need help with the ticket
Angus
community
with my wife. When I drove through an all-way stop intersection, I
slowed down and stopped just a second. Then I went ahead. But a police
car
just stopped there, and caught me. The officer told me I failed to
stop
at that stop sign, and gave a ticket with a fine of 190 bucks. Even
worse, I would lose 2 points. I argued with him I didn`t miss the stop
sign, jsut did`t stop enough time. But he insisted he saw me just
slowed
down, not stop. He said recently, many residents near there complained
some driver ignored the stop sign, so he stopped there by purpose.
I feel unfair, cause I really didn`t miss the stop sign, and I felt
the push of the seat when I stepped the brake. I plan to go
to the court. Could you give me some advices about this case? I `ve
never been involved in such a thing. And I don`t know what to do.
Thanks a lot!
Mr. Noop
www.pointts.com they offer a free consulation.
They are not lawyers, but former cops.
"Angus" <angu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f048546c.02111...@posting.google.com...
Lobsang Mack
--
Disclaimer #1
The opinions express above are my own, as such they may not reflect reality
in your world.
Disclaimer #2
I may never fly with eagles, but then weasles seldom get sucked into jet
engines.
Disclaimer #3
My bike is not leaking...It is marking it's spot.
Disclaimer #4
If you haven't figured out how to fix my email....remove the underscores.
8^)
"Angus" <angu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f048546c.02111...@posting.google.com...
Joe Bedford
as a "three count".
"Robert P." <par...@netrover.com> wrote in message
news:_q7C9.202340$C8.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> I hear the same story all the time. A full stop is a three count not a tap
> and go.
> Warning - when you come to the airport there are two set of stop signs in
> the outside lane and four sets in the inside lane. I'm watching.
>
> 1984 V65 magna
> Say no to C-68
>
>
Robert P.
The other Dave
"The other Dave" <TOTTENHA...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:HDeC9.101807$YSz1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Last time I checked, a stop, is where the wheels of the vehicle and the
> vehicle come to a complete stop...that is the B.C. and Alberta acts..not
> sure about here. You can fight it, but unless the officer fails to show,
it
> is your word against theirs' and you will loose...unless you have video
> evidence showing your complete stop...and no, it's not three seconds.
> Dave J
> "Joe Bedford" <joebe...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:RL7C9.18263$hK2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
The other Dave
vehicle come to a complete stop...that is the B.C. and Alberta acts..not
sure about here. You can fight it, but unless the officer fails to show, it
is your word against theirs' and you will loose...unless you have video
evidence showing your complete stop...and no, it's not three seconds.
Dave J
"Joe Bedford" <joebe...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:RL7C9.18263$hK2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
B Vibert
Burl
Johanne wrote:
>
> It doesn't say the amount of time, in fact, if you want to play on words, it
> doesn't even say "a COMPLETE stop" in the act but it does say that in the
> Official Driver's Handbook.
>
> Here is what the act says:
>
> Stop at through highway
>
> 136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at an
> intersection,
>
> (a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or, if
> none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none,
> then immediately before entering the intersection; and
>
> (b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or
> approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed
> would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of
> way, may proceed.
>
> Where to stop - intersection
>
> 144(5) A driver who is directed by a traffic signal erected at an
> intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,
>
> (a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;
>
> (b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest
> crosswalk; or
>
> (c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, immediately before entering
> the intersection. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (5).
>
> Where to stop - non-intersection
>
> (6) A driver who is directed by a traffic signal erected at a location other
> than at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,
>
> (a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;
>
> (b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest
> crosswalk; or
>
> (c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, not less than five metres
> before the nearest traffic control signal. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (6).
>
> Here's the link for the full act if you wish to read it:
> http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h08_e.htm#P2003_209777
>
> Ok, I don't have a life...what can I say, I love reading that stuff !!!
>
> --
> Johanne
>
> 2000 Suzuki Marauder GZ250
>
> You know what you have to remove if you want to contact me directly.
> "Joe Bedford" <joebe...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:RL7C9.18263$hK2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
James Watt
which are supposed to drive, right?
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:10:12 -0500, "Robert P." <par...@netrover.com>
wrote:
Kevin (CM)
deemed un-beatable for stop sign violations goes something like this:
Police officer observes intersection and has a clear view of you and your
vehicle.
-observes that the stop-sign is an "official" stop sign (as defined in HTA
regarding dimensions);
-view of stop sign was not obstructed from alleged offender's perspective or
vantage point;
-observes vehicle approach the intersection and that the wheels of the
vehicle, at no time, stopped turning (either before entering the
intersection or at other designated points).
-driver stopped and identified as one who committed violation
-comments of driver regarding allegation (inculpatory)
Badabing!
This is one of the easiest offences to prove if the officer has half a
brain.
Good Luck!
Kevin
"Johanne" <jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote in message
news:oPfC9.6950$i%.1751579@localhost...
Kevin (CM)
Whether all officers do this is irrelevant. It's all about power.
A while back, a citizen took out his video camera at an intersection in
Toronto and captured several police cars blowing lights at an intersection
(over a period of a couple of days). It was submitted to the review board
with an official complaint. Guess what happened? Nothing - even though
police are not exempt from the law regarding traffic lights or stop signs
(even with sirens and emergency lights activated).
Kevin
"James Watt" <james...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:823jtu03fsj1kamqo...@4ax.com...
Joe Bedford
"officially stopped" until / unless the rider puts BOTH FEET DOWN. I know
this because my _personal_ idea of a perfect stop is one where both wheels
stop, the bike settles back on the suspension and I pull away without having
put EITHER foot down.
Do not attempt this manouver - trained unprofessionals on open roads only.
Joe
96 FLHTCUI
"Kevin (CM)" <head...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1yuC9.22149$lj.5...@read1.cgocable.net...
Matrixxx
"Lobsang Mack" <fotosbyharvey_@_hot_mail.com> wrote in message
news:UNOB9.464$7X4....@news20.bellglobal.com...
Buzz
"Johanne" <jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote in message
news:oPfC9.6950$i%.1751579@localhost...
> It doesn't say the amount of time, in fact, if you want to play on words,
it
> doesn't even say "a COMPLETE stop" in the act but it does say that in the
> Official Driver's Handbook.
>
> Here is what the act says:
>
> Stop at through highway
That's pretty clear to me. Stopping means the car ain't moving until it is
safe to move on. Obviously if a car hits you or you hit a car, it wasn't
safe to move on.
steve
I see police crusiers breaking the law all the time. All sorts of
misdemeanors including not coming to to complete stop.Now, if I had
the authority to chase down these officers and give them a $190 ticket
myself, I could make a very healthy living by doing just that.
Talk about hypocrisy.
I'm watching too.
Robert P.
number, time and location. Submit a written grievance. Ideally the situation
should be attended to. After all just because they are a police constable
does not preclude them from professionalism behind the wheel. After all they
are supposed to be the example as well as the enforcers. You the public
hired them to ensure the roads are safe for you and your family.
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com...
James Watt
opportunity to meet several this past summer (socially fortunately)
and found them to be really decent people. Many of them are just
trying to do a decent job. I cut them some slack on the roads because
they're out there all day and have a 'zen' thing going with the
traffic. Same for anyone who's out there all day driving around the
city. You just know when someone's going to pull a bone-head
manoeuver.
On the flip side, they are the law and should be following the rules.
It's hypocritical to give someone a ticket for doing something they
just did.
Also, don't whine if you get a ticket for something you really did.
Personal responsibility and all that.
James.
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:08:57 -0500, "Robert P." <par...@netrover.com>
wrote:
>If you see a constable violating proper driving techniques take the cruiser
James Watt
<jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote:
>Hey, don't get me wrong here, in my books, a stop is a complete stop.
Agreed. A stop happens when the vehicle, uh, stops moving. Otherwise
you just slowed down a lot.
> No
>questions about it. Take it from someone who is too whimpy to even roll a
>stop on a group ride !!!
>
>I've had near rear end hits so often while driving my car or riding my bike
>because the majority of cars before me rolled a stop and the car in the back
>of me anticipated I would do the same.
You're not one of those that takes a picnic at the stop sign are you??
:-)
>I'm just reporting on what I read and if you want to get technical....one
>may be able to try to fight it on wording.
>
>Not my battle...just my two cents.
The other problem people seem to have is that they don't know how to
get started again once they stop. They crawl away from the stop like
they're afraid to get to the other side of the intersection.
James.
Tom B
turn lights! What are some of these people doing while waiting for the light
to change, reading a book? Its one thing to be cautious, and watching to
make sure someone's not running the red, another entirely to take 5 or more
seconds to advance after the light changes when the coast is clear. I have
waited in left turn lanes while people at the front have burnt half the
duration of the light crawling ahead, now THATS a piss off.
Tom B
KOTD(Knob of the Day) pics here !!
http://pages.sprint.ca/KNOBS
"James Watt" <james...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qhgotucbrsk6q9fe1...@4ax.com...
steve
> If you see a constable violating proper driving techniques take the cruiser
> number, time and location. Submit a written grievance. Ideally the situation
> should be attended to. After all just because they are a police constable
> does not preclude them from professionalism behind the wheel. After all they
> are supposed to be the example as well as the enforcers. You the public
> hired them to ensure the roads are safe for you and your family.
>
I see/hear about police officers that get in accidents all the time,
usually because they are out of control or driving contrary to proper
road techniques.
So who is going to pay me for my efforts? Police officers are
generously paid are they not?I think they could afford a $190 fine,
and if they dont pay after 60 days, they should have their license
suspended.I could send them a bill in the mail, just send me the
cheque/money order to my bussiness address.If they still dont pay
after that ,then I might send the bill to a collection agency.
This could result in some of their possesions being seized or having a
bad credit record.
Anyway, I think I could make a living doing it.Maybe call myself
citizens advocate for police control(CAPC).I could spend my days
driving around the city following police crusiers watching that they
are not breaking the law. Think that the taxpayers would pay me a
income?
Does that sound fair?
$190 fine for not coming to a complete stop, wow , what a cash cow.
Barn Barn
In article <z44D9.3407$As6....@wagner.videotron.net>, "Tom B"
Matrixxx
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.0211...@posting.google.com...
James Watt
<jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote:
>Ok..this is either PMS (Parked Motorcycle Syndrome) or my biased view of the
>boys in blue <winks>.
Hehehe. I like that one...PMS.... :-) Even us guys can have that.
James.
steve
> hey Steve sounds like ya need some cheese.
>
really correct someones bad driving habits? A fine of $50 or less
should work just as well in my opinion or, is it just a big cash
grab??
Answer:It's a cash grab!Highway robbery,The boys in blue should turn
themselves in to the proper authorities :-)
B Vibert
Johanne wrote:
>
> <major snip>
> >Police officers are generously paid are they not?I think they could afford
> a $190 fine,
> <end of snip>
>
> Okay...I'm feeling opinionated..so here goes !!!
>
> Firstly, considering the dangers that law enforcement officers must contend
> with on a daily basis, I don't think they are paid nearly enough for the
> risks they take and the peace of mind and freedom they provide us.
>
> Having said that, of course there comes responsibility with one's actions.
> If you commit the crime...be prepared to do the time/pay for it. Nobody is
> above the law. > >
Apparently police are above the law when it comes to driving. I have
paced OPP vehicles on the 401 at over 150kph. I would be charged with
careless driving for that speed and lose my license, they do it
constantly.
Kind of a case of "do as I say, not as I do"
Kevin (CM)
Often police breach provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. I can't possibly
imagine anyone not being in agreement. The truth about that is that it is
socially accepted. Today we have fewer police and more crime
(comparatively). Consequently, police officers have a larger area to cover
and less time to do it in.
When you add in time for the following:
preventive policing (actual pro-active patrols); a multitude of traffic
enforcement programs like speeding, seatbelts, and focus on specific problem
areas; response to calls (reactive - usually involve time-consuming
inquiries and sometimes investigations), all of which we expect them to be
focusing on during every shift, there is a fine recipe for haste. This
explains why our taxes aren't through the flippin' roof. This is also why
they aren't paid enough for the stress, lack of sleep, restricted lifestyle,
abnormal work periods and high risk to their safety. If we paid them what
they deserved, we'd be complaining about the cardboard box we'd find
ourselves living in.
No Sir-ree - the spirit of the HTA was not designed with the present-day
pressures we place on our police officers. That's one of the reasons there
were revisions exempting police in some cases. The HTA itself was designed
with everyone in mind but it was intended mainly for the governance of the
"average citizen".
When cops really screw up, the consequences are usually (USUALLY) severe
compared to those for the "average citizen". Society accepts, indeed
expects police not to follow every traffic law to the "T". The reality is
that very FEW complaints are ever registered in the career of a cop and
fewer still are founded.
I am curious to know WTF you were doing pacing police "vehicles" (more than
one) on our highways at over 150 kph! Are you not aware that police
officers are exempt from the speed limit in the performance of their duties?
DUH.
Finally (for real), it really is a case of "do as I say, not as I do" but
for obvious reasons. If you don't like it, try living in some other place.
Maybe a place like Haiti - where they'd have (likely) shot you for what you
did. Do yourself a favour, accept the things you can't change and enjoy
Canada OR become the Prime Minister and change the shit out of all you can!
Peace,
Kevin
Kevin (CM)
showed up.
I think I was taking to long to type my message :)
Kevin
Kevin (CM)
Peace,
Kevin
B Vibert
"Kevin (CM)" wrote:
>
> Warning - Rant - no disrespect intended & Without Prejudice.
>
> Often police breach provisions of the Highway Traffic Act. I can't possibly
> imagine anyone not being in agreement. The truth about that is that it is
> socially accepted. Today we have fewer police and more crime
> (comparatively). Consequently, police officers have a larger area to cover
> and less time to do it in.
I guess since I'm part of society and I don't accept it, that that's
not true. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the people who enforce the
rules seem exempt from them? I have no problem with officers getting
to a call quickly, but if they are on a call and breaking traffic laws
to get there shouldn't they have those lights and sirens on? Or do
they just drive that way all the time? Could you also tell me why off
duty cops who get pulled over for speeding never get a ticket?
>
> When you add in time for the following:
> preventive policing (actual pro-active patrols); a multitude of traffic
> enforcement programs like speeding, seatbelts, and focus on specific problem
> areas; response to calls (reactive - usually involve time-consuming
> inquiries and sometimes investigations), all of which we expect them to be
> focusing on during every shift, there is a fine recipe for haste. This
> explains why our taxes aren't through the flippin' roof. This is also why
> they aren't paid enough for the stress, lack of sleep, restricted lifestyle,
> abnormal work periods and high risk to their safety. If we paid them what
> they deserved, we'd be complaining about the cardboard box we'd find
> ourselves living in.
>
> No Sir-ree - the spirit of the HTA was not designed with the present-day
> pressures we place on our police officers. That's one of the reasons there
> were revisions exempting police in some cases. The HTA itself was designed
> with everyone in mind but it was intended mainly for the governance of the
> "average citizen".
>
> When cops really screw up, the consequences are usually (USUALLY) severe
> compared to those for the "average citizen". Society accepts, indeed
> expects police not to follow every traffic law to the "T". The reality is
> that very FEW complaints are ever registered in the career of a cop and
> fewer still are founded.
There are very few complaints agains cops driving because they don't
take complaints. A friend tried once when he was dangerously passed
by a cop (on his way to Tim Hortons) and received nothing but grief
about it.
>
> I am curious to know WTF you were doing pacing police "vehicles" (more than
> one) on our highways at over 150 kph! Are you not aware that police
> officers are exempt from the speed limit in the performance of their duties?
> DUH.
They are exempt from it if they are on a call with lights flashing
etc. Not on their way to the station in a Suburban. When all
traffic is moving at 130kph and they fly by you it is easy to tell
they aren't doing 140kph, 150 was an estimate. Then we both take the
same off ramp and end up at Tim Hortons.
>
> Finally (for real), it really is a case of "do as I say, not as I do" but
> for obvious reasons. If you don't like it, try living in some other place.
> Maybe a place like Haiti - where they'd have (likely) shot you for what you
> did. Do yourself a favour, accept the things you can't change and enjoy
> Canada OR become the Prime Minister and change the shit out of all you can!
>
I have no complaints about cops doing their duty and have a lot of
respect for the job they do. But could you tell me the obvious
reasons you feel they are expempt from the law. Could you also
explain it to a certain Mr. Quattrocci's family here in Kingston whose
father is dead because some cops were racing down a city street and
broadsided his car.
Kevin (CM)
I don't think you read my message very well (no sarcasm intended).
> I guess since I'm part of society and I don't accept it, that that's
> not true. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the people who enforce the
> rules seem exempt from them? I have no problem with officers getting
> to a call quickly, but if they are on a call and breaking traffic laws
> to get there shouldn't they have those lights and sirens on? Or do
> they just drive that way all the time? Could you also tell me why off
> duty cops who get pulled over for speeding never get a ticket?
What I said was, "The truth about that is that it is socially accepted".
(That police breach provisions of the Highway Traffic Act) Something being
"socially accepted" does not hinge on every member of society accepting it.
How you feel is your perogative. It doesn't alter reality.
> There are very few complaints agains cops driving because they don't
> take complaints. A friend tried once when he was dangerously passed
> by a cop (on his way to Tim Hortons) and received nothing but grief
> about it.
This is absolute crap. Of course they accept traffic complaints and they
also investigate them and follow up by contacting the complainant with an
update or disposition. This is common practice and has been for several
years. Contact your local police services board or, in the case of the OPP,
ask to speak with an NCO and see how quickly they'll take your complaint!
If you rely on hearsay though, you're lost.
> They are exempt from it if they are on a call with lights flashing
> etc. Not on their way to the station in a Suburban. When all
> traffic is moving at 130kph and they fly by you it is easy to tell
> they aren't doing 140kph, 150 was an estimate. Then we both take the
> same off ramp and end up at Tim Hortons.
There is no provision in the a/m exemption for speeding that police must be
"on a call with lights flashing etc."
It could be anything that falls into the category of "in the performance of
duty". By your own logic you should willingly accept and pay for a ticket
just because the policeman "estimated" your speed. Sorry, your logic
doesn't cut it.
> I have no complaints about cops doing their duty and have a lot of
> respect for the job they do. But could you tell me the obvious
> reasons you feel they are expempt from the law. Could you also
> explain it to a certain Mr. Quattrocci's family here in Kingston whose
> father is dead because some cops were racing down a city street and
> broadsided his car.
I'll answer the last part here:
1. If you have no complaints about cops doing their duty then you should
get your facts straight before you slam them. What you're saying in a
public forum doesn't amount to what you call "respect for the job they do".
2. The "obvious reasons" they are exempt from the law, I thought, were
"obvious". They can't catch a speeder doing the speed limit; they have
better success protecting us from crimes in progress by exceeding the speed
limit - you can't be serious!
3. The man you're talking about is "Phil Quattrocchi". I knew Phil. I
know the case. The Quattrocchi family already know what happened in that
case. A Kingston police officer was charged in connection with Phil's death
in spite of the fact that it was SIU's evidence that Phil blew a flashing
red light when his car collided with a police car coming through the
intersecton on a flashing amber. That said, police admitted to speeding.
That case has been referred to as a "witch hunt". As I said above, SIU
(typically referred to as cop head-hunters) investigated it. A special
prosecuter and judge from outside the jurisdiction heard the case to ensure
impartiality. The officer was found "not guilty". It was not simply
dismissed, he was found "not guilty".
We all know that some police officers speed excessively and, because of
human nature, some will abuse that right. The bottom line is that you have
options when you feel this is happening. One of them isn't by breaking the
law which police are exempt from to determine whether they were doing the
right thing. We can't go preventing police from speeding - the idea is
ridiculous. We can neither have disgruntled people following police around
at 150 kph and then complaining about things of which they are not even
certain. Who was endangering whom there?
Kevin
Tom B
Kingston guys have gotta find better hobbies...first it was posting my tel
number on the wall in the visitors section at the Pen, now this ranting
stuff.....
--
Tom B
KOTD(Knob of the Day) pics here !!
http://pages.sprint.ca/KNOBS
"Kevin (CM)" <head...@canada.com> wrote in message
news:8OUD9.28512$lj.5...@read1.cgocable.net...
Kevin (CM)
--
Kevin
"Tom B" <tbu...@NOSPAMburanco.net> wrote in message
news:BZVD9.32527$As6.4...@wagner.videotron.net...
steve
>
> There are very few complaints agains cops driving because they don't
> take complaints. A friend tried once when he was dangerously passed
> by a cop (on his way to Tim Hortons) and received nothing but grief
> about it.
>
>
> >
> > I am curious to know WTF you were doing pacing police "vehicles" (more than
> > one) on our highways at over 150 kph! Are you not aware that police
> > officers are exempt from the speed limit in the performance of their duties?
> > DUH.
>
> They are exempt from it if they are on a call with lights flashing
> etc. Not on their way to the station in a Suburban. When all
> traffic is moving at 130kph and they fly by you it is easy to tell
> they aren't doing 140kph, 150 was an estimate. Then we both take the
> same off ramp and end up at Tim Hortons.
>
kryst those must be good donuts......
steve
> Johanne wrote:
> >
> > <major snip>
> > >Police officers are generously paid are they not?I think they could afford
> > a $190 fine,
> > <end of snip>
> >
> > Okay...I'm feeling opinionated..so here goes !!!
> >
> > Firstly, considering the dangers that law enforcement officers must contend
> > with on a daily basis, I don't think they are paid nearly enough for the
> > risks they take and the peace of mind and freedom they provide us.
I guess they have to write up more $190 fines then......
> >
> > Having said that, of course there comes responsibility with one's actions.
> > If you commit the crime...be prepared to do the time/pay for it. Nobody is
> > above the law. > >
Not Including the police officers?
Kevin
My .02 is that it IS a cash grab, a tax of sorts BUT there is some logic
behind it. I just don't agree with it.
Why you ask? Because it boils down to a system of laws where the rich can
just pay for the right to drive like idiots at the expense of the poor.
It's an equality issue.
IF, however, there was a change in the system whereby demerits were issued
for every offense (justly proportioned), it would be a more "just" system.
Then, when a certain demerit limit was reached, it should result in an
automatic licence suspension. That way, rich and poor alike could at least
be seen as enjoying the privilege of driving on an equal basis.
The problem is that, when suspensions are issued and offenders continue to
drive, jail is the only equal penalty. Otherwise, the rich would just pay
their fines and we'd be back to square one. We DO need laws controlling the
idiots out there but they must be laws which have equal consequences for
everyone.
It ain't gonna happen though. Why? I'll leave that classist topic for
someone else to rant about (unless I get tricked again :)
plink, plink (2 cents)!
Kevin
p.s. it isn't the "boys in blue" you should be blaming - it's the improper
"authorities" who made the stinking penalties so much in favour of the rich
:-)
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com...
Steven Slaby
> IF, however, there was a change in the system whereby demerits were issued
> for every offense (justly proportioned), it would be a more "just" system.
> Then, when a certain demerit limit was reached, it should result in an
> automatic licence suspension. That way, rich and poor alike could at least
> be seen as enjoying the privilege of driving on an equal basis.
Huh??
Maybe you shold read the Highway traffic act. At 6 or more points people
are "invited" to come in for an interview and explain to the satisfaction
of ministry staff whey their licence shouldn't be suspended, which can be
up to 2 years.
If they hit the 15 point mark, it is an automatic suspension.
Speeding by 50km/h or more is 6 points which should win you an interview.
Steve.
--
----------------------------------------------
Ottawa Windsurfing http://ottawawindsurfing.ca
Windsurfing Canda website development http://www.windsurf.ca/WC/index.shtml
CMWA newsletter editor http://www.windsurf.ca/cmwa/CMWA_frame.htm
Tom B
yah...but just wait til we have Krispy Kreme setting up shop here....carnage
I tell ya...the roads won't be safe...it will look like a war zone at the
entrance to these stores...
Tom B
KOTD(Knob of the Day) pics here !!
http://pages.sprint.ca/KNOBS
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
steve
> Well, B Vibert,
>
> human nature, some will abuse that right. The bottom line is that you have
> options when you feel this is happening. One of them isn't by breaking the
> law which police are exempt from to determine whether they were doing the
> right thing. We can't go preventing police from speeding - the idea is
> ridiculous. We can neither have disgruntled people following police around
> at 150 kph and then complaining about things of which they are not even
> certain. Who was endangering whom there?
>
> Kevin
I think you are straying off topic,But the reality is that the some
police are just as dangerous as the idiots they are trying to catch.
Does that mean they have the right to gouge the general public and
hand out steep fines for relatively minor traffic violations?
Rowder
wrote:
>"Kevin" (head...@canada.com) writes:
>> IF, however, there was a change in the system whereby demerits were issued
>> for every offense (justly proportioned), it would be a more "just" system.
>> Then, when a certain demerit limit was reached, it should result in an
>> automatic licence suspension. That way, rich and poor alike could at least
>> be seen as enjoying the privilege of driving on an equal basis.
>
>Huh??
Already in place across Canada. BTW, if you get stopped in another
province or in certain States (N.Y. being one) the points are taken
off your license here.
>
>Maybe you shold read the Highway traffic act. At 6 or more points people
>are "invited" to come in for an interview and explain to the satisfaction
>of ministry staff whey their licence shouldn't be suspended, which can be
>up to 2 years.
>
>If they hit the 15 point mark, it is an automatic suspension.
>
>Speeding by 50km/h or more is 6 points which should win you an interview.
>
>Steve.
The judge also has the power to ask for your license and suspend you
for up to 6 months on the spot (in court, after found guilty) at this
speed.
steve
> The money thing...man, I think I was tricked into replying to this.
> My .02 is that it IS a cash grab, a tax of sorts BUT there is some logic
> behind it. I just don't agree with it.
>
>
> IF, however, there was a change in the system whereby demerits were issued
> for every offense (justly proportioned), it would be a more "just" system.
> Then, when a certain demerit limit was reached, it should result in an
> automatic licence suspension. That way, rich and poor alike could at least
> be seen as enjoying the privilege of driving on an equal basis.
Yes but the bureaucracy costs money to maintain.who pays for that?
>
> The problem is that, when suspensions are issued and offenders continue to
> drive, jail is the only equal penalty.
why do they have to jail you? its all about correcting a bad driving
habit not grabbing cash or jailing anyone, unless the person is wanted
for a serious crime.
Otherwise, the rich would just pay
> their fines and we'd be back to square one. We DO need laws controlling the
> idiots out there but they must be laws which have equal consequences for
> everyone.
everyone is an idiot at one time or another.
>
> It ain't gonna happen though. Why? I'll leave that classist topic for
> someone else to rant about (unless I get tricked again :)
You sound paranoid.:-)
>
> plink, plink (2 cents)!
>
> Kevin
>
> p.s. it isn't the "boys in blue" you should be blaming - it's the improper
> "authorities" who made the stinking penalties so much in favour of the rich
> :-)
>
yes by gouging the poor and working class stiffs.
B Vibert
"Kevin (CM)" wrote:
>
> Well, B Vibert,
> I don't think you read my message very well (no sarcasm intended).
I read it fine, just because I don't agree with all of it doesn't mean
I don't understand it. Some people actually have opinions and
experiences other than your own. I really don't want this to become
an argument, I prefer discussions.
>
> > I guess since I'm part of society and I don't accept it, that that's
> > not true. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the people who enforce the
> > rules seem exempt from them? I have no problem with officers getting
> > to a call quickly, but if they are on a call and breaking traffic laws
> > to get there shouldn't they have those lights and sirens on? Or do
> > they just drive that way all the time? Could you also tell me why off
> > duty cops who get pulled over for speeding never get a ticket?
>
> What I said was, "The truth about that is that it is socially accepted".
> (That police breach provisions of the Highway Traffic Act) Something being
> "socially accepted" does not hinge on every member of society accepting it.
> How you feel is your perogative. It doesn't alter reality.
Perhaps that is reality in your opinion. But according to the people
on this forum questioning why the police exempt themselves from their
own rules, it is not as socially acceptable as you seem to think. It
seems to cause some animosity for people who see the double standard
in action. It isn't always a question of legality but of morality,
again the "do as I say, not as I do" thing.
>
> > They are exempt from it if they are on a call with lights flashing
> > etc. Not on their way to the station in a Suburban. When all
> > traffic is moving at 130kph and they fly by you it is easy to tell
> > they aren't doing 140kph, 150 was an estimate. Then we both take the
> > same off ramp and end up at Tim Hortons.
>
> There is no provision in the a/m exemption for speeding that police must be
> "on a call with lights flashing etc."
> It could be anything that falls into the category of "in the performance of
> duty". By your own logic you should willingly accept and pay for a ticket
> just because the policeman "estimated" your speed. Sorry, your logic
> doesn't cut it.
So, getting donuts is "in the performance of duty" and allows you to
drive carelessly, good logic there. I also notice you didn't answer
my question about why they don't get tickets while speeding off duty.
> We all know that some police officers speed excessively and, because of
> human nature, some will abuse that right. The bottom line is that you have
> options when you feel this is happening. One of them isn't by breaking the
> law which police are exempt from to determine whether they were doing the
> right thing. We can't go preventing police from speeding - the idea is
> ridiculous. We can neither have disgruntled people following police around
> at 150 kph and then complaining about things of which they are not even
> certain. Who was endangering whom there?
>
We aren't talking about my driving here, please keep to the subject.
Ok, it's dangerous for me to drive at 150kph, which I didn't actually
say I did, you did, but fine for cops because of, hmmmm, what? If I
hit someone at 150kph is it more unsafe than a 3 ton OPP suburban at
150kph?? Please don't say again about how you feel it is socially
acceptable so that makes it ok.
I agree that police should be able to get where they need to be
expediently, I also believe they should at least have lights flashing
so people driving around them know they are going to be driving
dangerously and ignoring the HTA. Unfortunately the joke about cops
speeding to get fresh donuts is occasionally true which leads to
having less respect for them from people who notice.
BTW, this isn't something I dwell on or that really bothers me. I get
along well with most police officers I have known and I don't have any
driving (or other) violations. I've even considered becoming a cop at
one time. It's just something I've noticed and questioned as seeming
hypocritical.
Kevin
disputing the fact that some police are just as dangerous as the idiots
they're trying to catch.
I AM saying that the police aren't the ones you should be directing your
frustrations at when you're talking about 'gouging the general public'.
They're doing the jobs ordered by the people YOU have elected into power.
What is a relatively minor violation to you might be a potentially serious
one.
My beef is with the inequality of the system. Fines are cash-grabs which
hurt the poor more than the rich. I could write a frickin' book on it (and
just might). There is a more equitable system out there but they won't
implement it.
That said, many of us are tired of people whining about their tickets. We
typically hear one side of a story here - usually involving an admittedly
guilty party asking how he/she can get out the charge. Recently, it was
involving a driver who admittedly blew a stop sign and struck another car.
We seldom hear of the family who was struck, whose lives were at risk; who
lost their vehicle to the foolishness or ignorance of someone who now wants
to find a way to evade facing the consequences. Fooey!
Until they change the system, "If you can't do the time, don't do the
crime."
What do you consider to be "relatively minor traffic violations", Steve?
Kevin
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com...
Kevin
should read the entire message before criticizing. I'm intimately familiar
with the demerit system. What I stated was:
IF, however, there was a change in the system whereby demerits were issued
for every offense (justly proportioned), it would be a more "just" system.
Key words there were "every offense". Try and grasp the language.
Demerits are not issued for "every offense". This gives those who are able
to pay for non-demerit fines a huge advantage over those who can't. Getting
the idea now?
Kevin
"Steven Slaby" <an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:arqkau$btl$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
B Vibert
"Kevin (CM)" wrote:
>
> This is absolute crap. Of course they accept traffic complaints and they
> also investigate them and follow up by contacting the complainant with an
> update or disposition. This is common practice and has been for several
> years. Contact your local police services board or, in the case of the OPP,
> ask to speak with an NCO and see how quickly they'll take your complaint!
> If you rely on hearsay though, you're lost.
>
>
> hah!
> Whether all officers do this is irrelevant. It's all about power.
> A while back, a citizen took out his video camera at an intersection in
> Toronto and captured several police cars blowing lights at an intersection
> (over a period of a couple of days). It was submitted to the review board
> with an official complaint. Guess what happened? Nothing - even though
> police are not exempt from the law regarding traffic lights or stop signs
> (even with sirens and emergency lights activated).
>
> Kevin
>
Kevin, could you make up your mind which part of what you wrote is
absolute crap;-) You wouldn't want to be contradicting yourself.
Tom B
--
Tom B
KOTD(Knob of the Day) pics here !!
http://pages.sprint.ca/KNOBS
"Rowder" <row...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4ts1uu0o11p8qco6d...@4ax.com...
Kevin
You said police "don't take complaints", which was a point of contention in
the discussion.
I never said that they always satisfy the complainant. Sometimes AFTER
taking the complaint, they in fact do nothing of any consequence for the
complainant. They are still bound by the Police Act to take the complaint.
It is hard to take your complaint seriously - about police speeding, after
you admittedly paced them at 150 km/h. Then, when criticized, you said you
changed your story and said you were actually doing 130 km/h and had
estimated the rest. Were YOU careful about contradicting yourself there?
When you attack someone's credibility, you leave yourself open.
You then accused the police of killing a man when they entered an
intersection. You failed to tell everyone though that the man who died blew
a red light when he was struck. It was the police who had the right of way.
In your defense, you obviously didn't know much about the case but that is
all the more reason not to make such serious accusations.
That was cheap yet you have the audacity to take two snippits of text from
different messages of mine, in different contexts, and imply that I was
contradicting myself? ehem. It's known as a "fallacy" in basic philosophy.
Mud-flinging politicians hire kids to do that at election time in order to
bullshit the public. It gets real nasty when both politicians start playing
the game.
If you want to play with words, I can do that. I'm not convinced other
people would care too much for it.
I respect everyone's opinion. I don't respect deceit, inaccuracy, false
accusations and other bullshit. I don't want to stifle anyone but I usually
don't let something fly by if I know it's not factual (and tends to be
misleading). There's a difference between fact and opinion. I guess the
best way to avoid it is not to present an opinion as fact unless you can
back it up.
<hugs all 'round>
Kevin
"B Vibert" <blurDIE...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DE10929...@sympatico.ca...
B Vibert
on this subject.
As much as I like a good debate online stuff often gets too
argumentative because we only see text, not the other subtleties of
communication to let people know we're not really as pissed off as we
may sound in print.
I'm still not hugging any guys though.
Burl
Johanne wrote:
>
> Awwwww Kevin!!!
>
> Just when I was about ready to start throwing in some jello or something of
> the like and watch you guys go at it, you had to throw in some hugs all
> around. Guess I'm going to have to settle for watching you guys hug each
> other instead <sly grin>
>
> Can I charge admission? Palllllleeeze....can I ...can I ?
>
> --
> Johanne
>
> 2000 Suzuki Marauder GZ250
>
> You know what you have to remove if you want to contact me directly.
> "Kevin" <head...@canada.com> wrote in message
> news:3KbE9.28783$lj.6...@read1.cgocable.net...
steve
> That said, many of us are tired of people whining about their tickets. We
> typically hear one side of a story here - usually involving an admittedly
> guilty party asking how he/she can get out the charge. Recently, it was
> involving a driver who admittedly blew a stop sign and struck another car.
> We seldom hear of the family who was struck, whose lives were at risk; who
> lost their vehicle to the foolishness or ignorance of someone who now wants
> to find a way to evade facing the consequences. Fooey!
>
> Until they change the system, "If you can't do the time, don't do the
> crime."
>
> What do you consider to be "relatively minor traffic violations", Steve?
>
>
> Kevin
>
Now are you telling me that someone who stoped at a stop sign for less
than 1 sec instead of three has commited a serious crime enough to
warrant a $190 fine?
I can see that a fine at that cost would be appropriate for a person
who blasts thru a red light or a stop sign but not for a rolling stop.
Or how about driving in a controlled fashion at say 130 kph on the
highway, would that warrant A $210 fine?
cash grab!
steve
> "Kevin (CM)" wrote:
> >
>
> I agree that police should be able to get where they need to be
> expediently, I also believe they should at least have lights flashing
> so people driving around them know they are going to be driving
> dangerously and ignoring the HTA. Unfortunately the joke about cops
> speeding to get fresh donuts is occasionally true which leads to
> having less respect for them from people who notice.
>
they like to keep things secret, and they have an attitude about it.
steve
> yah...but just wait til we have Krispy Kreme setting up shop here....carnage
> I tell ya...the roads won't be safe...it will look like a war zone at the
> entrance to these stores...
> Tom B
>
And dont get in my way, or I might cop an attitude.LOL
B Vibert
Johanne wrote:
> Now, c'mon, after all the back and forth between you guys....be a good
> sport, let me watch you guys hug ok?
Ok, but you have to help, and bring the jello.
Geez, I hope this doesn't end up cross posted to
alt.binaries.fetish.wet-and-messy
(more winks)
Burl
Kevin
than 1 sec" stops.
You complained, "Does that mean they have the right to gouge the general
public and
hand out steep fines for relatively minor traffic violations?"
I asked you what you consider to be "relatively minor traffic violations"?
It's pretty hard to weigh set fines against "relatively minor traffic
violations" if you don't explain what you mean. Can you clarify it?
Kevin
Kevin
Yep, after all is said and done, there remains at least one thing in common
which stands out like an icon of healing - Love of The Motorcycle. :-)
Kevin
"Johanne" <jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote in message
news:iAeE9.8466$i%.1847431@localhost...
> Differences of opinion is what makes this world go round and round. For
> example, in a couple, if one always agrees with the other, IMHO, one
lives,
> the other one simply exists.
>
> I do agree with you though that without the luxury of hearing the
different
> intonations and little subtleties in ones speech/body language, it is very
> difficult to interpretate the other person's intentions on here. By the
> same token, if everyone agreed with each other, imagine how mundane life
> would be.
>
> Its nice to see that you guys simply agreed to disagree <winks>.
>
> Now, c'mon, after all the back and forth between you guys....be a good
> sport, let me watch you guys hug ok?
>
> Just teasing yah !!!!
> --
> Johanne
>
> 2000 Suzuki Marauder GZ250
>
> You know what you have to remove if you want to contact me directly.
> "B Vibert" <bl...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3DE15754...@sympatico.ca...
steve
> You've mistaken someone else's post for mine. I said nothing about "less
> than 1 sec" stops.
No that was an example of a minor traffic violation.Thats what I meant.
is a one second stop a violtaion worthy of a $190 fine,IMO , NO!
>
> You complained, "Does that mean they have the right to gouge the general
> public and
> hand out steep fines for relatively minor traffic violations?"
yes thats correct.
>
> I asked you what you consider to be "relatively minor traffic violations"?
> It's pretty hard to weigh set fines against "relatively minor traffic
> violations" if you don't explain what you mean. Can you clarify it?
>
> Kevin
Dude, I think your spindoctoring is making you dizzy.:-)
>
>
>
> > > What do you consider to be "relatively minor traffic violations", Steve?
> >
Kevin
My humble opinion is this:
No - I don't think it's worthy of a $190.oo fine. Depending on the
circumstances, it might be worthy of a drivers licence suspension though!
I don't believe in monetary fines as penalties. I already ranted about
fines - I think the "fine-system" is twisted in favour of the rich. Cash
fines are not a deterrent, in my opinion, for those who can afford it. It
usually deters the lower class though.
That said, do I agree that someone should face a penalty for not making a
full stop? yes.
A "stop" means "stop". Whether it's for 1 second or 20, it's a stop. If
you make a proper stop there's no problem.
The opinion of whether failing to stop at a stop sign is "minor" offense, is
subjective. It's all about risk. I DO NOT see failing to stop for a stop
sign as "minor". One of the causes of death in traffic-related fatalities
is some bone-head blowing a stop sign. If someone actually STOPS and takes
the damn time to scan for traffic, he/she's a lot less apt to cause an
accident. Common sense, I think.
What I consider "minor" in terms of traffic violations is something like -
"Failing to illuminate licence plate".
It's not a safety issue. It can prevent a witness from getting the licence
plate number right if it's not lit up.
Compared to failing to stop for a stop sign, that is "minor".
Plink, Plink!
Kevin
P.S. Failing to wear a seat belt is not a minor offense either. Can you
guess why? Go ahead. Ask me why :-)
steve
> My humble opinion is this:
>
> No - I don't think it's worthy of a $190.oo fine. Depending on the
> circumstances, it might be worthy of a drivers licence suspension though!
>
> full stop? yes.
> A "stop" means "stop". Whether it's for 1 second or 20, it's a stop. If
> you make a proper stop there's no problem.
>
> The opinion of whether failing to stop at a stop sign is "minor" offense, is
> subjective. It's all about risk. I DO NOT see failing to stop for a stop
> sign as "minor". One of the causes of death in traffic-related fatalities
> is some bone-head blowing a stop sign. If someone actually STOPS and takes
> the damn time to scan for traffic, he/she's a lot less apt to cause an
> accident. Common sense, I think.
Hypocrisy! If had the authority to issue drivers license suspensions
to police officers who do the exact samething, alot of them would be
unable to drive to the grocery store or pick up grandma for church on
sunday, that would be tragic!So I am willing to forgive them for their
indiscretions, just dont do it again OK,,,,, fine then, now that being
said consider this:
Police to review driving skills
Cruiser, pedestrian accident initiates SIU recommendation
Zev Singer
The Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Ottawa police are planning a review of the way officers drive.
The review comes in the wake of a report by the Special Investigations
Unit (SIU) into an accident earlier this year involving a police
cruiser and a second car.
On March 9, the police car, responding to an emergency call, tried to
get through the intersection of Carling and Maitland avenues through a
red light. The cruiser had its emergency lights flashing and was
intermittently using its air horn, but not a constant siren.
As the officer tried to turn left through the intersection, the police
cruiser collided with a second car, which went onto the sidewalk and
struck George Saddler, 51, who was walking along with a case of beer.
Mr. Saddler, who was thrown through the air, suffering cuts and a
broken pelvis.
Because of the injury, the provincial SIU was called in to
investigate. The results from that investigation, tabled at last
night's police board meeting, state that the SIU concluded that the
officer was not criminally liable for the accident.
However, the Ottawa Police's Professional Standards section, which
wrote its own report, found that "both drivers should have exercised
more caution while entering the intersection.
"The officer did stop his cruiser prior to entering the intersection
but failed to ensure that his movements through the intersection could
be safely accomplished," the internal report concluded.
"The investigation concluded that there was misconduct on the part of
the officer and discipline has been imposed," the report stated. That
discipline did not involve suspension.
The report goes on to state that the Ottawa Police force does not have
specific guidelines to deal with situations in which officers enter
intersections through red lights.
"The purpose of this review is to assess the OPS practices and make
any recommendations to improve driver safety on the part of our
officers in emergency situations at controlled intersections," the
report states.
Herb Kreling, chairman of the police board said the public has
expectations that police will conduct themselves safely.
"We don't like that type of a situation to occur. We certainly want
our protocol to be as foolproof as possible and as safe as possible,"
Mr. Kreling said.
The review of the operation of police cruisers has been in the works
for several months, according to police Chief Vince Bevan.
"We're looking at including that in a whole basket of things in
relation to holding members accountable for their operation of police
cruisers," the chief said.
>
>
> P.S. Failing to wear a seat belt is not a minor offense either. Can you
> guess why? Go ahead. Ask me why :-)
>
>
why? o wise one:-)
Kevin
Kevin
steve
> And, wise one, your point?
>
> Kevin
How about if that was an ordinary joe potatoe chip that accidently
went thru the intersection and hurt someone, Im sure he would recieve
more then just a drivers license suspension,maybe even jail time and
loss of his job and ruining his life.
what did the police officer get?
You haven't told me about the seatbelts yet.:-)
Chris
>
>
> I guess since I'm part of society and I don't accept it, that that's
> not true. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the people who enforce the
> rules seem exempt from them? I have no problem with officers getting
> to a call quickly, but if they are on a call and breaking traffic laws
> to get there shouldn't they have those lights and sirens on? Or do
> they just drive that way all the time? Could you also tell me why off
> duty cops who get pulled over for speeding never get a ticket?
>
use their lights and sirens in high/dense traffic situations (such at
the 401) while en-route to a call (not just trying to get someone
pulled over) there is an increased probobility that some poor schmuck
will get rattled and end up causing another 'situation'. Given that
- I can't blame them for running silent. The visuals of the roof
racks lights and the glow in the dark markings have always been more
than enough for me to recognize them from a mile away.
As for these guys not getting tickets.... every job has it's perks I
guess. I don't imagine that cops benefit in the same manner as your
friends and family do from your profession either. Sounds fair to me.
But rest assured... they DO get tickets... I might ask how you think
they don't as you are quite obviously not one of them. My spouse on
the other hand is. Trust me, even when a badge carrying member of the
public does something dumb enough to get pulled over for he MAY get
that ticket. Whether he/she does or doesn't... the 'word' still gets
back to the boss. How'd you like to have someone tell your boss you
were driving like an idiot everytime you got pulled over?
>
> There are very few complaints agains cops driving because they don't
> take complaints. A friend tried once when he was dangerously passed
> by a cop (on his way to Tim Hortons) and received nothing but grief
> about it.
>
> Bullshit. If there was any merit to any complait logged. It would not go unheard. Truth is most complaints come from people who do so while they are in a state of 'pissed offedness'. They complain for the sake of complaining. There is an entire department, in the OPP at least, dedicated to listening to and investigating the idol rantings of a generally ill informed and mindless public.
> >
> > I am curious to know WTF you were doing pacing police "vehicles" (more than
> > one) on our highways at over 150 kph! Are you not aware that police
> > officers are exempt from the speed limit in the performance of their duties?
> > DUH.
>
Damn good question. You not only endanger yourself but the officer
and anyone else near you.
> They are exempt from it if they are on a call with lights flashing
> etc. Not on their way to the station in a Suburban. When all
> traffic is moving at 130kph and they fly by you it is easy to tell
> they aren't doing 140kph, 150 was an estimate. Then we both take the
> same off ramp and end up at Tim Hortons.
As explained above, not all calls require lights and sirens. Why is
it I never hear anyone complain about ambulances - who tend to do the
same thing? Gee...could it be that they're not in the business of
handing out tickets?
Either way - you've made my point for me. Your pissed that "they're
breaking the law" - so your solution is to break it too. Grow up.
>
> I have no complaints about cops doing their duty and have a lot of
> respect for the job they do. But could you tell me the obvious
> reasons you feel they are expempt from the law. Could you also
> explain it to a certain Mr. Quattrocci's family here in Kingston whose
> father is dead because some cops were racing down a city street and
> broadsided his car.
And if that isn't enough reason for YOU to slow down I don't know what
is.
Chris
> From almost 20 years experience, I can say that police evidence typically
> deemed un-beatable for stop sign violations goes something like this:
> Police officer observes intersection and has a clear view of you and your
> vehicle.
> -observes that the stop-sign is an "official" stop sign (as defined in HTA
> regarding dimensions);
> -view of stop sign was not obstructed from alleged offender's perspective or
> vantage point;
> -observes vehicle approach the intersection and that the wheels of the
> vehicle, at no time, stopped turning (either before entering the
> intersection or at other designated points).
> -driver stopped and identified as one who committed violation
> -comments of driver regarding allegation (inculpatory)
> Badabing!
>
> This is one of the easiest offences to prove if the officer has half a
> brain.
> Good Luck!
>
It's also one of the easiest ones to beat-if you're taken''er to
court.
Quite simply state that although your 'stop' was not agreeably long.
You
felt that you had more than ample time to assess the traffic and did
not procede through the intersection (corner, what ever) untill it was
safe to do so.
I've seen this one work Many, many, many times. The justice always
seems to be
understanding.
> Kevin
>
> "Johanne" <jg2oasis...@webruler.com> wrote in message
> news:oPfC9.6950$i%.1751579@localhost...
> > It doesn't say the amount of time, in fact, if you want to play on words,
> it
> > doesn't even say "a COMPLETE stop" in the act but it does say that in the
> > Official Driver's Handbook.
> >
> > Here is what the act says:
> >
> > Stop at through highway
> >
> > 136. (1) Every driver or street car operator approaching a stop sign at
> an
> > intersection,
> >
> > (a) shall stop his or her vehicle or street car at a marked stop line or,
> if
> > none, then immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk or, if none,
> > then immediately before entering the intersection; and
> >
> > (b) shall yield the right of way to traffic in the intersection or
> > approaching the intersection on another highway so closely that to proceed
> > would constitute an immediate hazard and, having so yielded the right of
> > way, may proceed.
> >
> > Where to stop - intersection
> >
> > 144(5) A driver who is directed by a traffic signal erected at an
> > intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,
> >
> > (a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be
> made;
> >
> > (b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the
> nearest
> > crosswalk; or
> >
> > (c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, immediately before entering
> > the intersection. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (5).
> >
> > Where to stop - non-intersection
> >
> > (6) A driver who is directed by a traffic signal erected at a location
> other
> > than at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,
> >
> > (a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be
> made;
> >
> > (b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the
> nearest
> > crosswalk; or
> >
> > (c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, not less than five metres
> > before the nearest traffic control signal. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144
> (6).
> >
> > Here's the link for the full act if you wish to read it:
> > http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h08_e.htm#P2003_209777
> >
> > Ok, I don't have a life...what can I say, I love reading that stuff !!!
> >
> > --
> > Johanne
> >
> > 2000 Suzuki Marauder GZ250
> >
> > You know what you have to remove if you want to contact me directly.
> > "Joe Bedford" <joebe...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:RL7C9.18263$hK2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > > Please provide the paragraph number in the HTA where a full stop is
> defined
> > > as a "three count".
> > >
> > > "Robert P." <par...@netrover.com> wrote in message
> > > news:_q7C9.202340$C8.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> > > > I hear the same story all the time. A full stop is a three count not a
> tap
> > > > and go.
> > > > Warning - when you come to the airport there are two set of stop signs
> in
> > > > the outside lane and four sets in the inside lane. I'm watching.
> > > >
> > > > 1984 V65 magna
> > > > Say no to C-68
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
B Vibert
I'm with you up to here. Interesting statistic about sirens causing
more problems than they solve.
Also good to hear that sometimes off duty officers are held
accountable for thier driving.
> As explained above, not all calls require lights and sirens. Why is
> it I never hear anyone complain about ambulances - who tend to do the
> same thing? Gee...could it be that they're not in the business of
> handing out tickets?
> Either way - you've made my point for me. Your pissed that "they're
> breaking the law" - so your solution is to break it too. Grow up.
> >
>
> > I have no complaints about cops doing their duty and have a lot of
> > respect for the job they do. But could you tell me the obvious
> > reasons you feel they are expempt from the law. Could you also
> > explain it to a certain Mr. Quattrocci's family here in Kingston whose
> > father is dead because some cops were racing down a city street and
> > broadsided his car.
>
> And if that isn't enough reason for YOU to slow down I don't know what
> is.
I lost you here when you turned it into a rant about my driving, which
by the way you have never witnessed so maybe you shouldn't comment
on. If you do want to discuss my driving, I have no tickets, all my
points, and a 6 star insurance rating.
I don't see what point I made for you since you didn't really come to
one, except maybe that your reading comprehension needs a little
work.
I've really had enough of this subject, not gonna play anymore.
Kevin
knowing all the circumstances.
I guess that's part of what really frustrates me - people jumping to
conclusions without all the facts.
Boil it down to simplicity and I'd say whether police officer or civilian,
both should be treated with the same consequences for the same or similar
circumstances - equal application in sentencing.
Seatbelts.
In the midst of an argument over the right to wear or not wear a seatbelt a
"Joe potato chip" was insisting it was his body, his life, & his decision as
to whether he would wear his seatbelt and demanded that nobody tell him he
had to. His adversary, an expert witness, brought to his attention that in
some accidents, nobody is injured upon primary impact; that without a
seatbelt the driver is often ejected from his driving position whereby he
has no control over the vehicle. It is then, he asserts, that the secondary
impact occurs in which few in the vehicle may survive (depending on the
nature of the impact). It was a great debate to witness and one which
brought into view an entirely new perspective of the need for seatbelts. If
we're going to be responsible for 3000 lbs of mobile weaponry, we should be
obligated to use all means available to ensure proper control over it.
I'm pretty sure that the seatbelt argument arises more often than the helmet
issue and although many of the circumstances are similar, i.e. health care
etc... some pro-choice-for-seatbelts people don't give the safety of others
much consideration.
Kevin
"steve" <stevew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com...
Tom B
should see the way the "herd" mills about in confusion when a siren is used
anywhere without good sight lines. The problem is these new omni-directional
sirens. People hear them, but have NO idea which way they are coming from. I
witnessed a herd of pedestrians trying to cross the street in front of a
firetruck, sirens blaring lights flashing and honking his horn. Either they
were stupider than the normal jaywalkers, or they were totally confused and
disoriented by the noise around them.
Tom B
KOTD(Knob of the Day) pics here !!
http://pages.sprint.ca/KNOBS
"B Vibert" <blurDIE...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DE58C91...@sympatico.ca...
Chris
> Chris wrote:
> > As explained above, not all calls require lights and sirens. Why is
> > it I never hear anyone complain about ambulances - who tend to do the
> > same thing? Gee...could it be that they're not in the business of
> > handing out tickets?
> > Either way - you've made my point for me. Your pissed that "they're
> > breaking the law" - so your solution is to break it too. Grow up.
> > >
>
> > > I have no complaints about cops doing their duty and have a lot of
> > > respect for the job they do. But could you tell me the obvious
> > > reasons you feel they are expempt from the law. Could you also
> > > explain it to a certain Mr. Quattrocci's family here in Kingston whose
> > > father is dead because some cops were racing down a city street and
> > > broadsided his car.
> >
> > And if that isn't enough reason for YOU to slow down I don't know what
> > is.
>
>
> I lost you here when you turned it into a rant about my driving, which
> by the way you have never witnessed so maybe you shouldn't comment
> on. If you do want to discuss my driving, I have no tickets, all my
> points, and a 6 star insurance rating.
> I don't see what point I made for you since you didn't really come to
> one, except maybe that your reading comprehension needs a little
> work.
> I've really had enough of this subject, not gonna play anymore.
Excellent! Trusting that you will adopt the same 'not gonna play
anymore'
attitude when it comes to pacing police cars at above highway speeds,
which
was at your own admission...I don't need to SEE how you drive to form
an opinion after that sort of comment.
Ride safe and for the love of Pete - stay away from any emergency
vehicles.
Chris
DaveInOttawa
not during riding season! Good rant lads, and congrats on the civility.
Now on to regular rant topics like:
- who makes the best bike?
- what's the best road?
- do loud pipes save lives?
BA HAHAHAHAHAHA
--
DaveInOttawa
'01 ZX12R (Blue) - "Diesel"
<SNIP>
Chris
> > subjective. It's all about risk. I DO NOT see failing to stop for a stop
> > sign as "minor". One of the causes of death in traffic-related fatalities
> > is some bone-head blowing a stop sign. If someone actually STOPS and takes
> > the damn time to scan for traffic, he/she's a lot less apt to cause an
> > accident. Common sense, I think.
>
> Hypocrisy! If had the authority to issue drivers license suspensions
> to police officers who do the exact samething, alot of them would be
> unable to drive to the grocery store or pick up grandma for church on
> sunday, that would be tragic!So I am willing to forgive them for their
> indiscretions, just dont do it again OK,,,,, fine then, now that being
> said consider this:
If you did have the authority I would imagine that this thread would
then be about you and how you abuse said authority....
>
> Police to review driving skills
> Cruiser, pedestrian accident initiates SIU recommendation
>
> Zev Singer
> The Ottawa Citizen
>
>First of all - pedestrians do not always have the right of way and
are frequently where they should not be in relation to moving traffic.
Secondly - at least the police have made an effort here, albeit after
the fact.
When Joe citizen takes out a pedestrian - where's the review of all
citizens driving skills - including yours and mine? When it's citizen
VS citizen we are not all called on the rug to defend our driving
abilities or habits such as are the police. Maybe we should be. The
fact remains that accidents happen period. I fail to understand that
when they happen to police officers rather than you or me - why it
becomes such a moral issue. We should be just as incensed no matter
who is behind the wheel and no matter what markings are on the
vehicle.
>
> > >
> > P.S. Failing to wear a seat belt is not a minor offense either. Can you
> > guess why? Go ahead. Ask me why :-)
> >
> >
> why? o wise one:-)
If you gotta ask - there's no point in answering.
Chris
> I haven't seen so much venting on a given thread for ages... and certainly
> not during riding season! Good rant lads, and congrats on the civility.
>
> Now on to regular rant topics like:
>
bite:
> - who makes the best bike?
Well - that would have to be the guys still maken them with 2 wheels!
Anything on 2 wheels!! But if one is expected to (by default) fall
into the camp of the maker of his or her own ride - then I would have
to pick up the sword for Honda at present. Although, I've had some
pretty spanking Suzies in past and may have to go awol from one camp
or the other to lend a hand.
> - what's the best road?
Hmmm...also tough. This is Ontario and I guess that would also be my
answer. Ontario is the best road! C'mon now...think in the abstract.
> - do loud pipes save lives?
Gee - you sure do know how to ask a hard question. Let me see now...
on one hand yes, probobly for the obvious 'they hear you before they
see you' logic, but on the other hand...I have to wonder how many loud
pipe owners get taken out by their neighbours after too many late
night or early morning starts.
>
> BA HAHAHAHAHAHA
steve
> stevew...@hotmail.com (steve) wrote in message news:<fa306397.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Kevin" <head...@canada.com> wrote in message news:<IkBE9.32787$lj.6...@read1.cgocable.net>...
> >
> > > The opinion of whether failing to stop at a stop sign is "minor" offense, is
> > > subjective. It's all about risk. I DO NOT see failing to stop for a stop
> > > sign as "minor". One of the causes of death in traffic-related fatalities
> > > is some bone-head blowing a stop sign. If someone actually STOPS and takes
> > > the damn time to scan for traffic, he/she's a lot less apt to cause an
> > > accident. Common sense, I think.
> >
> > Hypocrisy! If had the authority to issue drivers license suspensions
> > to police officers who do the exact samething, alot of them would be
> > unable to drive to the grocery store or pick up grandma for church on
> > sunday, that would be tragic!So I am willing to forgive them for their
> > indiscretions, just dont do it again OK,,,,, fine then, now that being
> > said consider this:
>
> If you did have the authority I would imagine that this thread would
> then be about you and how you abuse said authority....
but I dont, so its about the police instead.
> >
> > Police to review driving skills
> > Cruiser, pedestrian accident initiates SIU recommendation
> >
> > Zev Singer
> > The Ottawa Citizen
> >
> >First of all - pedestrians do not always have the right of way and
> are frequently where they should not be in relation to moving traffic.
like walking on a side walk???? what the hell are you talkng about?
>
> Secondly - at least the police have made an effort here, albeit after
> the fact.
> When Joe citizen takes out a pedestrian - where's the review of all
> citizens driving skills - including yours and mine? When it's citizen
> VS citizen we are not all called on the rug to defend our driving
> abilities or habits such as are the police.
yes we are
Maybe we should be. The
> fact remains that accidents happen period. I fail to understand that
> when they happen to police officers rather than you or me - why it
> becomes such a moral issue. We should be just as incensed no matter
> who is behind the wheel and no matter what markings are on the
> vehicle.
we are,but because police drive more then your average joe,they get
away with more, not unlike some tribes of motorcyclists, they seem to
think they own the road.
> >
> > > >
> > > P.S. Failing to wear a seat belt is not a minor offense either. Can you
> > > guess why? Go ahead. Ask me why :-)
> > >
> > >
> > why? o wise one:-)
>
> If you gotta ask - there's no point in answering.
it was a joke, but for the most part seatbelts save lives, should they
charge people because they dont wear a helmet to go walking done the
street?....what next? $90 fines for not having seatbelts on bikes????
cash grab.
James Watt
> Seatbelts.
> In the midst of an argument over the right to wear or not wear a seatbelt
> a "Joe potato chip" was insisting it was his body, his life, & his
> decision as to whether he would wear his seatbelt and demanded that nobody
> tell him he
> had to.
It's interesting that people are so self-centered; not surprising, but
interesting. When one gets in an accident without wearing a seatbelt,
apparently you do this alone (single car accident) and without affecting
anyone else. How does this happen? There isn't anyone inconvenienced by
your accident? Not the other users of the road? Not the ambulence
attendents? Not the police? Not the person that may have needed that
ambulence more than this guy?
> His adversary, an expert witness, brought to his attention that
> in some accidents, nobody is injured upon primary impact; that without a
> seatbelt the driver is often ejected from his driving position whereby he
> has no control over the vehicle. It is then, he asserts, that the
> secondary impact occurs in which few in the vehicle may survive (depending
> on the
> nature of the impact). It was a great debate to witness and one which
> brought into view an entirely new perspective of the need for seatbelts.
Seems all too obvious.
> If we're going to be responsible for 3000 lbs of mobile weaponry, we
> should be obligated to use all means available to ensure proper control
> over it.
I would only change one thing - "all means available" to "all reasonable
means available". A roll cage, 4/5 point harnesses, helmets, custom seats,
etc. are all means, but not reasonable ones for passenger vehicles (at this
time). Applies to motorcycles as well. (Awwww, can't we start the "it's
too hot to wear my jacket" thread again??? Pleeeeze.....it's a long way to
spring...)
> I'm pretty sure that the seatbelt argument arises more often than the
> helmet issue and although many of the circumstances are similar, i.e.
> health care etc... some pro-choice-for-seatbelts people don't give the
> safety of others much consideration.
I thought we'd pretty much decided seatbelts were a good thing. Now if we
can get the people to turn on their headlights instead of using just the
daytime running lights we'd be set. You know the tail lights don't work
when you use the daytime running lights, eh? Can't see the person at night
in rain or snow. The have no clue...uh, that they can't be seen.
Any other good court room stories?
James.
>
> Kevin
James Watt
> speaking from experience, I'd say the sirens do more harm than good. You
> should see the way the "herd" mills about in confusion when a siren is
> used anywhere without good sight lines. The problem is these new
> omni-directional sirens. People hear them, but have NO idea which way they
> are coming from. I witnessed a herd of pedestrians trying to cross the
> street in front of a firetruck, sirens blaring lights flashing and honking
> his horn. Either they were stupider than the normal jaywalkers, or they
> were totally confused and disoriented by the noise around them.
Maybe they need louder pipes :-)
James.
Atrate
"DaveInOttawa" <dave_...@carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:as5952$gub$1...@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca...
> not during riding season! Good rant lads, and congrats on the civility.
CIVILITY??!? Okay...
>
> Now on to regular rant topics like:
>
> - who makes the best bike?
Why....MINE of course :) She is the total accumulation of grace, style,
elan and damned good looks :)
> - what's the best road?
Any one she takes me on that I come back from in one piece and WHEW! factor
:)
> - do loud pipes save lives?
Of course not. But DAMN...they are fun :)
>
> BA HAHAHAHAHAHA
Ditto :)
Atrate
'99 Vulcan Drifter 800 (totally without loud pipes)
"Sadie" <do NOT laugh!