illmatic_si

I got 2 tickets last night, $110 each. the cop just wanted someone to pick on a lecture for a while, what a d1ck!

first ticket was for having a tinted/shaded cover on my front license plate. the ones you buy for $8 at crappy tire, obviously for protection from stone chips etc.
unfortunately the cop was convinced I was trying to hide it from him.. so $110 for that.

second one (reason I attracted the cops attention in the first place) was for having clear instead of amber flashers in the front and rear. I know you are not allowed to have blue, I assumed clear was acceptable... WTF I see cars with clear indicators every day!!

does anyone know if there is any use in me contesting these tickets?

BOND007

ladies and gentlemen it is time to go to court

velocity_boy

I got a ticket of front turn lights too...$110, I don't know how but I am going to fight it. I told the cop that the light omitted was WHITE, but he stopped me for the loud exhaust and gave me a ticket for the lights....:fustrated

SiR-Racer

no where in the HTA does it say you cant have white turn signals in the front OR back. take it to court.

which sections of the HTA did it say you violated on your tickets?

illmatic_si

the 'numbers on plate not plainly visible' for the license cover was section 13(2).

the 'improper signal device' ticket for the clear lights was 142(6).

sir-racer you're right, theres no mention of colour at all. definitely I'm taking this to court.

I spoke to a friend of mine at 15 division, this is what he said:
go to court and plead NOT GUILTY... 90% of the time the cop won't show. if he does show up, then tell him I've changed the bulbs to amber and removed the front cover and he should co-operate.

lets see what happens...

SiR-Racer

yeah just hope for a no-show from the cop.

if he does show up then ask him why white singals do not meet the requirement for turn singals. because in section 142(6)

Requirements for signalling device

(6) A mechanical or electrical signal device shall clearly indicate the in tention to turn, shall be visible and understandable during day-time and night-time from the front and from the rear of the vehicle for a distance of 30 metres, and shall be self-illuminated when used at any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise.

your turn signals are still visible from a distance of 30 metres arent they?

anyway, good luck with it

evgenk

I'd assume that white is not visible very well during the day, that's why the section from the act might apply.

if you had yellow bulbs you wouldn't have a problem.

my 2 cents

PULOVR

Just qoute this.....


"one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only"

SiR-Racer

oh not this again. there was a long discussion about what that statement actually refers to. i still say it refers to your headlights. there's a different section for turn signals all together. and if he does quote that section you posted then it also says you can only have red in the rear. which is obviously not true since half the cars out there have amber turn signals and everyone has white reverse lights.

62(1) only refers to the MINIMUM requirement of lights you have to have on when it is dark. ie your headlights and your rear brake lights.

PULOVR

Last time I looked, it didn't say minimum in that part of the HTA.

A picture is worth a thousands words, and the HTA can be read or interpeded in as many different ways......
Get a lawer and take it to court.


If any of you spoke to the OPP dude at Dark Knights, you would have seen the paper with all the rules of the road on them, including to quotes from the HTA.....if anyone has this paper, please scan it and post it for all to see.....(I have it but I don't have a scanner, and I not about to type it all out)

The cops just quoted certain parts of the act......ie blue lights..ect.

You should have seen his face when one kid asked if blue lights on a car were illlegal? When the cop said "yes", I broke right in and said......"Actually , you are incorrect." (at this point the cop looked at me).... I contiued.."why is it that you printed the incorrect HTA # in this paper or failed to qoute the correct HTA #? (I held up the paper that he had just given a few minutes prior). The cop just looked at me wonering if I would shut up....which I didn't....."the HTA is vage when it comes to this......no where does it state that blue is illegal. It does say say that blue flashing is." at this point the OPP dude agread with me, but said...."well that's how you are reading it.".
And I said, "it is open to interpetation.....You can only charge someone if it is in plain writing....ie right or wrong, not on an opion. If I said all cops are Pigs, and that just my opinion, you couldn't say anything, because that is MY opinion, but you could just give me a ticket if you were a *****." He said "true, but we are here to try and educate drivers about the rules of the road."
I said..."like what your friends are doing outside the show?

He said, "I have no comment for what they are doing outside, and if I did say somthing, I would probable get slack for it"
(That is what he said to me in front of at least 20 people!)
The way he said it was as if he didn't like the way they were harrasing the drivers that were comming to the show.

The HTA can be Interpeded in many ways....A GOOD laywer can find flaws and use this to his addvantage to get someone off.

Things that are black or white in the HTA are harder to get off on.
If you have a flashing green light, and you are not a fireman or or on your way to a fire ,(still have to be a volenteer fireman, and have proof...ie... id), and you get a ticket, tough luck.
You can't say that just becuase it's not in the HTA, you can still get a ticket for it, is bullshit.
Rules are ther to protct us.....remember, they still have to PROVE you are gulty of the offence.
Inocent until proven guilty.

As I left, I said one more thing to the cop....."I don't dissagree with what you are doing.....just the way you are going about it".
He just noded his head up and down as if to say he understood where I was comming from, and gave me a small smile.

SiR-Racer

And amen to that. Nice post PULOVR.

I totally agree with everything you are saying. A good lawyer should fine the flaws and technicalities in the HTA to get you off on certain charges. Also nice job confronting that cop...way to show him

One thing though about 62(1), it does not say minimum but i think its implied. Because it does say "and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only." Does this mean we can only have 1 red brake light on at night? i dont think so right?

PULOVR

Actual the HTA was written many, MANY years back.... They have only added certain thing to it over the years..There are a couple of really old cars in my car club from Bradford that have only ONE red brake light on the back of their car. They are ok.
I was aslo told that if you are making a "Custom", and you have only one brake light in the rear, and the car IS insured as a custom; then it is ok. If the car came with only one light in the back from the factory, it is also ok.
As long as the person behind you can tell you are stopping or turning, (use hand signals like it said in our drivers ED class, when the lights are broken) then you are ok.
But hand signals at night are really hard to see, that is why the BIG "3" (Gm, Ford, Chrysler) started to put two lights on the back of thier cars.

So if anyone has a burned out tail light on their car, you can't use this rule to your advantage. If you're car has 12 lights on it...ie brake, signal, headlight...ect.....they ALL have to be in working order.:working:

90EFHB

It all comes down to your day in court and whether the judge sides with you. Everyone's opinion is valid until that day hits....Good luck and hope it turns out the way you want it

illmatic_si

pulovr, I cant beleive you talked like that to a cop!!! gutsy, gutsy. you're right though.. deep down some of them understand where we are coming from and know its bullshit.

but by giving us tickets for little infractions, they are deterring us from putting others at risk in the form of RACING. some are hardasses because they think we are all trouble-making punks, thats **** we have to deal with.

skipping the lawyer.. if it involved points then I'd get one. plus it'll cost like 3 bills-- the fines are only $220.

I'm counting on the *** cop not showing.. hopefully it'll work out in my favour.

imported_94EG6HB

This was the OPP cop with multi colored tobacco stained teeth...

I have that paper too...

Maybe I scan for you...

PULOVR

Yeah, but think about it.......Do blue waher jet LED's or tints really make your car go faster? No they don't. So what they are doing is stupid. As was said at the talk with the guy with the paper....the only way they are going to catch these stupid racers are to go udercover and go to these places when they do go out and race.
I told them they should go in a car, (ie honda or acura) and just sit there, when they do go out to race, follow them...then bust there ***.:working:
If they just keep giving tickets for stipid infractions like the ones listed above, all they are doing is cloging the court system.
That is why I tell everyone that I meet that has gotton a ticket for one of those stupid infractions, is to take it to court. The more of us that do this, the more likely they will start to lay off on those types of tickets, and start to go after the more serious stuff.

90EFHB

Had the smoked plate for years never got a ticket for it.....i think the way to do it is to only have your front plate with the dark tint....they only see it going the other way....and they are too lazy to turn around.

I thought York region does have 2 undercover integs?

imported_geekracer

pulovr mind if i scan it? and i heard york does have undercovers so i do not do anything dumb on the roads period ig you bring attention then they will follow.

netcbc

To help you with the plate thing, just tell them even the ministry of transportatoin sells them, you know where you take your G2, they sell them there, those grey and blue ones

PULOVR

I was going to say that as well....