odot1

LMFAO!!! I'll get to work on this.. It would be of benefit for someone like reelpro!!

We were going to do the Mazinaw trails Saturday but stopped at Noweels and chatted with John...sad..the trails looked beautiful from the road but he mentioned the tress. The Mazinaw is by far my fave riding spot. We ended up doing Bancroft/Lake St Peter. Trails were good...not as much snow as the Mazinaw area. Lots of people out. Good compliance..but were forced to ticket a few. On a side note... We came across many sledders with the temporary pass printed off and noted the expiry date was 04JAN17 yet it was a seasonal pass and the had receipts to prove it. Seems may be an issue with getting the pass out this year?

The percentage comes from my own personal experience and are not whacked. An expired or missing insurance card counts as not having proper documentation. As for 1 in 15 or 20 ticketed... Most likely.. many more warnings are issued than tickets. On average for every ticket I've written I've given at least 10-15 warnings. RIDES are meant for highways and motor vehicles, thats why they are not called RIDES. The support to ask riders for documentation exists in the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act. Perhpas your "beef" should be with the MSVA and legislators. And yes, docuemtations do exist under the HTA. Every vehicle and driver are subject to being stopped and required to produce proof of insurance, licence and registration. You may not see it. But it does exist.

The courts have deemed that it does not violate the charter at least as far as defence goes. Again, driving is not a right,,,its deemed a priviledge.

LO!! Thanks for pointing out my slip!! Should've read DOES NOT...

The Highway Traffic Act as well as the Motorized Snow Vehicle act have allowed for years the stopping of the vehicle for the purposes of verifying documentation as well as lacemaking. This does violate the constitution as driving is not an entrenched right, it is deemed a privilege and not guaranteed under the Charter. This is one of the reasons why the RIDE stop has stood up to many charter challenges over the years. Not saying its right or wrong, just a fact. Sean

Money for the SAVE team like many other teams comes from a specific budget. Ticket revenue does not go back to the OPP its divided up amongst the municipality its written in, the victims of violent crime fund as well as back to the province to fund various social programs, support infrastructure etc.. There is no way a bunch of tickets would fund the teams and there is no financial incentive for an officer to lay a ticket. I'm sure you have all your paperwork in order but many don't. At least 50% are riding without documentation, proper insurance, proper validation tags etc as well as no trail pass, or fraudulent trail pass. Further to this, there is a high rate of theft amongst recreational vehicles and sleds in general. Checking documentation ensures that everybody is playing by the same rules. Val tags and trail pass monies fund the trail system. The checks help to ensure a good steady stream of funding for the trails so sledders like yourself can enjoy them. Alcohol is another serious issue. By engaging the driver and watching as he/she retrieves documents gives an officer a chance to asses fine motor skills. Simply having booze on your breath does not mean you are impaired. Most helmets have pieces covering the mouth and nose making it difficult to detect the odour as well. I'm sorry you feel this is BS, I'd suggest that you if you want to write someonbe, contact the commissioner directly. Just look on the OPP website and you will find many ways to contact us. In my experience it is rare that someone gets checked that often or gets stuck in line ups as you describe. I. like many other officers usually check off the list as the sledder rolls to a stop and they are there for about 10 seconds... Of course having numbers so small, or similar in colour to the sled, in the wrong place etc or having your trail pass in behind the windshield or some other place will cause you to be delayed a little longer.

LMFAO!!! I have... but all trails are goon in my jurisdiction now... sigh...and by the time they're back I will be off with another surgery... Nose and tonsils this time. 2018...that's gonna be my year!!!!!

Good question... the arrest allows for the search of the person and the vehicle including the ruck for further evidence to support the arrest...such as alcohol or in this case keys. This sis supported by common law as well as search authorities under the liquor licence act. Common law allows a search of the arrestee and their immediate surroundings for further evidence, weapons or means of escape. The grounds could be an admittance of consuming an alcoholic beverage, speech patterns, glossy eyes etc... many things we are trained to look for. Detention searches are a little less broad and are usually just a pat down search for weapons. Regardless of the type of search it is always up to the officer to articulate his/her reasons for the search and then the courts will invoke the charter test. Bottom line, you always need some articulable grounds be it what you see, hear, smell... Then you proceed either via statute (liquor licence act) or common law search or a combination of both.. i.e. see bottle cap, open bottle etc in vehicle..

Search incident to arrest would locate the fobs... or even a pat down search during investigative detention...

Thanks Frosty!! IF we get the snow, I will be out there!!!!!

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.

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...

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.

JOB SECURITY

Carry a baggie of cotton balls saturated in petroleum jelly (Vasoline) along with a decent flint and knife. Even when wet the cotton will catch fire with smallest spark. We used that on our winter survival training.

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...

Hoping for Dallas (NFC). Really don't care about AFC but assuming it will be Pats.. although they are hurting a bit especially with Gronk gone...

ha ha ha ha!!!! Always makes me laugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My 20yr old step daughter asked me to officially adopt her!! Best present ever!!!!

donated a bit...

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."

Saw this a while ago..... Still love it!!!!