Jump to content

PERSONAL opinions of an OPP SAVE officer


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, revrnd said:

 

From an email I sent to a fellow cyclist a while back:

I used to see a similar lack of common sense w/ pedestrians @ the Four Corners in Oshawa (King & Simcoe) all the time. People @ the SE corner would be standing on the edge of the sidewalk waiting to cross to the west (as a northbound truck indicating a right turn) would make no attempt to step back IN CASE the truck driver cut the corner too sharp & would up on the curb.

I see this kind of thing a lot whenever I am in downtown Toronto. You now see some of the drivers staggering their positions on the road. On a two lane road with one lane for each direction you will see one vehicle so close to the curb that a bicycle can't get between it and the curb. The vehicle behind it close to the centre line so a bicycle can't get by on the left side without going into oncoming traffic. That doesn't deter the bicycle. They go between the curb and the first vehicle then sharp turn left between the front and rear bumpers of the two vehicles then pass the next in the oncoming traffic lane.

Recently I saw a bicycle almost got hit by two separate cars. Eastbound car was making a left turn and a bicycle came up his left side just as he was about to make the turn when there was a big enough break in westbound traffic. The bicycle swerved even further left an put himself directly in front of the westbound traffic. Lots of horns and hammering brakes and the bicycle just kept on going seeming not to give a damn and likely repeat the process.

In todays world bicycles should be licensed, as well as the rider. With so many having dash cams maybe a few charges might smarten the idiots up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 805
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not work related...or sled related, but you guys are like family...weird, fkd up family..   It's official, gonna be a grandpa!!

The latest from OFSC https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ofsc.on.ca/2021/01/13/no-change-for-ofsc-snowmobile-trails-at-this-time/__;!!ABXyrcI!d_5m4cSF8YAk49Aw06fTm6pmiARd2vFlu4Uzm1DN6nRl8b0NZ

All, As in the previous FS I am willing to lend my expertise like any others on this forum.  I will attempt to answer any and all relevant question you have regarding sleds, ATVs and general enfo

Posted Images

Hi Sean,

I leased a car for my daughter, I am not insured to drive it. She gets a red light camera ticket in Milton which comes to me. I have to drive to Burlington to request a trial....wtf!!!!!  Your insight would be appreciated, and I never drive her car!!!

thanks, John

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

Hi Sean,

I leased a car for my daughter, I am not insured to drive it. She gets a red light camera ticket in Milton which comes to me. I have to drive to Burlington to request a trial....wtf!!!!!  Your insight would be appreciated, and I never drive her car!!!

thanks, John

Hey YD...welcome back!!!  Unfotubately the camera tickets..speeding, redlight etc are all issued to the owner/leasee of the vehicle.  The infornation is based on the plates attached to the car.  In this case, despite you not even being allowed to drive the vehicle you are technically the owner.  The only "upside| to these tickets is that any demerit points for the offence are NOT added but the offence is still added to your drivers abstract.  If it was ME...and this is my opinion only...I'm not a lawyer I'd be tempted to fight it bring the insurance as proof that you were not driving...that there was no positive identification of the driver etc...  We don't have offence cameras in our jurisdiction so I am somewhat unfamiliar with what happens in the courts.  Wish I could help a bit more..

 

Sean

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

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/pdfs/farm-guide-farm-equipment-on-the-highway.pdf

In our area I've observed the farmers slow right down and pull to the right as far as is safely possible to allow traffic to clear...its just a courtesy though.  There is no legal requirement to pull right off and allow passing. 

Sean

I"m not reading 40 pages.But does this apply to any grooming equipment?We have to run a restricted area of a hwy for several K. The local guys don't bat an eye,but the ranger bandits have a different opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario Regulation 186/01 made under the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act covers off groomers specifically.  It states to be on a highway (any road) it must have a slow moving vehicle sign and abide by all the conditions that govern the use of said sign (refer to the Highway traffic act).  The link above refers to farm vehicle and implements of husbandry. 

When you say restricted highway...are you referring to a closed access highway such as a 400 series hwy?  If so then no, the groomer would NOT be allowed to legally travel that stretch.

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 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 ?

Good/fair question!!!  Its usually dependent on the officer and his/her comfort level.  There is no decibel level nor is there a black and white rule similar to sleds.  They do however have to have baffles in their exhausts.  The loud ones obviously don't but it takes some articulation in court as well as know-how at the road side.  Generally those of us that do lay the charges will use our batons and CAREFULLY slide them into the can, if little or no resistance it does NOT meet the regulations.  Short of sending the bike to a shop (costs money to OPP if wrong) there is not much a lot of the road cops are comfortable doing.  Saying this..there are many that I know that pursue this with a passion.  Its an education and training issue as far as I'm concerned. 

 

Sean

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

Ontario Regulation 186/01 made under the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act covers off groomers specifically.  It states to be on a highway (any road) it must have a slow moving vehicle sign and abide by all the conditions that govern the use of said sign (refer to the Highway traffic act).  The link above refers to farm vehicle and implements of husbandry. 

When you say restricted highway...are you referring to a closed access highway such as a 400 series hwy?  If so then no, the groomer would NOT be allowed to legally travel that stretch.

 

Sean

I will read 186/01 that pertains to groomers. We are on whats left of HWyY69. 90 k, limit  but not closed access yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2016‎-‎09‎-‎22 at 5:38 PM, Frostynuts said:

Thanks for the info.

Interesting, why wouldn,t they have to adhere to a decibel level ? That would make it real easy to check.

Is there no rule that says you cannot alter a stock exhaust, like they have for sleds ?

Some municipalities now have decibel level bylaws for bikes. 89 db is the limit in most cases. ....and that is loud if twenty bikes are all together. No big deal during the day, night or early morning then yes, annoying.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, revrnd said:

I recall a few years ago 1 of the regional police forces in the GTA (Peel?) was doing dB checks on bikes.

 

Yes they were, the only problem is that no specific limit exists within the HTA.  The following is what governs actual mufflers on the highway...keep in mind further regulations govern emissions etc..

 

Muffler

75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

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

Yes they were, the only problem is that no specific limit exists within the HTA.  The following is what governs actual mufflers on the highway...keep in mind further regulations govern emissions etc..

 

Muffler

75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

They had the opp enforcing a town of caledon bylaw specific to motorcycles 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, odot1 said:

Yes they were, the only problem is that no specific limit exists within the HTA.  The following is what governs actual mufflers on the highway...keep in mind further regulations govern emissions etc..

 

Muffler

75. (1) Every motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle shall be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and excessive smoke, and no person shall use a muffler cut-out, straight exhaust, gutted muffler, hollywood muffler, by-pass or similar device upon a motor vehicle or motor assisted bicycle.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 75 (1).

"Dear Wynnebag: Rather than carry on about changing every law or reg' to suit the LGBT community, how about adding a decibel limit to the regulation?" How hard would that be? Years ago they changed the MSV Act pertaining to operator ages pretty fast. I bet that would be change lauded across the province.

Nothing like an idgit on a Harley w/ a modded exhaust roaring thru your neighbourhood @ 11:30 PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for you odot1 about speeding and radar.  This evening I was traveling the 401 in a section that has three lanes in one direction.  Traffic was sparse, I was in the fast lane going with the flow of traffic at the speed I usually drive, overtaking a car in the middle lane when a small suv came up at a high rate of speed in the slow lane and was passing all the traffic.  As we rounded a curve, a marked cruiser was parked on the shoulder, I assume possibly doing radar.  Small suv hit the brakes as soon as he saw the cruiser, I continued on at the same speed I was driving.  My question is, under these circumstances, what are the chances that I could get charged for the speed the other guy was going as it would seem I was the fastest moving vehicle?  Thanks for your insight.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, stealth bomber said:

Question for you odot1 about speeding and radar.  This evening I was traveling the 401 in a section that has three lanes in one direction.  Traffic was sparse, I was in the fast lane going with the flow of traffic at the speed I usually drive, overtaking a car in the middle lane when a small suv came up at a high rate of speed in the slow lane and was passing all the traffic.  As we rounded a curve, a marked cruiser was parked on the shoulder, I assume possibly doing radar.  Small suv hit the brakes as soon as he saw the cruiser, I continued on at the same speed I was driving.  My question is, under these circumstances, what are the chances that I could get charged for the speed the other guy was going as it would seem I was the fastest moving vehicle?  Thanks for your insight.  

Great question!  I'm actually a RADAR instructor as well...  Your scenario is pretty common.  By the time that SUV has seen the cruiser the officer has already had his speed captured for a couple seconds.  The RADAR will also display your speed.  The officer is taught to use the RADAR to verify his/her observations..  So in essence the officer will see you and the SUV traveling in the same direction and make a determination of speed in excess of the limit or not.  If "yes" he/she activates the RADAR to confirm and will note that the SUV is gaining/passing you. The RADAR will indicate both speeds and as the SUV brakes he/she will see that speed fall.  This eliminates you from the equation and solidifies hiss/her visual evidence.  Make sense?

 

 

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

Great question!  I'm actually a RADAR instructor as well...  Your scenario is pretty common.  By the time that SUV has seen the cruiser the officer has already had his speed captured for a couple seconds.  The RADAR will also display your speed.  The officer is taught to use the RADAR to verify his/her observations..  So in essence the officer will see you and the SUV traveling in the same direction and make a determination of speed in excess of the limit or not.  If "yes" he/she activates the RADAR to confirm and will note that the SUV is gaining/passing you. The RADAR will indicate both speeds and as the SUV brakes he/she will see that speed fall.  This eliminates you from the equation and solidifies hiss/her visual evidence.  Make sense?

 

 

How many simultaneous speeds can be be displayed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does make sense, thank you.  I was not aware the radar would display more than one speed at a time.  I realize you guys are highly trained to work with the radar, but I could still see mistakes happening in this scenario.  Having multiple vehicles coming around a curve at a stopped cruiser with an officer observing through a rearview mirror,  given the small amount of time that the vehicles would be in sight before the braking took place, it would be difficult to judge what vehicle was doing what speed.  But that's what the officer is trained for, and possibly the reason none of us got pulled over this time?  It was an eye opener for me anyhow, I noticed the vehicle passing on my far right and as I'm glancing over thinking "wtf is this a-hole" doing, were rounding the curve and he's suddenly braking as he has seen the cruiser before me because I'm glancing at him.  I thought at the time there was a good chance of getting pulled over and getting the other guys 140 km/h ish ticket.  Thanks for your explanation.              

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stealth bomber said:

Does make sense, thank you.  I was not aware the radar would display more than one speed at a time.  I realize you guys are highly trained to work with the radar, but I could still see mistakes happening in this scenario.  Having multiple vehicles coming around a curve at a stopped cruiser with an officer observing through a rearview mirror,  given the small amount of time that the vehicles would be in sight before the braking took place, it would be difficult to judge what vehicle was doing what speed.  But that's what the officer is trained for, and possibly the reason none of us got pulled over this time?  It was an eye opener for me anyhow, I noticed the vehicle passing on my far right and as I'm glancing over thinking "wtf is this a-hole" doing, were rounding the curve and he's suddenly braking as he has seen the cruiser before me because I'm glancing at him.  I thought at the time there was a good chance of getting pulled over and getting the other guys 140 km/h ish ticket.  Thanks for your explanation.              

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Trying to pay the bills, lol




×
×
  • Create New...