|
|
|
Helmet laws in Ontaro
- Thread starter FenelonPaul
- Start date
I have my camera chin mounted as well, doesn't effect the crash ability of the helmet( already checked that).
Could you argue that compromising chin coverage of a full face helmet with a camera is no less any safer than the standard equipment the opp bike cops use?
Could you argue that compromising chin coverage of a full face helmet with a camera is no less any safer than the standard equipment the opp bike cops use?
Robbo
Well-known member
I have my camera chin mounted as well, doesn't effect the crash ability of the helmet( already checked that).
Could you argue that compromising chin coverage of a full face helmet with a camera is no less any safer than the standard equipment the opp bike cops use?
In the event of a crash, I could imagine the damage done to someone’s eyes/face from the fragments of a chin mounted camera through an open visor of a full face helmet would be significant...and possibly life-changing.
Something to think about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Definitions are described in section 1 of the HTA: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK0
In this case; “regulations” means the regulations made under this Act; (“règlements”)
The rest of your question was answered in post 2.
Cop doesn't decide that a helmet is no longer compliant. The courts have done that by registering convictions. Just as the cops didn't write the regulations, the officer is merely enforcing the regulations as they are written. There are only THREE ways to prevent further tickets:
1. Don't mount your camera on your helmet, (or if you feel you must, then use a form of a strap, which is not directly attached to the shell of the helmet);
2. Someone spends the tens of thousands of dollars, and the lower courts are reversed upon appeal, and setting a precedent, (a precedent is ONLY set when a higher court over turns a lower court decision);
3. The regulations are changed, by the MTO, (regulations do NOT require a vote by the legislature, as they are simply a regulation written by the bureaucrats, which form a part of a law).
Until, 1 of the aforementioned items occur, you are at risk of getting a violation.
Also it should be noted that these tickets, (if written as operate or ride a motorcycle without a helmet), could result in increased insurance as that is a moving violation. If however, the ticket is for use non compliant helmet, that should be considered as an equipment violation and therefore not affect insurance.
My Nexx helmet actually has helmet inserts designed for camera mounting. They are quite neat. Also the 3M tape that's used for the baseplate mount is the kind that can be removed and replaced if necessary I think. In a crash it certainly isn't still going to be attached to the helmet if I'm sliding along that side.
Relax
Well-known member
Have you requested disclosure yet, including the officer's original handwritten notes and the front and back of the officer's copy of the ticket? You need to know what evidence they're using against you if you're going to defend yourself. And if they don't provide it to you in time for your court date, you can get the case thrown out, since you would not have been able to formulate a defense without it (even if they try to give it to you on that same day). Sure, it would be great to win outright, but winning on a technicality is still winning.
Not necessarily will a JP throw a case out if disclosure is given the day of trial. MANY JP's now opt to give an adjournment, for you to setup your defence. That counts as a crown triggered delay for the purposes of an 11b challenge. BUT, in a small court jurisdiction such as Lindsay, (where the OP will be appearing), it is doubtful it will get anywhere near an 11b
FenelonPaul
Member
Nothing yet.. my court date is this coming this Monday the 18th at 10:30. I have prepared as much as I can. Read through the Ontario HTA sections related to motorcycle helmets and could find nothing illegal about having a camera on my helmet. Have spoken to a number of other OPP and Durham Region Cops, and none of them ever heard of anything being illegal about having a camera on top of the helmet. It will be an interesting Monday. I will post back later on the results. Thanks for your interest.
markopas
Well-known member
I would start looking at court cases of the same nature (within Ontario as this was an HTA infraction) which have been won and use that as precedence to win your case. I don't know how you be able to look up case law but I am pretty sure it's all public knowledge and accessible for everyone to access.
I guess you could also mention that how is it any different when officers of the OPP motorcycle detachment have a protruding microphone
Which is securely affixed to the helmet most likely with screws where as your helmet cam is affixed with suction and would fall off during a impact.
I guess you could also mention that how is it any different when officers of the OPP motorcycle detachment have a protruding microphone
Which is securely affixed to the helmet most likely with screws where as your helmet cam is affixed with suction and would fall off during a impact.
Last edited:
I would start looking at court cases of the same nature (within Ontario as this was an HTA infraction) which have been won and use that as precedence to win your case. I don't know how you be able to look up case law but I am pretty sure it's all public knowledge and accessible for everyone to access.
I guess you could also mention that how is it any different when officers of the OPP motorcycle detachment have a protruding microphone
Which is securely affixed to the helmet most likely with screws where as your helmet cam is affixed with suction and would fall off during a impact.
This is a relatively newly enforced, (seemingly mainly by Kawartha Lakes OPP, and I believe one case in the Kitchener area). I haven't been able to find ANY cases where the defendant was successful. So far the crown has prevailed. Also, a court ruling isn't considered to be "presedence" until it has been ruled upon by an appealant court.
The issue is NOT weather the camera is securely affixed to the helmet, but rather how it is affixed. Items such as communicators, Scala etc are clamped to the outer shell and therefore not affixed to the outer surface of of the helmet. The regulation being used to lay these charges is that NOTHING can be affixed to the outer shell surface of a helmet, as this negates the certification of the "smooth outer shell surface." That then renders the helmet non compliant.
It is also, never a good defence to use the line "well the cops do it" so I too should be permitted to do so....lol Police via the MTO have been given exemptions on many things that the public can not do. IE use of seat belts, use of hand held devices, etc etc etc
To the OP
Although, I suspect you will lose, given that the Kawartha Lakes JP's have already ruled in the crown's favor in previous cases, I wish you luck, in prevailing, (personally, I think this tactic being used is silly, BUT I don't write the regs or enforce them anymore). BTW your correct there is no specific law that states categorically a camera is not permitted, but that is not what your ticket is for. It is for using an uncertified helmet. Apples and oranges, (at least in the eyes of the courts)
Last edited:
FenelonPaul
Member
Can you please point me to the regulation that states, "The regulation being used to lay these charges is that NOTHING can be affixed to the outer shell surface of a helmet, as this negates the certification of the "smooth outer shell surface." That then renders the helmet non compliant."? Not a US reg, but an Ontario HTA regulation.
Has been posted as stated above in post #2, as well as a few other threads on helmet cams here at GTAM. I assumed you had read it, as you stated you have done your research and feel prepared for court. If you haven't made yourself aware of what you have actually been charged with, then I hate to say it, but your NOT at all prepared for Monday morning. Sounds like you were prepared to argue that there is no law preventing a camera from being mounted, but that is NOT what you have been charged with. Your ticket likely reads ride without proper helmet, which is then backed by the regulation, previously stated.
If you argument in court is going to be that there is no preventing having a camera affixed, your going to sink your ship. As I stated before, I have seen a LOT, of defendants go in to court thinking they are well prepared, and finding out very quickly that they were not at all prepared. You have to remember courts are not concerned with common sense, but the law and regulations as written.
The regs are written poorly and open to interpretation, so they cast as wide a net as possible.
Again good luck, please post how it goes.
The infraction given, “Fail to wear a proper helmet”
I’m sure plenty of marched into court and told the judge or JP, my helmet is DOT or SNELL or whatever certified. As to the outcome? On any given day, on any given attitude, they could take a lessor fine, drop it altogether or let it ride and get the conviction.
It’s clear as mud.
Let us know the outcome.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I’m sure plenty of marched into court and told the judge or JP, my helmet is DOT or SNELL or whatever certified. As to the outcome? On any given day, on any given attitude, they could take a lessor fine, drop it altogether or let it ride and get the conviction.
It’s clear as mud.
Let us know the outcome.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Or the cop could have just given the rider a warning.
Instead, sounds just like a money making scheme and a waste of everyone's time.
Local OPP doesn't realize it's choosing to step over a loonie to pick up a dime with crap charges like this.
|
|
|
|
|