Search found 2576 matches

Proper loading
111(2) No person shall operate upon a highway a motor vehicle that carries a load or draws a vehicle that carries a load unless the load is loaded, bound, secured, contained or covered so that no portion of the load may become dislodged or fall, leak, spill or blow from the vehicle.

plus this...

ONTARIO REGULATION 363/04 ...

racer wrote: So I say don't ban fast food. Tax it to death!

Then use that tax to build more recreational facilities (pools, gyms, arenas, courts etc..) to get the obese people away from computers ( doh!! ), gaming and doing some exercise of something.

So basiclly he was just abusing his power but it didn't work this time.
Congratulations on your win.

Abuse of power no, lack of evidence = yes.

I will guess since you said there was no radar, that the officer forgot to have the cruiser checked on radar to ensure the speedometer was accurate. This would also require the 2nd officer in court ...

tdrive1.....agree with everything you said.....almost :wink: except that any day you can travel thru Toronto at 100.....I have never been able to do that.....always hit some traffic jam :D

think that the items we all keep alluring back to is unsafe driving habits (left lane hogs, signalling, lane changes, follow too close etc...). The unsafe ...

Thanks again bookm and racer for being human. obviously it would have taken hwybear two hours to get to the scene also.

I take that is a polite "your an ass"......I never try to discourage anyone's thoughts/feelings on here.....just try to show a different angle/perspective what an officer might go through coming upon situations and sometimes ...

BTW.....with the HANS devise, I've seen plenty of race cars PLANT at over 200MPH and the organs are fine as are the drivers....obviously there's a big difference in how folks are strapped in road cars versus race cars, but the body can withstand plenty and this 130 fatal zone is another wank
.....not that race cars are designed for not only speed ...

If a spotlight is not turned on there is no offence of any kind.
Something like a JEEP or pickups with the rollbar full of lights.....no offence unless the lights are on while on a highway. Most transports have 2 spotlights

Tint...any vehicle can have tint on the sides, behind the driver seat there is no limit to darkness.

also request a copy of the radar manual

heard a story, not sure how true it is......defendant brings in copy of manual to ask questions, prosecutor asks for recess, and officer then brings his copy up onto the stand......defendant asked questions from manual, officer just looked up answers from the manual. Certainly makes the manual thing a ...

Sure you can school and tell people and make new laws. But they won't listen. They wont care. They wont take it serious.
So they don't care they drive faster, so is everyone else. They also know most cops look for those over 120. They know its to low, so do most officers.

20 over issue......it isn't what you perceive......many of us have a ...

Thats my problem also with 172, 172 is mandatory court date. Every ticket an officer gives for 150 + is a day in court with extra pay..

Not true either at least in my area. I rarely have court on a day off, this is to prevent OT. I know every time I work during a weekday I will be having court of some kind (traffic or criminal).

If I summons ...

liveontheedge wrote:The ticket for no sticker can be dropped as soon as you show the proof of sticker purchase

Negative, a purchase does NOT bring the vehicle into compliance....the 2 stickers must be AFFIXED in the proper place.

well....I passed one marked cruiser first....he was just idliing on the shoulder....then about a km down the road there was another marked cruiser with his cherries lit and had a civilian car pulled overs

first one could have been finishing notes OR waiting for someone that called in an aggressive driver etc.....2nd one could even be a disabled ...

tdrive2 wrote:Cops should need to show proof with the radar detector

Police do not use "radar detectors"

10 months???

unless there is a violation at an intersection there does not have to be 2 roads listed on a ticket. Often a cross road is listed for info only as a cross reference where an offence took place, not necessarily where the vehicle was stopped.

Validation: There are two stickers for proper validation. Both stickers have corresponding "serial numbers ...

ah my pet peeve of all....Tim's drive-thrus

Only things that should be allowed at a drive thru are things that don't take time (drinks, donuts, muffins and plain bagels) to a maximum of 6 of each (not a whole office order either)

Anything made to go....soups, sandwichs, toasted bagel etc.....more than an order of 6, walk your ass indoors and free ...

Bookm wrote: Ever wonder why we get agitated with the system?

I do not wonder....I just understand it and don't take it personally.

Still think a few of us on here should rewrite the HTA sections to make sense and submit it to the government for changes. Write it so that even our new drivers at 16yrs old can understand it.

I
I would love to see the MTO do a test and have a legislated stretch of the 401 banned from being patrolled....and let's see how many people crash and get killed

cause IMO...the Police presense yesterday made that one section very dangerous....people took their eyes off the road looking at their speedos....were hitting the brakes....changing ...

Sort half on topic.....coworked (a clone of me....i coached him ) came into court and had sunglasses on. I mentioned it to him.....turned out there is new presciption type glasses that react to sunlight and go dark and then go clear once indoors after about 5min.....interesting!

most certainly if you hit someone from behind you are following them


I know this charge is laid all the time, in this and similar circumstances, and it is quickly dispatched in court by knowledgeable lawyers and paralegals.
I am in court almost more than anyone on this board.....I rarely see a follow too close charge beaten. The ones I see are ...

Not sure what how the reflective, absorption thoughts are even a factor.

Very simple that a window can not be "coloured" and can not "reflect". If there is some sort of colour added onto a window (grey, black, silver, blue, red, geen etc) or if some sort of reflective (mirror) is added and prevents viewing of the interior of the vehicle.

I park ...

racer wrote: You did mention LEO was wearing shades (no pun intended), was there a need for them?

So this person is now the officer's optometrist?

The cop probably wants to close off the accident report, and charging someone with "Follow too closely" nicely sets all papers in order.
However, based on what you have told us you should have been charged with 154.(1)(a) (below), which carries 3 demerit point penalty, and would still set officer's papers straight...

154.(1) Where a highway has ...

Follow too close...
158. (1) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent having due regard for the speed of the vehicle and the traffic on and the conditions of the highway

......pretty borderline for a Careless Driving charge which is without due care and attention for other motorists ...

Colour coating obscuring interior
73(3) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the drivers seat has been coated with any coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when ...

dgs wrote:it was a 2001 Ford Focus I think

Well....certainly had a good "focus" on it

she slammed into a stopped vehicle in front of her, I slammed into her......... i made a lane change properly and safely, with caution and had every expectation based on what I saw, that I could stop in time with the traffic. .

Lots of contradictory comments in that......if it was so safe with caution used.....how can you slam into her? ( need a ...

racer wrote:BTW, bear, what would be the sub for "Improper brakes"? 64(9) is rather different about the fines...

"Defective Brakes" 64(7) = $85
or
"Improper Braking System" 64(1) = $85

racer wrote:BTW, bear, what would be the sub for "Improper brakes"? 64(9) is rather different about the fines...

"Defective Brakes" 64(7) = $85
or
"Improper Braking System" 64(1) = $85

Every black lettered vehicle is commercial

How come pick up without personalized plates has black????


b/c every pickup is a commercial vehicle.

"commercial motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle having permanently attached thereto a truck or delivery body and includes ambulances, hearses, casket wagons, fire apparatus, buses and tractors used ...