Since it's hockey season...

Moderators: Reflections, admin, hwybear, Radar Identified, Decatur, bend

User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Since it's hockey season...

Unread post by Radar Identified on



lawmen
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 256
Joined:
Location: Planet X

Unread post by lawmen on

Funny story.

It claims a New Jersey driver had his charged dismissed because a Zamboni isn't a motor vehicle. Under our Criminal Code, however, it meets the definition of a motor vehicle. Section 253 is not restricted to highways, either. Therefore, this is a valid charge and I'm betting she'll be convicted.

But since impaired operation of a motor vehicle isn't restricted to highways, could an operator of a radio controlled car, boat or helicopter who causes an accident, and possibility an injury to another person, be charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle?
Without Justice there's JUST US


User avatar
Proper1
Member
Member
Posts: 109
Joined:
Location: Caledonia, Ontario

Unread post by Proper1 on

lawmen wrote:...since impaired operation of a motor vehicle isn't restricted to highways, could an operator of a radio controlled car, boat or helicopter who causes an accident, and possibility an injury to another person, be charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle?
I'd think such a charge would be possible. The criminal code is careful to talk about the "seat or position," as in "where it is proved that the accused occupied the seat or position ordinarily occupied by a person who operates a motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft or any railway equipment or who assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment, the accused shall be deemed to have had the care or control of the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, as the case may be." Someone manipulating a radio-control box is in position to run the thing.

I once actually saw a radio-controlled model airplane being flown on airport property zoom up and nail the wing of a sailplane coming in to land. Extensive damage to sailplane, model airplane totalled, no injuries, angry pilot. That was in Colorado and I don't know the outcome of the legal case, if there was one, but I've always thought that radiohead had "care and control of a motor vehicle."

There acouple of interesting instances, one Canadian, at http://lawiscool.com/tag/definition-of-motor-vehicle/

Or is there something in the OHTA or the CC of C that restricts the definition of "motor vehicle" to a device that contains or supports a person?
Last edited by Proper1 on Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
racer
VIP
VIP
Posts: 959
Joined:
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Contact:

Unread post by racer on

Does that mean I can bike home from a bar? Sweet :lol: !
"The more laws, the less justice" - Marcus Tullius Cicero
"The hardest thing to explain is the obvious"

www.OHTA.ca & www.OntarioHighwayTrafficAct.com


User avatar
Bookm
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 632
Joined:
Location: Stratford, Ontario

Unread post by Bookm on



User avatar
Radar Identified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2881
Joined:
Location: Toronto

Moderator

Unread post by Radar Identified on

I once actually saw a radio-controlled model airplane being flown on airport property zoom up and nail the wing of a sailplane coming in to land. Extensive damage to sailplane, model airplane totalled, no injuries, angry pilot. That was in Colorado and I don't know the outcome of the legal case, if there was one, but I've always thought that radiohead had "care and control of a motor vehicle."
The person operating the radio-controlled airplane would be responsible for numerous violations under the US Federal Aviation Regulations (otherwise referred to as 14 CFR). The sailplane is covered under those regs and creating a hazard to its flight is a serious offence. The operator of the model airplane was obligated to keep it out of the path of aircraft using the airport.

In Canada, radio-controlled aircraft/helicopters are covered under the Aeronautics Act. If they're less than 35 kgs, they're "model" aircraft and most of the regs don't apply to them, but you still have to operate them in a safe and responsible manner... including avoiding operating them while impaired. So yes, to answer lawmen's question, you could get nailed. Not sure about other radio-controlled things.






Post Reply

Return to “General Talk”