odot1

PERSONAL opinions of an OPP SAVE officer

Recommended Posts

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 9:37 PM, odot1 said:

Part of that training is to NOT run RADAR on corners.  In your scenario there is 99% chance RADAR wasn't being used.  No officer wants to go court and testify that they were set up on a curve.

Interesting. I,ve seen them set up on an eastbound  curve many, many times on the 401 around the Merwin Lane overpass in the Prescott area. It,s a perfect spot for them to hide. LOL

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Frostynuts said:

Interesting. I,ve seen them set up on an eastbound  curve many, many times on the 401 around the Merwin Lane overpass in the Prescott area. It,s a perfect spot for them to hide. LOL

If they are on a curve...  The RADAR should be facing along the exit or entrance straight stretch...  Hidden curves are useful for seatbelts and distracted driving...  Or traffic calming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I'd then have to explain to the judge about trigonometric error.  :)

Sean, in Ontario, what is/are the most prevalent speed measuring device(s), provincially and municipally?  Still radar, laser....or?

Share this post


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

Because I'd then have to explain to the judge about trigonometric error.  :)

Sean, in Ontario, what is/are the most prevalent speed measuring device(s), provincially and municipally?  Still radar, laser....or?

We refer to the curves and their effect as the cosine effect..  it actually works in favor of the target!!   Its still a good mix between RADAR and LiDAR (laser).  Each has its uses, LiDAR is still just a stationary device whereas RADAR can be used both stationary and moving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 7:56 PM, Frostynuts said:

Sean, I,m sure this topic is going to open up a can of worms here, but the other day I was on a sidewalk on main street of our small town, and a group of bikers came rolling thru, with painfully LOUD pipes, which rattled the storefront windows.

My ears were ringing for 15 minutes after they had all passed thru.

Why are these guys allowed to run these loud strait pipes, without being fined and forced to re-instal the stock mufflers ?

Why does it seem that only the sleds with cans get hassled, and not these guys ?

Because you can't close a road but you can close a trail. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a kid sit in the front seat of a vehicle (crew cab pick up) in a booster seat?  7 year old with the air bag off.  I know the back seat is safest but.....

 

Cheers

Share this post


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

Can a kid sit in the front seat of a vehicle (crew cab pick up) in a booster seat?  7 year old with the air bag off.  I know the back seat is safest but.....

 

Cheers

Yes they can as long as the seat/booster meets the age and weight requirements...

"Passengers under age 16

While they're not required to sit in the back seat, research has shown that children under age 13 are safest in the back seat of motor vehicles away from active airbags.

Exception: Where a back seat is unavailable, or if the back seat is a sideways facing seat, such as in a light-duty truck, children can sit in the front seat only if:

there is no active airbag for the front seat
OR

the front air bag can be switched off*"

"*If there is no switch to turn the air bag on/off, visit Transport Canada for more information on their deactivation program."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean, where ya been?  Hope you had a great holiday! :)

Q - is it legal to modify/remove/swap ANY component of a snowmobile's exhaust system?  Clearly, mufflers are specifically addressed by the MSVA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Sean, where ya been?  Hope you had a great holiday! :)

Q - is it legal to modify/remove/swap ANY component of a snowmobile's exhaust system?  Clearly, mufflers are specifically addressed by the MSVA. 

Shoulder surgery...  22SEP16 went under knife.  Finally back to work!!  As for question....

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).

Based on the above...really can't modify/swap/remove any component...  In all honesty.  If you are riding a sled that's not obnoxiously loud, or has an obvious aftermarket muffler/exhaust the chances of being fined are slim by officers like myself.  As in anything else..if you bring attention to yourself, people will start looking closer...

 

Share this post


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

Blackstar on suicide watch....

Good news Puzzle!.... you can run the header on your 1200!..As Blackstar said, no issue.....it's really about noise.  Nothing to do with regulation....now tell us how you got 430 hp out of your average Corvette without modifications?.....Odot standing by with ticket book in hand.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to wonder to about some people drawing attention to themselves. Recent imports into the village w/ no visible means of support have a Dodge pickup w/ a "LEGALIZE" bumper sticker on it. Then today I saw a car drive by while I was blowing out the driveways, w/ this as a plate, FLYTRISK. SMH

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You have to wonder to about some people drawing attention to themselves. Recent imports into the village w/ no visible means of support have a Dodge pickup w/ a "LEGALIZE" bumper sticker on it. Then today I saw a car drive by while I was blowing out the driveways, w/ this as a plate, FLYTRISK. SMH

JOB SECURITY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Q. 

Odot, the recent arrest of Renata Ford in a parking lot for Over .080 and/or Impaired, got the Puzzler thinking. 

How have the "care and control" requirements changed given that so many cars are now keyless ignitions?  Or have they? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odot said that you can't modify/swap/remove any exhaust components, legally.  Per the MSVA.  Street cars are under different legislation.  Ticketing/enforcement is another issue, as stated. 

And the average C6 is 430 hp stock...... nice try though!  Damn trolls...... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not allowed to "profile" those folks revvy.  That includes trailer hitch nutsacks, and Jamaica, Haiti, Browning, and Smith & Wesson window stickers.  :)

Although, I would pull over everybody with the silhouette of the NFLD map.  You're guaranteed to find something illegal in all those vehicles. 

 

3 hours ago, revrnd said:

You have to wonder to about some people drawing attention to themselves. Recent imports into the village w/ no visible means of support have a Dodge pickup w/ a "LEGALIZE" bumper sticker on it. Then today I saw a car drive by while I was blowing out the driveways, w/ this as a plate, FLYTRISK. SMH

Edited by Puzzleboy

Share this post


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

New Q. 

Odot, the recent arrest of Renata Ford in a parking lot for Over .080 and/or Impaired, got the Puzzler thinking. 

How have the "care and control" requirements changed given that so many cars are now keyless ignitions?  Or have they? 

Much has changed given the supreme court found a guy sleeping in a running car and drunk as fuck was not guilty. They must now prove intent to drive.

Share this post


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

New Q. 

Odot, the recent arrest of Renata Ford in a parking lot for Over .080 and/or Impaired, got the Puzzler thinking. 

How have the "care and control" requirements changed given that so many cars are now keyless ignitions?  Or have they? 

 

5 hours ago, Boered said:

Much has changed given the supreme court found a guy sleeping in a running car and drunk as fuck was not guilty. They must now prove intent to drive.

The keyless ignition really hasn't changed anything.  The intention to drive has always been needed to be proven.  Impaired driving cases are the toughest to get a conviction...only speeding convictions are as tough.  I'd rather testify in a murder trial to be honest.  The courts have opened so many loopholes, defense lawyers have managed to get the most ridiculous precedents set..  I'm surprised that we get any convictions at all. If you have the money for a impaired lawyer...good chance you'll win it these days. The actual reading of alcohol in your blood seems to mean nothing....  All my personal opinion of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the physical keys would come into play in those cases, so was wondering if anything had changed.  I always thought the C & C laws were rubbish, as I have no issue with a drunk sleeping it off in his car. 

A large percentage of people defending Impaired and over .080 are successful, and for good reason.  Because it's in the criminal code and not civil, the onus must be on the crown to prove their case.  If errors are made by the officers, or junior-ish crowns are sent to prosecute these cases, people will win.  Alcohol readings are only one piece of evidence...... and we all know machines can fail.  All the evidence must be considered. 

Share this post


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

Although, I would pull over everybody with the silhouette of the NFLD map.  You're guaranteed to find something illegal in all those vehicles. 

 

I haven't seen as many of those in recent years. A few of us were talking about the Newfie map thing @ work 1 day. Someone wondered why nobody from other provinces did the same thing, we just shrugged. I said it would be funny to put a map of Ontario in the back window & see if anyone noticed. I did see an Ontario map a few years later on an SUV in Bowmanville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newfies have to show the map. 

Ontarians are the butt of NOBODY's jokes.  :)

(Well, maybe not financially anymore). 

Edited by Puzzleboy

Share this post


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

I thought that the physical keys would come into play in those cases, so was wondering if anything had changed.  I always thought the C & C laws were rubbish, as I have no issue with a drunk sleeping it off in his car. 

A large percentage of people defending Impaired and over .080 are successful, and for good reason.  Because it's in the criminal code and not civil, the onus must be on the crown to prove their case.  If errors are made by the officers, or junior-ish crowns are sent to prosecute these cases, people will win.  Alcohol readings are only one piece of evidence...... and we all know machines can fail.  All the evidence must be considered. 

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12636/index.do    Care and control supreme court ruling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, Puzzleboy said:

I thought that the physical keys would come into play in those cases, so was wondering if anything had changed.  I always thought the C & C laws were rubbish, as I have no issue with a drunk sleeping it off in his car. 

A large percentage of people defending Impaired and over .080 are successful, and for good reason.  Because it's in the criminal code and not civil, the onus must be on the crown to prove their case.  If errors are made by the officers, or junior-ish crowns are sent to prosecute these cases, people will win.  Alcohol readings are only one piece of evidence...... and we all know machines can fail.  All the evidence must be considered. 

If the key fob is present or close enough to the vehicle you have the ability to start and put the vehicle in motion.  I agree with the crowns and occasionally some errors made by the police.  Impaireds are tough...there is a very long and unforgiving list of steps and timelines that must be followed.  AS for the instrument themselves...Its incredibly rare that they fail...  miniscule really.  If there is an issue with the readings...its human error 99.99999% of the time.  The instruments themselves as well as the roadside instruments are skewed to favour the driver as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 6:39 PM, Boered said:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12636/index.do    Care and control supreme court ruling.

Good case law...really just a quick read will show exactly why the case was thrown out...as it should be.  Some quick follow up would've saved a lot of time and money..Clearly no mens rea in this case.

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.