martha_91

iTrader: (7)

I got pulled over driving my FC without a hood... I bought a TII hood and transported it to get it painted (by means of the vehicle I drove). Went to work overnight with it and got pulled over first thing in the morning on the way home. the cop told me that he could have deemed it an "unsafe vehicle" and have it towed but since he could get a ticket to stick, he busted me for having the car painted and not changing the registration (which i didn't know had to be done at the time). Oddly enough though, he made me engage my E-brake and stall the engine into gear to prove that it worked....? lol cops...

CloudPump

iTrader: (2)

The cops can basically pull you over for whatever they'd like. The ontario courts system has established precedent that a "Document Check" is a valid reason to stop a vehicle, however this is obviously not what took place in your example.

Cops make mistakes. He may call your vehicle "unsafe" but it doesn't mean he's right. (I admit I'm not familiar with FC's, if your wiper squirters are in your hood, then he is correct).

I am going to traffic court to fight a ticket this Friday and I'm going to win because the cop was wrong, which I can show easily.

I received a speeding ticket in my FD, however I wasn't driving. The cop didn't pay any attention and didn't notice my car was RHD and I was in the passenger seat.

He came to the window and asked for license/registration and insurance which I provided. He went back to his car, wrote up a ticket and gave it to me. I didn't argue at the time because if I pointed out his error he'd have walked to the other side of the vehicle and given my friend the ticket.

My point: Cops are hired to enforce laws, but that doesn't make them experts. They make mistakes.

As for the E-Brake check. A working E-Brake is required to pass an ontario safety. If your E-Brake doesn't work you are legally unsafe.

-Geoff

Scrodes

No it is not illegal to drive without a hood at least not in Ontario, but the laws vary from province to province as our traffic legislation is left in the hands of the provinces instead of being written federally. - it would not warrant an unsafe vehicle charge, and as far as the wipers/washers go, it would be illegal to issue a safety standards certificate to a vehicle without operating wipers and washers, it's not actually illegal to drive without washers. There is a charge section relating to wipers, but not to washers. In the same sense that motor vehicles are required to have daytime running lights to pass a safety, but it's not illegal to be driving a vehicle without DTRs.

Also I think the charge section for wipers - much like the one for headlamps or taillights etc, has specific conditions and only applies to when the use of wipers is required (eg, for lighting, it's not an offence to have inoperative headlamps unless the time/lighting or visibility conditions are met and dictate that they be used)


As far as an unsafe charge goes, that's one hell of a stretch, I sure as hell wouldn't write it for a missing hood, section 84 of the Act states "84. (1) No person shall drive or operate or permit the driving or operation upon a highway of a vehicle, a street car or vehicles that in combination are in a dangerous or unsafe condition." which is a no set fine penalty, meaning it would have to be dealt with via summons, but once it reaches the court, the Officer would have to articulate why the vehicle's condition was significant enough to warrant an unsafe charge.

ie - I charged a guy for unsafe this week because he was pulling a trailer weighing 5600kg with a G class licence and no operative brakes while the load on the trailer was also overwidth.



LASTLY - I want to punch people in the face for their Right Hand Drive Vehicle signs on the rear of their cars. Read the section, the sign is only required on a vehicle which is a right had drive and the vehicle is not equipped with electronic signalling devices, also known as turn signals.


Not entirely true - the courts did not establish this precedent, it's written right into the Highway Traffic Act. It is not a result of caselaw, rather it is legislated.



Half true, the e-brake IS a legally required item, but it's also required under the Act, so not only would it be illegal to safety a vehicle without a fucntioning secondary braking system, the driver AND owner (if different) can be charged for Defective Braking System (section 64 of the Act).

misterstyx69

iTrader: (142)

What gets me is that a Cop can say that the vehicle is "unsafe" but they have no Credentials to back up their actions.
I mean the cop is not a licensed mechanic.

CloudPump

iTrader: (2)

A cop can say you're impaired (which is not necessarily defined as drunk) without being a doctor. This is what the courts system is for.

-Geoff

misterstyx69

iTrader: (142)

..damn half full glass of water politics again.

MuRCieLaGo

iTrader: (14)

Congrats, you're my new hero.

Scrodes

I passionately disagree with this. Anyone can inspect to Ontario Regulation 611, that's precisely why it's written in plain language.

Does the Operate unsafe vehicle charge get overused? Yes absolutely, but so does everything. As was already said, that's why we have a legal system. If you don't believe the officer is correct then you can contest the charge and have your day in court. If the Officer can't articulate why he believes the vehicle was unsafe to the courts satisfaction then you'll be found not guilty.


If you saw someone standing on the seat of a motorcycle with their hands up in the air while riding down the 401, you would probably say "HOLY HELL THAT'S DANGEROUS!" and yet, you're not a carnie....

gerald m

In most cases laws are worded in favor of the courts , In the hood deal if the officer stands up in court and tells the judge (in My opinion the vehicle was a danger to the people around it because it was distracting other driver and had the potential to cause a accident then your hooped . ) I'm not a lawyer but I've been in court enough times and spent about as much cash as you could stuff in the hatch of a 7 on lawyers to know how that **** goes . If they want you to be guilty you will be guilty like it or lump it . But it sure feels good when ya get away , it's all a matter of how much coin you want to throw at it .. and if anyone pooped in said officers corn flakes that morning . Ontario has different types of laws compared to most of the country , ( Kinda like California in the USA ) Heck out here in SK. we take the dam hoods off and use them for toboggans to haul our pemmican and smoked fish home on , up hill both ways .. Gerald m.

PnoyRx7

iTrader: (3)

Sorry to revive this thread but I had to do this (again) because the hood I bought to replace mine had broken bolts so I had to deliver it to Joe at Classic Auto to repair it. I went through a ride program (or similar ) and the officer was very polite and asked me what was the issue here. I just told him the whole story about the hood and bolts etc. He said no worries he understands and that as long as the squirters are working (I taped them to the firewall) that he is ok with it. He let me go and I got home with no issues.

On a side note it is weird that a checkpoint is in such a weird remote area and at noon.