Does anyone have an opinion why HTA #75 (1) seems to be never used against motorcyclists (the vast majority are harleys) that have obvious exhaust modifications for the purpose of emitting great amounts of noise. The act says "Every motor vehicle........shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise..........and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle ......... R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1)." They flout this one too, without penalty - #75 (4) - "A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not .......cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise." Why do the police totally take a "hands off" approach with this increasing blight on our roads? I wouldn't get away with this if I removed the mufflers from my Corvette or the family car. I've asked both city and OPP cops the above questions on a few occasions and never get an answer that means anything. They usually waffle with some lame excuses.
Does anyone have an opinion why HTA #75 (1) seems to be never used against motorcyclists (the vast majority are harleys) that have obvious exhaust modifications for the purpose of emitting great amounts of noise. The act says "Every motor vehicle........shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise..........and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle ......... R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1)."
They flout this one too, without penalty - #75 (4) - "A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not .......cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise."
Why do the police totally take a "hands off" approach with this increasing blight on our roads? I wouldn't get away with this if I removed the mufflers from my Corvette or the family car.
I've asked both city and OPP cops the above questions on a few occasions and never get an answer that means anything. They usually waffle with some lame excuses.
The answer is because most officers (at least in my experience) don't know how to properly inspect a bike's muffler to determine if it is improper and they need to do something more than just say it was loud in order to get a conviction for improper muffler. Even for unnecessary noise, something more that just "loud" is usually needed because the noise must be "unnecessary" and it's too easy for the defendant to just get up there and say, "My bike may be loud but that's the way it came when I bought it and therefore the noise it produces is necessary." That being said, I think personally that both of these sections can and should be enforced more rigorously against both MCs and cars that disturb the peace and quiet of others.
The answer is because most officers (at least in my experience) don't know how to properly inspect a bike's muffler to determine if it is improper and they need to do something more than just say it was loud in order to get a conviction for improper muffler.
Even for unnecessary noise, something more that just "loud" is usually needed because the noise must be "unnecessary" and it's too easy for the defendant to just get up there and say, "My bike may be loud but that's the way it came when I bought it and therefore the noise it produces is necessary."
That being said, I think personally that both of these sections can and should be enforced more rigorously against both MCs and cars that disturb the peace and quiet of others.
Is it not possible for them to issue an order for a safety inspection where the exhaust could be certified by an expert for its originality of OEM?
Simon Borys wrote:
The answer is because most officers (at least in my experience) don't know how to properly inspect a bike's muffler to determine if it is improper and they need to do something more than just say it was loud in order to get a conviction for improper muffler.
Is it not possible for them to issue an order for a safety inspection where the exhaust could be certified by an expert for its originality of OEM?
There is a form that officers can use (a Vehicle Defect Report Notice) to compel people to attend at a designated time and place for a detailed inspection by an officer or to attend a mechanics for a full safety, but that still doesn't address the issue of an improper muffler unless the person doing the inspection knows that they're looking for. And what they need to look for is not just that it's not factory, since a person could easily have an aftermarket exhaust that is factory but illegal. And of course not every aftermarket exhaust is illegal, so the inspector can't just look for a non-factory exhaust either.
There is a form that officers can use (a Vehicle Defect Report Notice) to compel people to attend at a designated time and place for a detailed inspection by an officer or to attend a mechanics for a full safety, but that still doesn't address the issue of an improper muffler unless the person doing the inspection knows that they're looking for. And what they need to look for is not just that it's not factory, since a person could easily have an aftermarket exhaust that is factory but illegal. And of course not every aftermarket exhaust is illegal, so the inspector can't just look for a non-factory exhaust either.
This is probably why Caledon has gone with the decibel limit bylaw. Maybe the HTA needs an update if their current law is hard (impossible?) to enforce.
Simon Borys wrote:
There is a form that officers can use (a Vehicle Defect Report Notice) to compel people to attend at a designated time and place for a detailed inspection by an officer or to attend a mechanics for a full safety, but that still doesn't address the issue of an improper muffler unless the person doing the inspection knows that they're looking for. And what they need to look for is not just that it's not factory, since a person could easily have an aftermarket exhaust that is factory but illegal. And of course not every aftermarket exhaust is illegal, so the inspector can't just look for a non-factory exhaust either.
This is probably why Caledon has gone with the decibel limit bylaw. Maybe the HTA needs an update if their current law is hard (impossible?) to enforce.
According to the HTA it's anything that emits "excessive or unusual noise" (their words). I can't see why a cop can't give evidence in court and say "Your Honor, in my opinion the m/c in question made excessive noise". That's much like the window tint law isn't? That one doesn't state an allowable light transmission number but states "No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the drivers seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle." Surely all the cop has to say in court is "IMO my view of the vehicle interior was substantially obscured". How can any defense lawyer argue that it wasn't? Same with excessive noise. What say you Simon?
Squishy wrote:
So what would make one illegal? A muffler that you can see straight through?
According to the HTA it's anything that emits "excessive or unusual noise" (their words).
I can't see why a cop can't give evidence in court and say "Your Honor, in my opinion the m/c in question made excessive noise". That's much like the window tint law isn't? That one doesn't state an allowable light transmission number but states "No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the drivers seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle."
Surely all the cop has to say in court is "IMO my view of the vehicle interior was substantially obscured". How can any defense lawyer argue that it wasn't? Same with excessive noise.
With respect to noise, I agree that the best way is to measure the noise and compare it to a legal decibel limit. However this requires specialized equipment not readily available to all law enforcement officers. Therefore, police must articulate HOW the noise was excessive. This is really no different than articulating anything else in relation to a charge: how a turn was unsafe, how a lane change was unsafe, how driving was careless, how a view was obstructed, etc. Officers use common sense, comparisons to other similar situations, and other evidence. For example, an officer could articulate an excessively loud muffler by saying: "Your honour I was driving with my window down and in moderate traffic when my attention was drawn to the sound of one particular vehicle, which I could hear well above the noise of the other traffic and the radio in my car. I observed the vehicle which was emanating the noise pass me and I followed it for a short distance, confirming it was the vehicle I had heard. While following it I could continuously hear the noise it produced over any other vehicles. The vehicle was 2002 Sunfire, a vehicle I have encountered before on traffic stops and in my daily life and the noise from this particular Sunfire was far above what I have normally heard from other similar vehicles." With respect to an improper muffler ticket, s. 75 of the HTA specifically references "unusual noise and excessive smoke" and "cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted mufflers", so usually those are the things that officers are looking for. The noise/smoke can be articulated as I described above and the gutted muffler can usually be identified by shining a flashlight into the tail pipe and seeing if the you can see through the muffler. Sometimes officers stick their batons in the muffler to measure how far it goes in, but that's creates the possibility that you will damage something and then people can complain. Because of the length and bends in MC exhaust pipes it's often harder to determine if their gutted or not and I think that's why officers don't enforce mufflers on bikes.
With respect to noise, I agree that the best way is to measure the noise and compare it to a legal decibel limit. However this requires specialized equipment not readily available to all law enforcement officers. Therefore, police must articulate HOW the noise was excessive. This is really no different than articulating anything else in relation to a charge: how a turn was unsafe, how a lane change was unsafe, how driving was careless, how a view was obstructed, etc. Officers use common sense, comparisons to other similar situations, and other evidence.
For example, an officer could articulate an excessively loud muffler by saying: "Your honour I was driving with my window down and in moderate traffic when my attention was drawn to the sound of one particular vehicle, which I could hear well above the noise of the other traffic and the radio in my car. I observed the vehicle which was emanating the noise pass me and I followed it for a short distance, confirming it was the vehicle I had heard. While following it I could continuously hear the noise it produced over any other vehicles. The vehicle was 2002 Sunfire, a vehicle I have encountered before on traffic stops and in my daily life and the noise from this particular Sunfire was far above what I have normally heard from other similar vehicles."
With respect to an improper muffler ticket, s. 75 of the HTA specifically references "unusual noise and excessive smoke" and "cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted mufflers", so usually those are the things that officers are looking for. The noise/smoke can be articulated as I described above and the gutted muffler can usually be identified by shining a flashlight into the tail pipe and seeing if the you can see through the muffler. Sometimes officers stick their batons in the muffler to measure how far it goes in, but that's creates the possibility that you will damage something and then people can complain.
Because of the length and bends in MC exhaust pipes it's often harder to determine if their gutted or not and I think that's why officers don't enforce mufflers on bikes.
The most obvious reason is safety. You hear trucks using their Jake brakes and always look to see what is around. Same with bikes. A rice burner will most likely be gone before you hit,it, but a harley is slower. The noise is for safety. If you were a cop would you like like to argue that? Cheers Viper1
Zozzie wrote:
Does anyone have an opinion why HTA #75 (1) seems to be never used against motorcyclists (the vast majority are harleys) that have obvious exhaust modifications for the purpose of emitting great amounts of noise. The act says "Every motor vehicle........shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise..........and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle ......... R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1)."
They flout this one too, without penalty - #75 (4) - "A person having the control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not .......cause the motor vehicle to make any unnecessary noise."
Why do the police totally take a "hands off" approach with this increasing blight on our roads? I wouldn't get away with this if I removed the mufflers from my Corvette or the family car.
I've asked both city and OPP cops the above questions on a few occasions and never get an answer that means anything. They usually waffle with some lame excuses.
The most obvious reason is safety.
You hear trucks using their Jake brakes and always look to see what is around.
Same with bikes.
A rice burner will most likely be gone before you hit,it, but a harley is slower.
The noise is for safety.
If you were a cop would you like like to argue that?
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
Ahhh then I should wire up a truck air horn to the ignition switch in my car? Everyone deserves to be safe so then we should all do it? Turn key on - air horn starts blaring. No more collisions! That's an excellent idea Viper. Actually it's DEFENSIVE DRIVING that prevents collisions not noise bullying everyone out of the way. Viper, I ride a bicycle thousands of miles per year and I have no tin box to insulate me and no radio to muffle noise like a car does. Trust me on this - I can't hear loud harleys coming from behind or from the front as their wall of noise does not precede them - it trails them. I hear them when they have gone by. Stop using that worn out and totally incorrect assumption.
viper1 wrote:
The noise is for safety.
Ahhh then I should wire up a truck air horn to the ignition switch in my car? Everyone deserves to be safe so then we should all do it? Turn key on - air horn starts blaring. No more collisions! That's an excellent idea Viper. Actually it's DEFENSIVE DRIVING that prevents collisions not noise bullying everyone out of the way. Viper, I ride a bicycle thousands of miles per year and I have no tin box to insulate me and no radio to muffle noise like a car does. Trust me on this - I can't hear loud harleys coming from behind or from the front as their wall of noise does not precede them - it trails them. I hear them when they have gone by. Stop using that worn out and totally incorrect assumption.
Agreed. I'd also throw in that for many officers, enforcement time can be limited, so many try to target offences which are considered bigger safety issues, such as speeders, red light runners, etc. A lot of the traffic officers are more apt to enforce this section, due to both a greater understanding of the act and more time for enforcement.
Simon Borys wrote:
The answer is because most officers (at least in my experience) don't know how to properly inspect a bike's muffler to determine if it is improper and they need to do something more than just say it was loud in order to get a conviction for improper muffler.
Agreed. I'd also throw in that for many officers, enforcement time can be limited, so many try to target offences which are considered bigger safety issues, such as speeders, red light runners, etc.
A lot of the traffic officers are more apt to enforce this section, due to both a greater understanding of the act and more time for enforcement.
Absolutely....I drove the Harley at work with factory muffler and my own MC with regular factory muffler. Even after long days my ears are "ringing" a little from the noise, I can't imagine the hearing loss are more ringing on those things and think we mentioned it before somewhere on here...if the noise was transmitted "forward" I would agree it is for safety and to alert drivers. persons in a forward direction, but that is not the case. The noise is transmitted backwards, just like a jet for example, airshow don't hear those fighter jets, until they are by you. Now take a cruiser siren, mounted forward, it only is effective on a moving vehicle ahead/same direction about 3 car lengths, approaching doesn't even hear it. Only people that sirens really help is for pedestrians and vehicles at a standstill, provided they don't have their music cranked or loud muffler :wink:
viper1 wrote:
[
The most obvious reason is safety.
You hear trucks using their Jake brakes and always look to see what is around.
Same with bikes.
A rice burner will most likely be gone before you hit,it, but a harley is slower.
The noise is for safety.
If you were a cop would you like like to argue that?
Cheers
Viper1
Absolutely....I drove the Harley at work with factory muffler and my own MC with regular factory muffler. Even after long days my ears are "ringing" a little from the noise, I can't imagine the hearing loss are more ringing on those things
and think we mentioned it before somewhere on here...if the noise was transmitted "forward" I would agree it is for safety and to alert drivers. persons in a forward direction, but that is not the case. The noise is transmitted backwards, just like a jet for example, airshow don't hear those fighter jets, until they are by you. Now take a cruiser siren, mounted forward, it only is effective on a moving vehicle ahead/same direction about 3 car lengths, approaching doesn't even hear it. Only people that sirens really help is for pedestrians and vehicles at a standstill, provided they don't have their music cranked or loud muffler
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Ahhh then I should wire up a truck air horn to the ignition switch in my car? Everyone deserves to be safe so then we should all do it? Turn key on - air horn starts blaring. No more collisions! That's an excellent idea Viper. Actually it's DEFENSIVE DRIVING that prevents collisions not noise bullying everyone out of the way. Viper, I ride a bicycle thousands of miles per year and I have no tin box to insulate me and no radio to muffle noise like a car does. Trust me on this - I can't hear loud harleys coming from behind or from the front as their wall of noise does not precede them - it trails them. I hear them when they have gone by. Stop using that worn out and totally incorrect assumption. I feel bad about your poor hearing Zozzie. Sound travels at at a little over 1200 kps so you should be able to hear from behind. I even hear the cyclists downtown when they ring their bells at cars/peds? To explain:/safety/noise If the 4 wheeler/18 wheeler hears the bike there will be less chance of a collision. If a bike is behind you it will not hit you, so no worries about sound (your bad ears) If the bike is at your same speed you should be able to hear it.(and maybe not cut in front of it) To Hybear I can't imagine 8 hours on a Harley with-out a sore butt and ears. Have a good Day Cheers Viper1
Zozzie wrote:
viper1 wrote:
The noise is for safety.
Ahhh then I should wire up a truck air horn to the ignition switch in my car? Everyone deserves to be safe so then we should all do it? Turn key on - air horn starts blaring. No more collisions! That's an excellent idea Viper. Actually it's DEFENSIVE DRIVING that prevents collisions not noise bullying everyone out of the way. Viper, I ride a bicycle thousands of miles per year and I have no tin box to insulate me and no radio to muffle noise like a car does. Trust me on this - I can't hear loud harleys coming from behind or from the front as their wall of noise does not precede them - it trails them. I hear them when they have gone by. Stop using that worn out and totally incorrect assumption.
I feel bad about your poor hearing Zozzie.
Sound travels at at a little over 1200 kps so you should be able to hear from behind.
I even hear the cyclists downtown when they ring their bells at cars/peds?
To explain:/safety/noise
If the 4 wheeler/18 wheeler hears the bike there will be less chance of a collision.
If a bike is behind you it will not hit you, so no worries about sound (your bad ears)
If the bike is at your same speed you should be able to hear it.(and maybe not cut in front of it)
To Hybear I can't imagine 8 hours on a Harley with-out a sore butt and ears.
Have a good Day
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
Most serious collisions involving motorcycles are where a car driver turned in front of the bike, or they pulled into an intersection in front of it. As hwybear says, the noise has to be aimed forward in order for it to be effective in that case. It's SEEING the motorcycle that makes the difference (try wearing bright clothing if you're a biker). The noise does diddly-squat with oncoming traffic. If sound really was the big difference, why do cars, which have quieter exhaust, have a lower risk of collision than motorcycles with loud exhaust? The noise may stop a few stupid lane changes, but that's about it. Most vehicles these days are designed to reduce passenger compartment noise. That's 1200 km/h, not per second. It's 343.2 metres per second at 20 degrees Celsius. Also, sound waves propagate in the direction they're pointed. An exhaust muffler on a motorcycle is pointed to the rear of it. Anything forward of it will get much weaker waves and you won't hear it as well. With a loud muffler, there should be an actual decibel limit. A conviction based on someone's sole subjective opinion is not acceptable in a free and democratic society, no matter how small the consequences may be.
Most serious collisions involving motorcycles are where a car driver turned in front of the bike, or they pulled into an intersection in front of it. As hwybear says, the noise has to be aimed forward in order for it to be effective in that case. It's SEEING the motorcycle that makes the difference (try wearing bright clothing if you're a biker). The noise does diddly-squat with oncoming traffic. If sound really was the big difference, why do cars, which have quieter exhaust, have a lower risk of collision than motorcycles with loud exhaust? The noise may stop a few stupid lane changes, but that's about it. Most vehicles these days are designed to reduce passenger compartment noise.
viper1 wrote:
Sound travels at at a little over 1200 kps so you should be able to hear from behind.
That's 1200 km/h, not per second. It's 343.2 metres per second at 20 degrees Celsius. Also, sound waves propagate in the direction they're pointed. An exhaust muffler on a motorcycle is pointed to the rear of it. Anything forward of it will get much weaker waves and you won't hear it as well.
Zozzie wrote:
I can't see why a cop can't give evidence in court and say "Your Honor, in my opinion the m/c in question made excessive noise".
With a loud muffler, there should be an actual decibel limit. A conviction based on someone's sole subjective opinion is not acceptable in a free and democratic society, no matter how small the consequences may be.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
I agree that an opinion should not be enough for a conviction, but that doesn't necessarily require a hard set decibel limit. It's like our tint laws - no quantitative limit but you need to articulate why, in that situation, the coating substantially obscured the driver's view or the view of the interior. As far as I know, it's not enough to just say "I felt the windows were too dark, no one needs them that dark." As for mufflers and excessive noise, how about "I observed a m/c in the adjacent lane which, in maintaining a constant speed, generated enough noise to mask the sound of my radio while my window was open. Being the summer season, I had observed five other motorcycles in the same shift, along with several others in shifts prior, none of which made enough noise to interfere with my radio communications, whether the motorcycles were maintaining speed or accelerating. Therefore, I believe that the noise generated by this motorcycle was excessive and unusual." Plausible scenario with no need to identify illegal muffler construction, just that the noise was louder than normal and was loud enough to have an effect.
I agree that an opinion should not be enough for a conviction, but that doesn't necessarily require a hard set decibel limit. It's like our tint laws - no quantitative limit but you need to articulate why, in that situation, the coating substantially obscured the driver's view or the view of the interior. As far as I know, it's not enough to just say "I felt the windows were too dark, no one needs them that dark."
As for mufflers and excessive noise, how about "I observed a m/c in the adjacent lane which, in maintaining a constant speed, generated enough noise to mask the sound of my radio while my window was open. Being the summer season, I had observed five other motorcycles in the same shift, along with several others in shifts prior, none of which made enough noise to interfere with my radio communications, whether the motorcycles were maintaining speed or accelerating. Therefore, I believe that the noise generated by this motorcycle was excessive and unusual."
Plausible scenario with no need to identify illegal muffler construction, just that the noise was louder than normal and was loud enough to have an effect.
Agree and disagree. With respect to tint, the officer saying "I could not see inside the vehicle" is not really a subjective opinion, but an observable fact. As for being "too loud," decibels are measurable and it also would provide auto shops with a metric that they'd have to go by if someone came in and said "my muffler is too loud." However, I don't dispute that the example you came up is also an observable fact - it is actually based on observations as opposed to a subjective opinion.
Agree and disagree.
With respect to tint, the officer saying "I could not see inside the vehicle" is not really a subjective opinion, but an observable fact. As for being "too loud," decibels are measurable and it also would provide auto shops with a metric that they'd have to go by if someone came in and said "my muffler is too loud." However, I don't dispute that the example you came up is also an observable fact - it is actually based on observations as opposed to a subjective opinion.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
So heres my case, does it have any validity? Im argueing that the officer did not have a justified view of where and if my car stopped or not, which it did.
This is the officers view of the stop sign i "disobeyed"
Another possible viewpoint, just so i can say that he cant see regardless
As you can see he cannot see the line where i must stop
As close are possible (which he wasnt) to the intersection,…
I need some help to settle a "Right of Way" argument. I know this question has probably been asked a thousand times before, but after doing a search, I was unable to find a posting on the forum, or the specific section in the OHTA relating to it.
Scenario:
Two cars approach an intersection where the east and westbound directions are controlled by stop signs, and the north and southbound…
I was pulled over for doing 123 in an 80 zone on highway 7 near Peterborough. The officer reduced it to 109 in an 80. It was HIGHLY unlikely that I was going 109, let alone 123, so for the merit of it I am taking this to court. Court case mid January.
Please could you help me to decipher the officer's notes. Are there any errors in the notes or on the ticket that you can see?
Ive already done searches, read the act as best i can but still haven't read a complete answer. Where in the HTA does it state that the front license plate must be attached to the front bumper? I have it on the passenger sun visor (if ppl remember the old temp permits that taped to the pass side of windshield) i figured that this spot would be the same. However now they have got rid of…
Was pulled over earlier today for going 95km/h in posted 60km/h, 2nd offense (same cop that pulled me over the first time >.<) ticket of $265. going down dougall toward cabana where it goes from the 80 to 60 zone (yes was over slightly coming in and kept speed)
Just wondering what the best way to handle this? (location: windsor ontario)
I am a bartender and last saturday night while I was working someone backed into my car (2000 Acura Integra) in the prking lot. One of the cooks in the kitchen ran to tell me my car alarm is going off. Immediately I ran outside to discover my driver side mirror smashed on the ground and my driver door dented. There was nobody around to claim responsibility. I had already begun to suspect one…
Scenario regarding speeding charge - if a charge is not reduced at all at roadside, i.e. the charge, for example is "speeding 75 km/h in a 60 km/h zone contrary to s. 128," should that not mean the prosecution needs to prove that you are guilty of what you are being charged with, and not, simply, of speeding generally? I understand that if they prove a charge of even 61 km/h in a 60 km/h, they…
In a nutshell, in York Region, ran a stale yellow, cop was on a 407 off ramp and tickets me for red light. 2 week old pink slip, I forgot I put the new behind the expired one so I got a ticket for that as well.
Had the first court date adjourned because I did not receive disclosure. I used the Ticketcombat template and faxed it over, they told me I never left a phone number. No surprise there, I…
Was stopped in an OPP speed trap on eastbound QEW near Hamilton at 1:30 AM last week (Apr 25th). Officer said I was doing 131 km/h based on radar gun but I thought I was around 120 km/h (I let off the gas and looked at my speedo when I saw the 2 cars on the shoulder). It was a dark stretch and it was not busy but there were a few other cars on the highway. I asked to see the reading but they said…
1) Discovery info includes 3 pages of Genesis radar manual. Officer's notes show he used "Atlantic Laser" to measure speed. Didn't show model # (only s/n). The Genesis was used earlier on in the day, but not for my case. Can I grill him on this or is it simply a clerk's error in sending me the wrong manual?
I got a ticket for an expired licence sticker. The next day I went to the Ministry office to renew my sticker. I thought that I HAD to pay any outstanding tickets BEFORE I was eligible to renew my sticker. The lady at the desk informed me that I had an outstanding balance and 407 bill that I had a to pay and I told her that I was aware of that. I thought everything was cleared.
Last week I was driving though downtown and because of the slippery / wet conditions could not stop when the light was turning yellow to red and slid in to the intersection. I was hit by another car (near the headlamp). None of us were injured, there was significat damge to the cars. The air bags did not deploy.
I was given a ticket that reads : Red Light - fail to stop - H.T.A sect 144 (18) Fine…
I was just wondering if there was any text in the HTA that suggests that when driving on a highway with three lanes going in each direction, drivers should generally always be in the rightmost lane unless they are passing.
At first, I thought 154(b) was what I was looking for, but now I'm not so sure?
"Officials in West Vancouver, Canada apparently aren't satisfied with the driver-slowing properties of traditional speed bumps. Yesterday, the town unveiled a new way to entice motorists to ease off the gas pedal in the vicinity of the ÃÂcole Pauline Johnson Elementary School: A 2-D image of a child playing, creating the illusion that…
Does anybody know how you can check the status of your Demerit Points and how many you have collected over the last two years?
I just received a ticket as I was travelling through Barrie and am debating whether or not to fight it. My decision will be based on whether or not an infraction I received a year ago came with Demerit Points.
I have a question I would like to ask concerning turning right on a red light.
I was approaching on the right turn only lane to the traffic light which turned from amber to red. As soon as the red light came on, there were advance green left turn arrow for the intersection I was for the cars that were traveling right to left and left to right of me. Since there was a lot of traffic from where I…
So I got pulled over for speeding and following too close, on HWY 11 north of Barrie. The airplane caught me! I will fight this as I have fought ALL my tickets and won EVERY ONE of them (one per year... man I need to drive slower). So any thoughts out there on how to fight this one? Does the Crown have to bring the 2 officers in the plane, plus the one in the cruises to court? If 1 in 3 doesn't…
I am new to this forum and before making this post I did some digging and was unable to find anything on this method of officer note taking.
A little back ground of my case:
charged with 25km/h over the posted limit.
After numerous disclosure requests, finally received a detailed disclosure including several pages of the lidar manual and typed officer notes describing the events of my…
My wife was just pulled over for running a yellow light and instead was ticketed for an expired drivers licence. The license expired on her birthdate 4 months ago and she didn;t recieve a renewal. $325 !!!!!!
Hope someone can help. She was ticketed under HTA 32 (1) with the offense shown as
"Drive Motor Vehicle no license"
Can anyone tell me if this is worth the effort to get a reduction in the…
So I got pulled over for supposedly for running a stop sign. The problem is that I did a complete stop, waited a split second and started again. And yes I did stop behind the white line.
He took my information and went back to his car to write me up a ticket, came back and gave me my fine and explained to me the process. He gave me a reduced fine (65$ and ne points).
Someone has an accident in a car worth very little on highway 401 but the car is not drivable (but not in terrible shape), there is a police report filed right away in which no other cars were involved, however the car did strike a guardrail. Is it possible to handle this without involving insurance? Or is a forgone conclusion insurance will be notified by the police?
I made a minor mistake on my disclosure request - I put a "Request Date" of September 10, 2014 instead of 2015. The rest of the form is correct including offense date, fax date, trial date.
Will this affect my disclosure? Do I need to clear it up?
Also, I noticed the Ticket Combat disclosure form has a lot more information than what was posted in on this site. Is it OK to send a second…
