Ontario Highway Traffic Act

I thought $20 was too good to be true.

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.

Just for fun, I've been taking note of rear number plates recently. (Many cars pass me on the highway: I am a boring driver.) It's remarkably consistent -- just about 60 percent have some part of the wording on the plate obscured and the drivers are thus vulnerable to a conviction. I'm not talking about the "dirt" provision -- every driver can be ...

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.

This is encouraging -- a frivolous charge that actually had a positive outcome! Plenderzoosh, you've made my day.

Why, thankee kindly, RI. I backed off for health reasons: thinking about that damnable 172 was making me sick (as it will anybody who has respect for the rule of law), and reading about it every day was just too much. So why am I here again? I'm not sure... Masochism? The considerable value of so much else on this site? The laughs we sometimes have ...

Now that's funny!

We've run into this one on this board before. Your not being aware of the law is, unfortunately for you, irrelevant. It's there, and it is used, and you're not the first Ontario motorist to be charged for not moving more than one lane to the left, regardless of the wording (and the intention) of the law. That you could not move over two lanes and ...

I ain't no English professor (hehe), but I believe the " By " being on the left of the comma restricts subsections i to iv to "[C]" only. If the " By " had been on the right of the comma, [A], AND [C] would have been associated to subsections i to iv.

I think it could be argued that the officer's conduct would fall under .

Well, I am a former ...

I'll be interested to know how this one turns out, justme123, because I had exactly the same thing happen to me years ago, in Dundas, Ont. Car in front of me stopped on the crosswalk, I stopped behind it, just short of the stop line, then proceeded, without stopping again, when the way was clear. I'd seen the parked police car and when he pulled ...

Just stay below 49km/h over the limit and you'll get to work just fine.

If only that were true, I'd support 172 myself. But it is not true. There is an astounding number of sloppily conceived definitions of what 172 calls "Stunt Driving" hiding under the deliberately misleading "Street Racing" title, any of which leads to instant, brutally ...

If your feelin' confident.... GET CHARGED!! ;)

That would be an impressive way to demonstrate your conviction (in more ways than one), but unnecessary. You're a citizen of Canada, the law applies to you, the law is an assault on you, and there's no other effective way to challenge it. Kvetching in an online forum, even as admirable a one as this ...

I see the OPP is getting rid of the American-style cowboy hats and going back to the uniform cap. Seems to me a good thing, to return to the more professional, "official-looking" headgear, but what do I know? I'd be interested, as always, to hear the Bear's views from his side of the badge.

The OPP's version of the American-style hats always ...

All true, but the folks who make their money selling radar units nevertheless must have heaved a small sigh of relief, to see their gadgets vindicated in court. The Taser people will be envious.

Good! The charge sounded pretty fishy from the beginning.