Ontario Highway Traffic Act

Radar Identified wrote:Actually, come to think of it, shouldn't it be "Unnecessary Slow Driving, to wit 20 km/h in a 60 km/h zone," to be technically accurate?

short form wordings do not need to be exact as long as it describes the offence as per section charged.

HTA OREG 611 Vehicle Safety Inspections
Schedule 1
1. (1) The body, sheet metal and equipment shall be inspected and tested for conditions hazardous to occupants, pedestrians or vehicles and,
(a) no bumper, fender or mudguard shall have been removed;
(b) each bumper shall be securely mounted;
(d) no bumper, fender, molding or other part shall have ...

Radar Identified wrote:

hwybear wrote:Well, ok, um....well WHAT IF it said "Driving too slowly - to wit 20km/hr in a posted 60km/hr zone"

Well, um in that case it would be an offence that IS known to law.

k...I just wanted to ask a "what if"

there is a list of "set fines" that officers have to follow, along with the "set fine" is a "short form wording" which is pretty much standard, however the officer does not have to use the "short form wording" but 99% of the time it is used.

set fines are listed on the "ontario court of justice" website on set fines.

The important part is that ...

[. Another example would be "speeding 20 km/h in a 60 km/h zone." Well in that case, the act specified was that you were driving under the speed limit - that is not an offence known to law.

Well, ok, um....well WHAT IF it said "Driving too slowly - to wit 20km/hr in a posted 60km/hr zone" HTA 132 and the fine was $85 and totalling $110 ??? :D

this thread is locked

please keep all threads on the one incident to better allow members to respond.

above was cut and past to.....

http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1720.html

copied from locked post

As an example, being charged under OHTA 136 (1) (a) "Stop at Through Highway":

The ticket specifies the offence as "Disobey Stop Sign - Fail to Stop"

1) Where are these official offence descriptions specified?

Ticket states the Contrary To as "Highway Traffic Act, section 136(1)(a)"

2) How do I know the offence ...

My qestions are is there a video or photo of the incident
No
or just the pilots opinion
no
I also believe that there was sufficient space between me and the other vehicle (at least 1 - 2 car lenghts)
vehicles = 4-5m long x 2= 8-10m, 80km/hr = 22m/sec = less than 1 second behind

33m (at 80km/hr = 22m/sec) is how far a vehicle travels before ...

They did this by specifying the stop sign under the By-Law "Intersections" schedule. But it is 60 meters from the nearest intersecting roadway!
The sign must be within 15m of the intersection to be valid.
HTA OREG 615 section 7

Anybody ever seen a stop sign at an already controlled railway crossing??
If the lights, bells. gates are there but ...

where did the photo go? wanted to reference it again...

HTA OREG 615
52. A municipality situated in an area designated by the French Language Services Act is not required to comply with the sign requirements for such areas unless it (Municipality) has passed a by-law under section 14 of that Act.

bpassand wrote:To me, 144 (9) would seem a more appropriate charge...

that section is for intersections controlled by a traffic control signal (traffic lights)

even I think

Mazda wrote:I. This means that I NEVER pass straight through the intersection. So how can I possibly run a red light?

A vehicle that fails to stop at a red during a turning movement is still "running a red light".....just sayin'

Although there are a couple of judgements saying that the 50 over part of the legislation is unconstitutional, there's now another judgement from a few weeks ago saying that it's ok. Until a decision comes from a high enough court, you'll continue to see prosecutions.

...if it holds at higher it will remain, if not, the gov't will just reword ...