so i saw a cop with a radar looking at incoming traffic and i decided to warn the incoming traffic of the cop and starting flashing my headlights and suddenly i see another cop on my side of the road telling me to pull over. He tells me that he knows what i was doing and that is considered an "improper use of headlights" and carries a $110 ticket but he let me go after i said i was sorry. Seems to me that he was just trying to scare me and there is no such law. Can anybody confirm this? i would love to actually see where this rule is in the traffic act
so i saw a cop with a radar looking at incoming traffic and i decided to warn the incoming traffic of the cop and starting flashing my headlights and suddenly i see another cop on my side of the road telling me to pull over. He tells me that he knows what i was doing and that is considered an "improper use of headlights" and carries a $110 ticket but he let me go after i said i was sorry.
Seems to me that he was just trying to scare me and there is no such law. Can anybody confirm this? i would love to actually see where this rule is in the traffic act
There is nothing illegal about flashing people to warn them about radar traps. This happened to Brad Diamond of Motoring on TSN, Jim Kenzie wrote about it. The officer was just trying to scare you.
There is nothing illegal about flashing people to warn them about radar traps. This happened to Brad Diamond of Motoring on TSN, Jim Kenzie wrote about it. The officer was just trying to scare you.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
I wonder if they could also use something like impeding the work of an officer or obstruction of justice :) I know some states like MD have a law that prohibits flashing headlights.
I wonder if they could also use something like impeding the work of an officer or obstruction of justice
I know some states like MD have a law that prohibits flashing headlights.
Some officers will mistakenly charge you for producing "alternating flashes of light," which is reserved for emergency vehicles. I don't know of any law prohibiting such an action during the day, but it is illegal in conditions where headlights are required - can't use high beams within 150 m of oncoming traffic.
Some officers will mistakenly charge you for producing "alternating flashes of light," which is reserved for emergency vehicles.
I don't know of any law prohibiting such an action during the day, but it is illegal in conditions where headlights are required - can't use high beams within 150 m of oncoming traffic.
ahhh excellent, thanks Reflections for anybody interested in reading what Reflections is talking about, read this: http://www.wheels.ca/Article/Category/article/167046
That was a great read. :lol: I really like this place and I think I'm going to stick around. I've learned a lot, not just about my own ticket issue, in the past few days I've been here.
That was a great read.
I really like this place and I think I'm going to stick around. I've learned a lot, not just about my own ticket issue, in the past few days I've been here.
I remember reading about one of these cases that had actually made it to court. The defense argued, successfully, that the accused was attempting to prevent the commission of an offense.
I remember reading about one of these cases that had actually made it to court. The defense argued, successfully, that the accused was attempting to prevent the commission of an offense.
I thought that the "offense" would be criminal, not just OHTA related? Just my take on "offense".
Proper1 wrote:
I remember reading about one of these cases that had actually made it to court. The defense argued, successfully, that the accused was attempting to prevent the commission of an offense.
I thought that the "offense" would be criminal, not just OHTA related? Just my take on "offense".
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
No, the OHTA goes on about how anybody violating one of its many provisions "is guilty of an offence" (and please pardon my misspelling). Unfortunately, I can't now cite whatever it was that I read. The principle, though, sounds reasonable to me.
No, the OHTA goes on about how anybody violating one of its many provisions "is guilty of an offence" (and please pardon my misspelling). Unfortunately, I can't now cite whatever it was that I read. The principle, though, sounds reasonable to me.
Do you remember what the charge was? I wonder if anyone has actually lost a court case for this under an "alternating lights" charge. Would that set a precedent for this alternate (ha ha, pun) interpretation? To me, that section prohibits flashing highbeams where the beam alternates between the left and right lamps (i.e., left on, right off > left off, right on > repeat). Otherwise, simply stating "No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce flashes of white light" seems to be sufficient, without specifying "alternating".
Do you remember what the charge was? I wonder if anyone has actually lost a court case for this under an "alternating lights" charge. Would that set a precedent for this alternate (ha ha, pun) interpretation?
To me, that section prohibits flashing highbeams where the beam alternates between the left and right lamps (i.e., left on, right off > left off, right on > repeat). Otherwise, simply stating "No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce flashes of white light" seems to be sufficient, without specifying "alternating".
Otherwise, simply stating "No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce flashes of white light" seems to be sufficient, without specifying "alternating".
that offence has to be when "lights are required"
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
:? The full subsection reads: "No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 169 (2)." Vehicles referred to in (1) are "a public utility emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency and by an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1)." No mention of "when headlights are required," although subsection (1) does say "despite [section which does only apply when lamps are required]". However, since (1) is the subsection allowing a certain action, I take subsection (2) to apply at all times. What isn't clear is what the heck "alternating" means (between sides, or between on/off?).
The full subsection reads: "No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subsection (1). R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 169 (2)."
Vehicles referred to in (1) are "a public utility emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency and by an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1)."
No mention of "when headlights are required," although subsection (1) does say "despite [section which does only apply when lamps are required]". However, since (1) is the subsection allowing a certain action, I take subsection (2) to apply at all times. What isn't clear is what the heck "alternating" means (between sides, or between on/off?).
If the headlights are cycling such that, at any given time, one headlight is on when the other is off, they would be alternating. Only emergency vehicles can legally do this. Turning your lights on and off, or toggling your highbeam switch, is NOT alternating as both bulbs are either on or off at all times.
Squishy wrote:
What isn't clear is what the heck "alternating" means (between sides, or between on/off?).
If the headlights are cycling such that, at any given time, one headlight is on when the other is off, they would be alternating. Only emergency vehicles can legally do this.
Turning your lights on and off, or toggling your highbeam switch, is NOT alternating as both bulbs are either on or off at all times.
i lost my license in an accident i had to due my exceeding amount of demerit points. i went to jail and made bail i was put on a curfew of 9am to 9pm stupidly enough i did not follow and i got pulled over for driving with a different cars license plates, no insurance, and violating my curfew... i…
I was charged for disobey sign (no left turn) in a winter noon time around Bay/Edward (the prosecutor/judge said it to be a Absolute liability offences but disobey sign is actually a strict liability offence, right? And I found this: For example, if you made an illegal left-turn where there were…
so got fined with 69km in a 50km, at bottom of hill...didn't even have foot on the gas. first ticket ever in over 10 years of driving. fine was 62$ and 3 points.
cop says take to court and get demerit points reduced. didn't even let me speak and walks away.
On my way to work today I got a 110 dollar ticket + 2 demerit points.
I was driving north on Bathurst and turned left onto a side street into a residential area before hitting the lights at Eglinton and Bathurst. I normally do this to avoid the big line up to turn left onto Eglinton.
On the 400 extension EB towards Barrie cops like to hide out under an over pass that is Ski Trails Rd. They tag people as the come over the crest of the hill and that is 900m from where this officer was standing.
I'm confused because I knew this, saw the cop, and checked my…
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of…
Today i got caught doing 115 in a 90 at Mayfield and 410 and what I have been reading is that this offence is 3 points. Seeing this is my first offence I'm unsure if the ticket is supposed to I lost 3 points or is that just automatic. Also should I go to fight it to drop the points and just pay the…
I was (recently) involved in a traffic accident where, due to icy road conditions, I slid into oncoming traffic while making a right turn, while they were coming towards me and stopping at a stop sign. This was a residential area and there's no way I was exceeding anything over 20KM/h on…