Another Ticket.........
30-Dec-2002, 02:26 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
Another Ticket.........
[rant] i swear i think this is getting redundant, i got another ticket for my fogs, after being assured by the lady at the court office when i set my court date for the other one that i can't get another ticket because this one is 'pending' so this one should be the only one to stand, i was driving and passed a cop he followed me for a bit and then when he figured out it was a civic he pulled me over...... what a joke i'm just getting pissed of i think i'm just gonna take the lights off, i'm not gonna bother fighting both in court. Stupid thing is that for this second one i have to go to brampton!?!? and i wasn't even near brampton!! WTF? I swear cops are so uselss, last night i was at at tim hortons chilling with some friends from highschool and some cracked out people were fighting with some drunk kids, and the timmies manager called the cops like 3 times and it took like 2 hrs for them to show up, how responsible of them? they have time to pull me over for 30 min (mind you it was two cruisers again, like one isn't enough) but not time to deal with drunk druggies brawling? what is the world coming to, I HATE THE END OF THE MONTH! STUPID QUOTAS!!! lol, and to think when i was a kid i wanted to be a cop and i thought cops were the good guys, just another hassle for no reason, i could swear something more important was happening while i was being grilled for info tonite......... ARGH!!! [/rant]
sorry for posting another long rant, but i'm just getting pissed off!!!
sorry for posting another long rant, but i'm just getting pissed off!!!
30-Dec-2002, 02:51 AM
#2
Registered User
![[1sL0CiviC]'s Avatar](https://www.civicforumz.com/customavatars/avatar12481_1.gif){kind=avatar}
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: J&F
Posts: 2,337
so its the same ticket for having greenish foglights?
i got handed about 4 tint tickets even though i had 1 pending trial
i paid 2 off, and the other 2 i won
then i got another ticket which i set a trial for (Dismissed), and exactly a week after i filed for trial, i get pulled over on my HS property as i left my parking space and EX TINT SPECIALIST cop'er decides to rip off my tint on the spot infront of a few hundred students!!! (no ticket)
atleast i didnt have to do any work
i hate PEEL......horrible stories and experience with them, and they really give out stupid lectures too when they pull us over
i feel your rant :cry:
i got handed about 4 tint tickets even though i had 1 pending trial
i paid 2 off, and the other 2 i won
then i got another ticket which i set a trial for (Dismissed), and exactly a week after i filed for trial, i get pulled over on my HS property as i left my parking space and EX TINT SPECIALIST cop'er decides to rip off my tint on the spot infront of a few hundred students!!! (no ticket)
atleast i didnt have to do any work
i hate PEEL......horrible stories and experience with them, and they really give out stupid lectures too when they pull us over
i feel your rant :cry:
30-Dec-2002, 02:57 AM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
see this is what i'm thinking, and i talked to a friend in law school and she agrees with me according to this.
i have to have two lights, it doesn't say anything about the others...... i have two lights and they do have a white light..... so i fulfill the requirements of 62 (1) and according to this
my fogs don't produce intermittent flashes of green lights, so which law am I breaking exactly? and according to this, other cars are permitted to have green lights as long as they're not flashing!
anyone agree? i think I have a pretty strong case..... wow OAC law really came in handy....
again sorry for the long post
, but i need some feedback to make sure i'm not missing something obvious here! 
:
TIA
62. (1) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only.
Vehicles of firefighters
(16) A firefighter, within the meaning of subsection 1 (1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, may carry on or in his or her vehicle a lamp that produces intermittent flashes of green light and may operate the light if the motor vehicle is proceeding to a fire or other emergency. 1997, c. 4, s. 81.
Same
(16.1) No person other than a person described in subsection (16) shall operate a lamp that produces intermittent flashes of green light. 1994, c. 35, s. 1.
(16) A firefighter, within the meaning of subsection 1 (1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, may carry on or in his or her vehicle a lamp that produces intermittent flashes of green light and may operate the light if the motor vehicle is proceeding to a fire or other emergency. 1997, c. 4, s. 81.
Same
(16.1) No person other than a person described in subsection (16) shall operate a lamp that produces intermittent flashes of green light. 1994, c. 35, s. 1.
Identification lamps
(11) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer having a length in excess of 9.2 metres or a width in excess of 2.05 metres shall carry three lighted lamps displaying green or amber lights at the front, except in the case of a public vehicle which shall display amber lights at the front, and three lighted lamps displaying red lights at the rear, and the lights of each colour shall be evenly placed not less than 150 millimetres nor more than 310 millimetres apart along a horizontal line as near the top of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer as the permanent structure permits, and shall be visible for distances of 150 metres from the front and rear respectively of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer.
(11) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer having a length in excess of 9.2 metres or a width in excess of 2.05 metres shall carry three lighted lamps displaying green or amber lights at the front, except in the case of a public vehicle which shall display amber lights at the front, and three lighted lamps displaying red lights at the rear, and the lights of each colour shall be evenly placed not less than 150 millimetres nor more than 310 millimetres apart along a horizontal line as near the top of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer as the permanent structure permits, and shall be visible for distances of 150 metres from the front and rear respectively of the commercial motor vehicle or combination of a commercial motor vehicle and a trailer.
anyone agree? i think I have a pretty strong case..... wow OAC law really came in handy....
again sorry for the long post
, but i need some feedback to make sure i'm not missing something obvious here! :TIA
30-Dec-2002, 03:00 AM
#4
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
Originally posted by [1sL0CiviC]
so its the same ticket for having greenish foglights?
i got handed about 4 tint tickets even though i had 1 pending trial
i paid 2 off, and the other 2 i won
then i got another ticket which i set a trial for (Dismissed), and exactly a week after i filed for trial, i get pulled over on my HS property as i left my parking space and EX TINT SPECIALIST cop'er decides to rip off my tint on the spot infront of a few hundred students!!! (no ticket)
atleast i didnt have to do any work
i hate PEEL......horrible stories and experience with them, and they really give out stupid lectures too when they pull us over
i feel your rant :cry:
so its the same ticket for having greenish foglights?
i got handed about 4 tint tickets even though i had 1 pending trial
i paid 2 off, and the other 2 i won
then i got another ticket which i set a trial for (Dismissed), and exactly a week after i filed for trial, i get pulled over on my HS property as i left my parking space and EX TINT SPECIALIST cop'er decides to rip off my tint on the spot infront of a few hundred students!!! (no ticket)
atleast i didnt have to do any work
i hate PEEL......horrible stories and experience with them, and they really give out stupid lectures too when they pull us over
i feel your rant :cry:
yeah for sure, the lecture he gave me was a joke, he was like you have a ticket pending and you're still driving with them? and i said something about being innocent until proven guilty which he didn't like too much lol, (mind you this is after i got the ticket) and i just laughed which he probably didn't like much either, and he's like i never lose these tickets.... what a ***! PEEL is gay, ah well what can you do? thanks for sympathizing!
I think trxr4kdz has some bright bastard running lights if you want to change them
31-Dec-2002, 01:38 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: REDLINE
Posts: 2,759
Originally posted by SilverSiG
see this is what i'm thinking, and i talked to a friend in law school and she agrees with me according to this.
anyone agree? i think I have a pretty strong case..... wow OAC law really came in handy....
again sorry for the long post, but i need some feedback to make sure i'm not missing something obvious here! :
TIA
see this is what i'm thinking, and i talked to a friend in law school and she agrees with me according to this.
anyone agree? i think I have a pretty strong case..... wow OAC law really came in handy....
again sorry for the long post
, but i need some feedback to make sure i'm not missing something obvious here! :TIA
31-Dec-2002, 10:45 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
also, look into this..
"after being assured by the lady at the court office when i set my court date for the other one that i can't get another ticket because this one is 'pending' so this one should be the only one to stand"
if it be true, then he might have some explaining to do here..
if he was told you have a prior yet ignored the fact, then he is guilty of ignoring the laws in which he has been sworn to protect..
"after being assured by the lady at the court office when i set my court date for the other one that i can't get another ticket because this one is 'pending' so this one should be the only one to stand"
if it be true, then he might have some explaining to do here..
if he was told you have a prior yet ignored the fact, then he is guilty of ignoring the laws in which he has been sworn to protect..
01-Jan-2003, 06:21 AM
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 13,184
yeah they were in operation when he pulled me over, and when i told him i had a prior he got even madder! lol i dunno about these cops.... i'm thinking this time i'll go for the first meeting or whatever they call it, first attendance i think and see what the prosecutor says......
