odot1

PERSONAL opinions of an OPP SAVE officer

Recommended Posts

That's just freakin cool!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, odot1 said:

Certainly not my area of expertise...but we did talk about this last summer at work.  Hers the regs...

  • below 90 m above the ground
  • at least 30 m away from vehicles, vessels and the public (if your drone weighs over 250 g and up to 1 kg)
  • at least 75 m away from vehicles, vessels and the public (if your drone weighs over 1 kg and up to 35 kg)
  • at least 5.5 km away from aerodromes (any airport, seaplane base or area where aircraft take off and land)
  • at least 1.8 km away from heliports or aerodromes used by helicopters only
  • outside of controlled or restricted airspace
  • at least 9 km away from a natural hazard or disaster area
  • away from areas where its use could interfere with police or first responders
  • during the day and not in clouds
  • within your sight at all times
  • within 500 m of yourself
  • only if clearly marked with your name, address and telephone number

You are exempt from these rules if you are at a field or event approved by the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada. 

Basically...unless you live in a rural setting you're kinda stuck ans have to venture out somewhere.  This is all "policed" by Transport Canada and they would be responsible for administer fines.  The lesser stuff can be fined up to $3000.  The major stuff...such as endangering an aircraft can get you up $25000 in fines.   AND..  beware of trespassing laws, the  new voyeurism laws etc....

Who do you call to report a drone flying over your backyard and house?

My wife was in backyard one day and a guy was flying a drone around our backyard.  We back onto 16 mile creek and he had a park on opposite side of the creek and instead choose to fly very close to my house.  It scared her.  When wife yelled he ran like a scared cat.  Unfortunately i was not home and when she told me the guy had left his backpack by fence i was pissed she did not pick it up and keep it.    He came back and grabbed it before neighbours did.

Milton Police did not attend but may have increased patrols in neighbourhood as this was third siteing of the guy flying over homes in our subdivision of 17 homes.  One neighbour gave the guy his drone back after it crashed in his yard.   I would have shown the guy where it crashed in my pool. And charged him salvage. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, odot1 said:

Gotta love neighbours!!  I've heard of guys shooting the drones down with shotguns... but if caught you're kinda screwed with firearms charges.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sksman said:

Who do you call to report a drone flying over your backyard and house?

My wife was in backyard one day and a guy was flying a drone around our backyard.  We back onto 16 mile creek and he had a park on opposite side of the creek and instead choose to fly very close to my house.  It scared her.  When wife yelled he ran like a scared cat.  Unfortunately i was not home and when she told me the guy had left his backpack by fence i was pissed she did not pick it up and keep it.    He came back and grabbed it before neighbours did.

Milton Police did not attend but may have increased patrols in neighbourhood as this was third siteing of the guy flying over homes in our subdivision of 17 homes.  One neighbour gave the guy his drone back after it crashed in his yard.   I would have shown the guy where it crashed in my pool. And charged him salvage. 

 

You can call the police for sure...that should at least help in present.. Especially if it's an ongoing issue. He/she could speak to neighbours about privacy issues, trespassing etc..    But also notify transport Canada as it's actually their jurisdiction.  It's an easy online notification:

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/drone-incident-report-form.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the above. Have a neighbor down the street who is a constant nuisance with his drone in the summer flying in and around backyards including my own. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ZRSledhead said:

Thank you for the above. Have a neighbor down the street who is a constant nuisance with his drone in the summer flying in and around backyards including my own. 

Hope it helps.  From what I've been hearing, TC is starting to take these things seriously.  I'd still prefer the good ol' shotgun approach...but meh, what can ya do?!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Sean, check this one out.

A friend if mine got a ticket today for an aftermarket exhaust. No biggy willing to pay as its 2 hours to fight it in court.

The best part is he was on his property going to the Lake to his ice hut. Cop said he was on a Prescribed OFSC Trail.

So you can have no Val Tag, Helmet, no insurance or no Permit on your property but you can't have a modified exhaust? 

Don't get me wrong I'm all for enforcement and a modified exhaust which is part of a turbo kit is not a noise issue. 

Him and his Family have been Trail Landowners for almost 50 years and been involved and helped establish the local Club so no issue there with loss of permission. If they did shut down the Trail on their property it would impact a very important link and Community.

What if they weren't? A Landowner with nothing to do with the Club and gets charged on his property. A good way to get Trails closed.

Discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Algonquin Rider said:

Hey Sean, check this one out.

A friend if mine got a ticket today for an aftermarket exhaust. No biggy willing to pay as its 2 hours to fight it in court.

The best part is he was on his property going to the Lake to his ice hut. Cop said he was on a Prescribed OFSC Trail.

So you can have no Val Tag, Helmet, no insurance or no Permit on your property but you can't have a modified exhaust? 

Don't get me wrong I'm all for enforcement and a modified exhaust which is part of a turbo kit is not a noise issue. 

Him and his Family have been Trail Landowners for almost 50 years and been involved and helped establish the local Club so no issue there with loss of permission. If they did shut down the Trail on their property it would impact a very important link and Community.

What if they weren't? A Landowner with nothing to do with the Club and gets charged on his property. A good way to get Trails closed.

Discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

While it's always hard for me to comment on another officer's interactions as I was not there and do not have all sides of the story, I can comment on generalities.  As much as we would like thinks to be perfectly black and white in the world...there are too many shades of grey.  Trails on private property being used by the owner is one.  

So here we have the specific section dealing with modifications...  In every section of the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act (MSVA) you will see the rule and then exceptions if any)

Equipment requirements

Muffler in working order

18 (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1).

Removing or modifying any component

(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2).

Exception in racing area

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a motorized snow vehicle while it is driven in a racing area sanctioned as such by the council of the municipality within which the racing area is located.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Next I will post the insurance section....

Insurance

12 (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless the vehicle is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act, and the owner of a motorized snow vehicle shall not permit any person to drive the vehicle unless the vehicle is so insured.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Production of evidence of insurance

(2) The driver of a motorized snow vehicle who drives or permits the driving of the motorized snow vehicle shall, upon the request of a police officer or conservation officer, produce evidence that the vehicle is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Offence for failure to have insurance

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Offence for producing false evidence

(4) Every driver of a motorized snow vehicle who produces false evidence when required to produce evidence under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 12 (4).

Exemption

(5) This section does not apply to a person driving a motorized snow vehicle on land occupied by the owner of the vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 12 (5).

Notice in this section it specifically states that owners of the property are exempt.  In the modification section it doesn't.  So based on the MSVA the officer had the authority to issue the ticket.  I do get your concern however and it is legit.  It's always a tough balance for us out there.  We try to weigh all factors, first and foremost is safety...the in cascades down from there.  Often times it comes down to the totality of the interaction. I.E. is this the only issue for this stop, or are there other infractions? Yes, attitude can factor in. Volume of traffic, weather etc etc.. AND... when it comes to the modified exhaust we always look back to the issue in Quebec when they lost huge sections of trails due to noise.  I've found most paying trail riders despise the cans.  Personally I don't understand why you want the loud buzzing in your ears while riding all day, but to each his own.  I do occasionally laugh when some people cite weight savings and performance gains..  Perhaps on a track..maybe a few pounds.  As for the performance...often you will need to re map the fuel delivery etc...rarely done except by the serious guys.  Even then...  I've yet to see an non-modified sled incapable of reaching 50knm/h ;) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, odot1 said:

While it's always hard for me to comment on another officer's interactions as I was not there and do not have all sides of the story, I can comment on generalities.  As much as we would like thinks to be perfectly black and white in the world...there are too many shades of grey.  Trails on private property being used by the owner is one.  

So here we have the specific section dealing with modifications...  In every section of the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act (MSVA) you will see the rule and then exceptions if any)

Equipment requirements

Muffler in working order

18 (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless it is equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation and no person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle which has a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon the motorized snow vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (1).

Removing or modifying any component

(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven any motorized snow vehicle upon which any component or device, which was required under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the motorized snow vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada, has been removed, modified or rendered inoperative.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (2).

Exception in racing area

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a motorized snow vehicle while it is driven in a racing area sanctioned as such by the council of the municipality within which the racing area is located.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 18 (3); 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Next I will post the insurance section....

Insurance

12 (1) No person shall drive a motorized snow vehicle unless the vehicle is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act, and the owner of a motorized snow vehicle shall not permit any person to drive the vehicle unless the vehicle is so insured.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Production of evidence of insurance

(2) The driver of a motorized snow vehicle who drives or permits the driving of the motorized snow vehicle shall, upon the request of a police officer or conservation officer, produce evidence that the vehicle is insured under a motor vehicle liability policy in accordance with the Insurance Act.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Offence for failure to have insurance

(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000.  2000, c. 30, s. 6 (1).

Offence for producing false evidence

(4) Every driver of a motorized snow vehicle who produces false evidence when required to produce evidence under subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 12 (4).

Exemption

(5) This section does not apply to a person driving a motorized snow vehicle on land occupied by the owner of the vehicle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 12 (5).

Notice in this section it specifically states that owners of the property are exempt.  In the modification section it doesn't.  So based on the MSVA the officer had the authority to issue the ticket.  I do get your concern however and it is legit.  It's always a tough balance for us out there.  We try to weigh all factors, first and foremost is safety...the in cascades down from there.  Often times it comes down to the totality of the interaction. I.E. is this the only issue for this stop, or are there other infractions? Yes, attitude can factor in. Volume of traffic, weather etc etc.. AND... when it comes to the modified exhaust we always look back to the issue in Quebec when they lost huge sections of trails due to noise.  I've found most paying trail riders despise the cans.  Personally I don't understand why you want the loud buzzing in your ears while riding all day, but to each his own.  I do occasionally laugh when some people cite weight savings and performance gains..  Perhaps on a track..maybe a few pounds.  As for the performance...often you will need to re map the fuel delivery etc...rarely done except by the serious guys.  Even then...  I've yet to see an non-modified sled incapable of reaching 50knm/h ;) 

 

Sean I get it.

I hate exhaust cans more than anyone.

The issue is doing what you want on your property. Getting a ticket for anything on your property to me is outrageous.

JMO

  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Algonquin Rider said:

Sean I get it.

I hate exhaust cans more than anyone.

The issue is doing what you want on your property. Getting a ticket for anything on your property to me is outrageous.

JMO

  

 

 

I've always been surprised by this... to be honest this is the first time I've heard of it actually happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, odot1 said:

I've always been surprised by this... to be honest this is the first time I've heard of it actually happening. 

Back when there were trail wardens the club had to deal w/ overzealous ones that would hassle a kid on a beater Bravo on the family property or a trapper going to his trapline. Pretty easy to tell that a guy riding a Citation LS/Tundra longtrack w/ a box of traps isn't a recreational sledder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to do with the trail, or property.  It is against the law to modify a snowmobile's exhaust, period.  You could be charged loading it onto your trailer in a parking lot. 

If a guy wants to close a trail because HE broke the law, so be it.  One has nothing to do with the other.  All property owners have neighbours, and the legislation was passed because of noise issues.  Just because you own land, does not give you the right to offend neighbours on adjacent properties or crown land, with excessive noise. 

I'd like to see the fines increased to $1000+, so the law might have some meaningful effect. 

 

 

 

On 2/18/2018 at 12:22 AM, Algonquin Rider said:

Hey Sean, check this one out.

A friend if mine got a ticket today for an aftermarket exhaust. No biggy willing to pay as its 2 hours to fight it in court.

The best part is he was on his property going to the Lake to his ice hut. Cop said he was on a Prescribed OFSC Trail.

So you can have no Val Tag, Helmet, no insurance or no Permit on your property but you can't have a modified exhaust? 

Don't get me wrong I'm all for enforcement and a modified exhaust which is part of a turbo kit is not a noise issue. 

Him and his Family have been Trail Landowners for almost 50 years and been involved and helped establish the local Club so no issue there with loss of permission. If they did shut down the Trail on their property it would impact a very important link and Community.

What if they weren't? A Landowner with nothing to do with the Club and gets charged on his property. A good way to get Trails closed.

Discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, revrnd said:

Back when there were trail wardens the club had to deal w/ overzealous ones that would hassle a kid on a beater Bravo on the family property or a trapper going to his trapline. Pretty easy to tell that a guy riding a Citation LS/Tundra longtrack w/ a box of traps isn't a recreational sledder.

Sometimes it is pretty obvious like you said. I always got a chuckle out of the guy that was miles away from a lake with multiple road crossings and trails to go to get to the nearest lake and he would reach in a pouch and pull out a fish hook and a 20 ft of fish line saying he was going fishing and didn't need a permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Puzzleboy said:

Nothing to do with the trail, or property.  It is against the law to modify a snowmobile's exhaust, period.  You could be charged loading it onto your trailer in a parking lot. 

If a guy wants to close a trail because HE broke the law, so be it.  One has nothing to do with the other.  All property owners have neighbours, and the legislation was passed because of noise issues.  Just because you own land, does not give you the right to offend neighbours on adjacent properties or crown land, with excessive noise. 

I'd like to see the fines increased to $1000+, so the law might have some meaningful effect. 

Pretty much the same concept as a loud noisy party on your own property that keeps the neighbours awake at 2 in the morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Pretty much the same concept as a loud noisy party on your own property that keeps the neighbours awake at 2 in the morning.

Agree but that is what the Municipality By-Law is for.  

My point is getting a ticket for anything on your property while donating your property to be used by the Public will close OFSC Trails. 

It has nothing to do with an exhaust. Its the principle of the Law on a Trail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trail is a public place once an agreement has been made. Landowner or not and it's pay up time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smokin george said:

The trail is a public place once an agreement has been made. Landowner or not and it's pay up time. 

Finally the right answer.

I wonder how many Landowners know this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Algonquin Rider said:

Finally the right answer.

I wonder how many Landowners know this?

 

Not sure how many know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have it completely backwards (no offence).   That is like saying you should be able to murder someone on your own property.  (extreme example, but applicable). 

Nowhere is it written, that allowing OFSC trails to run across your property, means you are no longer subject to existing province-wide legislation. 

It has everything to do with the exhaust, and nothing to do with "law on a trail".  The legislation prohibits exhaust modification, period,  on any snowmobile operated in Ontario.  Nothing to do with land ownership. 

Everyone is thankful for donated property.  But a modified exhaust is illegal everywhere, not just on property you don't own.  Why?  Because it's a noise/environmental issue. 

So if someone breaks the law, even on their own property, and closes the trail because they feel that province-wide legislation should not apply on THEIR property, then they have a comprehension issue.  Because they could be ticketed anywhere

 

 

13 hours ago, Algonquin Rider said:

Agree but that is what the Municipality By-Law is for.  

My point is getting a ticket for anything on your property while donating your property to be used by the Public will close OFSC Trails. 

It has nothing to do with an exhaust. Its the principle of the Law on a Trail.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2018 at 6:18 PM, revrnd said:

What are the legalities of someone flying a drone over private property?

Checking out a nudist camp?:lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Checking out a nudist camp?:lol:

Don't forget to be politically correct. Clothing Optional camp.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Do I need to take the original ownership for a motorcycle when crossing the boarder or does a photocopy suffice?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.