Search found 905 matches

Since we want a new moderator to visit the site daily, I think that one day's worth of applications is good enough :D.

Please vote for our newest moderator!

The choices are as follows (in order of application):

Squishy
A fairly new member of the forum, Squishy, however, has over 100 posts, thus making it to the top 15 posters. He visits the ...

Old thread revived


:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Thanks for the info RI!

I've said it before, including to cop's face, and I'll say it again - I'd much prefer being a pedestrian hit by cyclist than a cyclist hit by a car. Some roads in Guelph have limit of 60, meaning everyone goes 70, so I think I'll pass on biking on the road there, unless it is near-empty...

Squishy wrote: An electric bicycle is called a "power assisted" bicycle and doesn't require a license to operate, and the only helmet difference between that and a normal bicycle is the over-18 exemption doesn't apply (covered in OREG 473/06).

Electric bicycles don't even need to have insurance

Oddly enough, I don't think doing a deliberate burnout in a straight line falls under the definition of a stunt. This is what covers spinning tires:

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

No commas, so must be turning to ...

damn. I didn't check the the full date. I saw it was 16-th day, when mine was 17-th... I thought I missed it earlier in the day and just clicked on it.

You might not even have to change the date, on which you could then rely on in case that the trial is rescheduled (the cop doesn't show up, whatever screwup they might have). You can't use this option if you extend your court date once.

Well, 1-st off, you believe that you have committed no offense, so what you need to do is to challenge the ticket. You need to send in your ticket (or read instructions at the back of your ticket) to court with Option 3 ("I intend to challenge the offense...") checked off. You will eventually get a reply from the courthouse with the trial date set ...

The Hamilton Spectator reports that a Brantford judge who had her fine cut in half appealed the decision and had her fine reinstated to the full amount (back up to $180).

http://www.thespec.com/article/528695

What do you think about this?

Squishy wrote:Hey I'm not obese, don't tax my delicious burgers!

Why not? The gov't taxes everything else that feels good, why not tax such an awesome product as a burger? You'd eat them less and feel better each time you do it!

tdrive2 wrote:Hell why dont we make laws making fast food illegal for obese people so they dont endanger their health anymore.

Nah, let's just tax it like cigarettes instead (80% of the sale price), and boost our healthcare instead. Or build better roads. Or fund the military and the police. Or do all 3 in one swoop (there should be enough cash from that tax).

128.13(3) already provides ample penalties for exceeding the speed limit by over 50 km/hr. 6 points, plus hefty fine, plus massive insurance increase, but no roadside license suspension nor towing the car. Good ol' law that's been replaced by a bad new one.

Good, points tdrive. I guess more officers need to see this post. If only we could attract a few to this board.

Time to change them back, oil is around 40 $ a barrel. Cars are more efficient at higher speeds now. They are also safer.

I disagree with the efficiency part here. The formula for the required power to overcome the air drag is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/d/6/1d6ff8f88450295e8a235a54d626ea78.png
Where p-creature is Greek "Ro" (density ...

Lol, I can never recall a single "Kitchener: Population X" sign on the 401. I realize now that Doon is part of Kitchener, but I guess I should keep my eyes on signs other than the traffic ones... And I usually take local hwy 7 to K-W (when I do need to go there).

Running red is running red. There are gonna be 3 pts for that.

Reflections wrote:I thought that was rule #12??

Mipsrint?

What he did (besides speeding) was not illegal. He does make himself look like an A-Hole though. I do not think that were he to crash into you that would be his fault. Address the township of Ajax to place a sign that disallows going straight through that intersection (ie driver must make a turn).

We do not say that we disagree. But someone else does. (Cough, Fantino, cough)

tdrive2 wrote:Actually i find where it gets bad is just before you enter kitchener when you go down the hill sometimes EVERYONE will slam on their brakes cause they see a cruiser.

Erm, 401 never enters Kitchener... The 85 coming north from 401 does. You must mean Cambridge, which the 401 barely grazes.

I'd sue the city regardless.

Do not even bother "Pleading guilty with explanation". It is still pleading guilty as charged. The judge might lower your fine, but you will still be charged with "Careless driving". Let someone else confirm this, I'm sure any regular here will tell you the exact same thing.

The fine is fairly low, at $110, but your insurance policy will likely ...

What you have to do as well is to write down what had happened while the events of the day are still fresh in your memory. If possible, travel back to the scene and try to take some pictures - if the tire had truly busted, then you should observe some marks to indicate. Needless to say, take a digital camera, with date stamp. When you get the court ...

Whatever you were told by the cop, "Plead guilty with an explanation" is still "Plead guilty". You do that you will get a Careless on your record, 100%. Put up a fight and you might get better chances. If you do it right, just by standing up to fight and showing up, the prosecutor might give you a lower charge. So, before you do anything else, send ...

Nice pic

and how many vehicles were stopped there? Was that a major drug bust/arrest happening?

Lets say those that were happy going 140 were not pleased to suddenly be slowed to 110 with tons of open road infront of them

What is the result? always the same thing, illegal lane changes and tailgating..

All the more reason to support UNMARKED traffic cars!!!
- could have stopped the lane hog and cleard the path :wink:
And then ticketed ...

So, if the coroner determines that the crash had been the cause of death, then there will be no further testing, as to find out what had caused the crash?

Here's my logic:

When you approach the roundabout, there is no way to avoid it (save for a U-Turn). All traffic is moving counterclockwise on the roundabout, therefore signalling left might give someone the wrong idea that you might try to run clockwise on the roundabout - similar to driving wrong way on a one-way road. Since the roundabout is ...

Not sure what the "rules" are, but in Europe they signal "right" right before the turn they have to take. You need not signal getting on the roundabout, just signal "right" before the exit you exit at. Signalling "left" sends the wrong message, you might be turning "right" when you are flashing "left". Think of it for a second, it is like turning ...

DUI is what I was thinking. But the cops will likely attribute it to speed, not take the blood sample, and try to spin it to support the 172 charade. My point - if there is no blood test, don't even mention it in defence of stunt/racing legislations. Newspapers are great at spreading information and misinformation, even if meant well.