, rings up the Fire Chief, allows the return of the vehicle to the Fire Dept and let's the driver deal with his penalty


In this instance I agree. However, what is the charge???????????



take your pick

Careless Driving plus a nice big speeding ticket would make a nice pair IMO......and Careless upon conviction carries the same 6-point penalty so the Insurance Co's take it just as serious as a 172 conviction

no upfront BS and the driver is still in serious *EDIT*


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Siezed plates

bqbal

7

398

Thu May 05, 2016 5:39 pm

Stanton View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Parked in a designated fire route, but not a real fire route

volvoguy

7

656

Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:07 am

jimm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. SECTION 172? HELP

50overTokeMyWifeAndKids

7

2377

Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm

Radar Identified View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Hta (172) 1

yama

2

928

Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:43 pm

yama View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. O.P.P criuser impounded under 172

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

BelSlySTi

56

3238

Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:03 pm

tdrive2 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. And another reason to strike down S.172

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Reflections

21

978

Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:40 pm

PetitionGuy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. More s. 172 Comedy Gold

Lawman

2

633

Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:21 pm

Charlene View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Despite s. 172, people are still racing

Radar Identified

3

524

Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:31 pm

Bookm View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Another Victim of HTA 172

BelSlySTi

0

615

Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:55 pm

BelSlySTi View the latest post

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. Even More s. 172 Comedy Gold

Greatest Canadian

1

541

Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:53 pm

Greatest Canadian View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Second judge... 172 Unconstitutional

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2 ]

Bookm

15

3354

Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:43 pm

BelSlySTi View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Sec. 172 Upheld

OPS Copper

2

1711

Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:29 am

Radar Identified View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Web Development & Search Engine Optimization
Home | Court Listings | Ontario Traffic Ticket

Copyright 2007 - 2017 © Microtekblue Inc. Web Development & Search Engine Optimization Service. We Support phpBB All Rights Reserved.