Ontario Highway Traffic Act

This is gonna be offtop...
Let's do some math here. 31 drink/4 = 7.75 per person. Make that 8 drinks per person, in 3 hours. 12 ounces of liquor. Remembering my Smart-Serve training, an adult of about 170 lb would have BAC of about .16, give or take 2 points to adjust for food intake. Twice the legal limit doesn't mean you are too drunk to do a ...

The officer was asked why they were pulled over and the officer said "I don't need a reason to pull you over. I can check the status of the license of the driver"

Sounds like mis-communication somewhere. Whether it be from your son or the officer. Couple ways to put the reason:
- the passenger threw a cigarette out the window
- the passenger ...

cruzmisl wrote:Wrong workbook???

Probably notebook.

There is a mountain of technical information and discussion on radar use and possible defense strategies
here:
http://www.radardetector.net/forums/how-beat-your-ticket/

It's an American site, so not everything stated will apply here.

Easier way than that.......

USE....
http://www.insightempire.com/slippers/slippers.jpg

Rather than
http ...

Reflections wrote: Modify it so that a person does not lose their ability to goto work for a week. .....

Does not prevent them from going to work...use their legs, bicycle, carpool, bus....it's also better for the environment

Radar Identified wrote: Hypothetically, would you consider signing it if it was to remove the vehicle impoundment?

Exactly, then it would be "on-line" with the 90 day suspension (ie charged with offence, loss of licence)

Coles notes on petition:

Revise section 172 so that no up-front penalties are imposed on motorist at roadside. (No 7-day vehicle impoundment, no license suspension.) After-conviction penalties to remain unchanged. At least that's what it was when I signed it a while ago.


thank you....I personally can not support the petition with both the ...

and the stats thing keeps being brought up....can be construed however the person looking at it want it to be....

Canada Election 2008
38% Conservatives
27% Liberals
18% NDP
10% Bloc
6% Green
1% other

So Liberals/NDP/Bloc state.....wait here...55% wants us to be the government as we have a majority.

racer wrote: . If the law is unjust, and you feel it, we have no problem supporting online and mail-in petitions. Bel has one against 172, for example. Click it through, register your vote!

Forgot about the petition.....coles notes what is it about?

It is actually quite interesting.....despite the 7 day impundment, the vehicle can actually be held until the court date if an arrest was made!

Bookm wrote:If your feelin' confidant.... GET CHARGED!!

Then make it a "good one" (ie 200+)

For arguement sake, take the cruiser out of this as it does not affect anything (lights,sirens not on).

We have two vehicles, one turning left, one going straight with a signal on

The vehicle going straight always has the right of way. You can never cut across the path of another vehicle(ie 2 lane hwy, 1 vehicle passing 8, lead vehicle turns left ...

Thanks Bel for the update.

I don't know the process, but how can one make a consitutional challenge if they are not a charged person?

So would it be fair to say that if the police car was accelerating, this could affect the reading by the unit?

More of my thought is that how can I compare my patrol speed (on radar) and my speedometer to ensure they are the same and that the change in acceleration isn't being added or deducted to a target vehicle.

Then again I am only an ...

I have heard that an officer should test the radar unit after issuing a ticket. Can you tell me if this is something that you agree with, or is conducting a test at the beginning of the shift, and end of the shift sufficient.

The standard is that the unit be tested before and after the ticket. however before and after is not stipulated by the ...