Ontario Highway Traffic Act

- Received Disclosure to see if dumbass stepson was honest with me.

Was he?

Yes... except for one major detail. He told me the rangers said they weren't going to lay any charges; that they would just take the beer (plain view in open tent). So he felt there was no harm in accepting ownership. It has since been disclosed that the rangers said ...

Charge:

Have alcohol on Provincial Campsite when not permitted (a long weekend).

- Received Disclosure to see if dumbass stepson was honest with me.
- Clause in Disclosure states that "out of court" charge of $125 will be increased to "actual" charge of $250 if brought to trial.

What the heck is THAT all about. Is this just more Crown scare ...

My rule is, if I want to live I hang way back (unless preparing to pass... or "nerving" someone!). I like to think that the car in front could come to an immediate stop... ie: if he ran into the back of a stationary truck.

I cursed the day the roads filled up with minivans. It became very difficult to see through them to judge traffic in front ...

This forum is the only one I know where both sides of the coin can express their opinions in a mature fashion. Over the past couple years, I have had the unexpected pleasure of butting heads with two devoted traffic cops. One I visit a couple times a year and spend quality time with the wives. He lambastes me in a lighthearted way, and I bellyache ...

... maybe I'll just shut my big mouth! LOL

All right, I'll order your darn book. I've read a bunch of other forum threads on it (even ones you haven't found yet, hehe) and the general consensus is that folks are quite happy someone has finally compiled the necessary information to help educate the general public on this subject.

Besides, I'm sure ...

I'll autograph one of your books if you give me a free one, LOL

BTW... coming up on 3 years ticket-free!! (pats self on back)

I remember reading this article back in the early 80's. Of course I would never run from the cops, but I always wanted to build a similar "theme" car. It's just "too cool"!
http://www3.sympatico.ca/sean.kathy/Firefoxx.pdf

Ya but..... I kinda' wanted to display it permanently as a throw-back to the early seventies (would suit my '73 GTO) the way fuzzy dice suit some 50's cars. I'll see if the in'ards can be gently removed sometime. For now, it's just a conversation piece on my office shelf.

The silly thing is, it is an "X-band only" receiver. From what I've read at ...

I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.

Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police ...

VERY IMPORTANT: The speed posted on a yellow sign is a suggested speed only and is not the "maximum".

See SIGNS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 615:
(clicky) http://canlii.org/on/laws/regu/1990r.61 ... e.html#BK0

Several years ago, my buddy and I were towing home my latest project, a 1965 Comet. Well the rope kept breaking and it was getting dark, so I decided to drive it the remaining mile or so. Well I got busted just a couple blocks from my house:
1) No Insurance
2) Invalid Plates

I went to court as per the summons. I explained to the JP that, at that ...

Cosine error is not restricted to the horizontal plain. There is a vertical cosine error also. So of course a crown in the road can eliminate the vertical cosine error (the cruiser can be level with the plain of travel of the targeted vehicle). Combine a crown in the road with a curve and, whalla!... no cosine error. Pop-up cop holes not necessary

Common geographical features such as a crown in the road or a bend in the road could quite easily exclude the cosine factor from the equation. Of course we have no idea of the topography in this case, but I doubt the officer will remember it either, 6 months down the road ;)

The benefit of the doubt should always favor the defendant.

http ...

Tager's boyfriend had his car impounded because the officers speed equipment displayed 51kph over the limit. I doubt ANY manufacturers manual will claim to be more accurate than 2kph (as per the Pro Laser III manual) so it's quite possible he was doing 49kph over the limit. So, sure, he should have received a hefty fine, but not the extreme ...

The entire thread can be seen here:
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how-beat-your-ticket/3988-anyone-have-pro-laser-iii-manual.html
But ever mind that... Here's something better!

I have a pdf copy of the ProLaser III Manual. It clearly indicates a speed reading tolerance of +/- 2 kph. It's quite possible this guy should not have been impounded ...

No, I didn't mean the cosine effect.

There is SWEEP to consider. The light beam is invisible, so the officer can't truthfully testify he knows EXACTLY what part of the car was hit. Someone worked out the math for a typical car getting "hit" over the length of his hood:

SWEEP in the operators manuals....To force the gun to obtain a reading ...