Hi folks, I have not been charged under the HTA but I'm hoping to improve my understanding here, if possible. As various news outlets have been sharing with the public, there are new changes to Section 172 of the HTA and Regulation 455/07, dealing with the exact vehicle operations that are deemed to be "stunts" and also dealing with the places where those operations are prohibited and punishable. I have the following questions, which I don't know who to turn to for an answer, perhaps my MPP...but here they are: 1. It is my understanding that historically, prior to the new changes effective 2021-09-12, the Highway Traffic Act has only been applicable to (enforceable on) "highways", those being not-privately-owned thoroughfares for motor vehicles, and also including privately owned ones where the owners have made agreements with whatever appropriate authority (e.g. 407). Accordingly, as an example, my local grocery store parking lot would be a place where the HTA would not apply, and the HTA could not be enforced against such things as teaching a non-G1-holding teenager how to operate a vehicle, or doing donuts in the snow. Is this understanding, specifically as it relates to the HTA, correct or incorrect? 2. It is my understanding from reading the changes, specifically Reg. 455/07, s. 5 (6), that the Stunt-specific provisions of the HTA are (effective 2021-09-12) now applicable to any private property "parking lot" if it is accessible from a highway (in normal speak, road). Example: it would be valid for the police to charge a driver with stunting for doing donuts in the snow of a grocery store parking lot (455/07 S. 3 (3)) Is this understanding correct or incorrect? 3. If #1 is correct, and #2 is also correct, is there a more advanced or public-consulted legal process that should have taken place before changing the scope of the HTA so dramatically? What recourse does the public have if dissatisfied with this change? 4. If #1 is correct and #2 is also correct, does this have any wider-reaching implications across the rest of the HTA, where you could for example be charged with Failure to Yield at an intersection wholly contained within a grocery store parking lot? Looking forward to any insight that is available. Obviously it is understood that I'm not literally speaking to the writers of the HTA and anything given is an interpretation, not authoritative, unless qualified as being so. Thanks!
Hi folks,
I have not been charged under the HTA but I'm hoping to improve my understanding here, if possible.
As various news outlets have been sharing with the public, there are new changes to Section 172 of the HTA and Regulation 455/07, dealing with the exact vehicle operations that are deemed to be "stunts" and also dealing with the places where those operations are prohibited and punishable.
I have the following questions, which I don't know who to turn to for an answer, perhaps my MPP...but here they are:
1. It is my understanding that historically, prior to the new changes effective 2021-09-12, the Highway Traffic Act has only been applicable to (enforceable on) "highways", those being not-privately-owned thoroughfares for motor vehicles, and also including privately owned ones where the owners have made agreements with whatever appropriate authority (e.g. 407). Accordingly, as an example, my local grocery store parking lot would be a place where the HTA would not apply, and the HTA could not be enforced against such things as teaching a non-G1-holding teenager how to operate a vehicle, or doing donuts in the snow.
Is this understanding, specifically as it relates to the HTA, correct or incorrect?
2. It is my understanding from reading the changes, specifically Reg. 455/07, s. 5 (6), that the Stunt-specific provisions of the HTA are (effective 2021-09-12) now applicable to any private property "parking lot" if it is accessible from a highway (in normal speak, road). Example: it would be valid for the police to charge a driver with stunting for doing donuts in the snow of a grocery store parking lot (455/07 S. 3 (3))
Is this understanding correct or incorrect?
3. If #1 is correct, and #2 is also correct, is there a more advanced or public-consulted legal process that should have taken place before changing the scope of the HTA so dramatically? What recourse does the public have if dissatisfied with this change?
4. If #1 is correct and #2 is also correct, does this have any wider-reaching implications across the rest of the HTA, where you could for example be charged with Failure to Yield at an intersection wholly contained within a grocery store parking lot?
Looking forward to any insight that is available. Obviously it is understood that I'm not literally speaking to the writers of the HTA and anything given is an interpretation, not authoritative, unless qualified as being so.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
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…
