odot1

Lol! Unless he has access to Ontario tickets, the HTA, a court that will accept his ticket.... oh and sworn in as an officer in Ontario, he's kinda out of luck. But again... original is best. I always carry my original.

I agree that it's always better to have the original for sure. Legally speaking though..even in Florida the administrative side of your vehicle is governed by the province in which it's registered. An example... you take a trip... while traveling your birthday happens and now your validation sticker is expired.. they could not charge you with anything. It's an Ontario statute and requirement. We deal with similar issues from Quebec..

Now that I'm home... Here is the actual wording of the section. Permit to be carried (5) Subject to subsection (6), every driver of a motor vehicle on a highway shall carry, (a) the permit for it or a true copy thereof; and (b) where the motor vehicle is drawing a trailer, the permit for the trailer or a true copy thereof, and shall surrender the permits or copies for inspection upon the demand of a police officer. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 7 (5). So the answer is still.. yes, a copy will work.

A good quality photo copy SHOULD suffice... I assume just personal/pleasure ride??

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

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

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?!?

Although I may have screwed you over a bit.. I think I sent it in CAD...

Sent a few $$

Oddly... no!!!!!!!!! I think she's a keeper!!

I do notice a rather small but hugely telling line within the article... "Some Defendants, posing at U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities," the indictment claims. To me that would kinda throw out the whole colluding argument, no?

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

That's just freakin cool!

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

Thanks for the kind words Joe.....and lmfao at the inlaw comparison!!

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....

Bold: WTF?!?!? How is that brainwashing?? That is literally a huge component of our job. Fkn idiots like this destroy it for others...

So I've looked and all I can find is a reference to an MTO publication Part 6 addressing this issue. It reads: "Towing More Than One VehicleCars, passenger vans and SUVs are not permitted to tow more than one trailer or one vehicle. Motor homes, trucks, pickup trucks and truck campers are legally permitted to tow two trailers or a trailer and a motor vehicle behind a trailer. However, a three vehicle combination that is swaying excessively, is unstable or has reduced handling capabilities is subject to action by the police as an unsafe combination of vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act.The maximum length of any combination of vehicles is 23 m (75' 6")." Having said that... I can't find the actual publication any more. This was back in 2010. I will try to get more solid and factual info for you guys... Sean

Shitty.. glad to hear you are ok!!

Yeah... I'm not even getting paid for this shit!!!!!! Well.. other than the internal warm fuzzy feeling of helping you guys (not Zoso though.. or F7Ben)!!!

Hmmm... Just checked the thread quickly. Seems that was on the old FS site...

Yes...it's legal and seems to be happening more and more frequently. As the Puzzler said the regs reference pickup trucks only.. Never did clarification on this. The requirements aren't any different really than a single trailer. It was discussed a little while ago in this thread. You have to watch your overall weight and length. I'll have to dig for the regs..

From what I can tell, the differences are almost non-existent in the process. The obvious difference being the vehicle used for the road test. Still need medical, eyes, written test etc.. I've been an AMZ licence for a long time. I didn't find the road test all that challenging, nor are the written tests. Pulled this from MTO site; Restricted Class A licence What you can drive The restricted Class A (condition R) licence is meant for drivers operating smaller truck-trailer combinations, such as a recreational, horse or utility trailer. You can also drive: a car or light truck covered by a Class G licence heavy trucks covered by the Class D truck licence What you can't drive With a restricted Class A licence, you can't: pull a trailer equipped with air brakes drive a full-size tractor-trailer drive a vehicle pulling a double trailer train another driver on a vehicle that requires full Class A privileges to drive Requirements To apply for a restricted Class A licence (condition R), you need to: be at least 18 years old hold a valid Ontario licence other than G1, G2, M, M1 or M2 pass an eye test submit a medical report pass a knowledge test about operating large trucks and tractor-trailers pass a road test

Yes to the modified A licences for the larger 5th wheels and the big RVs. Regular A licence: Any combination of truck/tractor and trailer with a Manufacturer’s Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (MGVWR) of at least 4600 kg; and A full air brake system on both the truck/tractor and trailer. Restricted Class A licence: Any combination of truck/tractor and trailer with a Manufacturer’s Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (MGVWR) of at least 4600 kg; and Trailer is not equipped with air brakes. So essentially its a bit of weight but also a separate full braking system.

Yes, unless there are some sort of extenuating or exigent circumstances you would need owners permission to search the trailer...