Agreed! There are better ways to conduct themselves and fine people.
Unfortunately, there is no clarity for the OP to have a resolution that doesn’t affect their record, pocket book and possibly insurance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Helmet laws in Ontaro
- Thread starter FenelonPaul
- Start date
Agreed! There are better ways to conduct themselves and fine people.
Unfortunately, there is no clarity for the OP to have a resolution that doesn’t affect their record, pocket book and possibly insurance.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Would have to wait for the court resolution, but at first blush, this type of offence "should not" affect insurance as it is an "equipment" infraction similar to an infraction for a blown headlight.
It seems most of these charges are coming out of the Kawartha Lakes OPP detachment, (Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon). So it could be the detachment commander has an issue with helmet mounted cameras. This is a ticket which "appears" pretty easy to avoid. Mount your camera on your bike, buy a GoPro chest strap, or don't ride in the catchment area of that particular detachment.
I used to use a helmet mounted camera, I rode that area extensively, back then and never had an issue. Once this became an "issue", (and the helmet was due to be replaced I mounted the camera on my bike, (and added a second rear facing one, which saved my butt with insurer, when I was side swiped by a road rager). I found the footage MUCH better quality and easier to watch once the camera was in one place with a stable view, (I ALWAYS knew where the view of the camera was, and never had to be concerned about "catching" my speedometer in the footage).
This case, should, barring an adjournment, be resolved tomorrow morning. Then the OP can decide, (should he lose), decide if his pockets are deep enough, to hire a lawyer and begin the appeal process). If the OP loses, my personal recommendation would to NOT wear a helmet mounted camera ANYWHERE near Lindsay and surrounding areas. Doesn't matter if we agree with the reg, or it's enforcement, not worth the hassle.
It seems most of these charges are coming out of the Kawartha Lakes OPP detachment, (Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Bobcaygeon). So it could be the detachment commander has an issue with helmet mounted cameras. This is a ticket which "appears" pretty easy to avoid. Mount your camera on your bike, buy a GoPro chest strap, or don't ride in the catchment area of that particular detachment.
I used to use a helmet mounted camera, I rode that area extensively, back then and never had an issue. Once this became an "issue", (and the helmet was due to be replaced I mounted the camera on my bike, (and added a second rear facing one, which saved my butt with insurer, when I was side swiped by a road rager). I found the footage MUCH better quality and easier to watch once the camera was in one place with a stable view, (I ALWAYS knew where the view of the camera was, and never had to be concerned about "catching" my speedometer in the footage).
This case, should, barring an adjournment, be resolved tomorrow morning. Then the OP can decide, (should he lose), decide if his pockets are deep enough, to hire a lawyer and begin the appeal process). If the OP loses, my personal recommendation would to NOT wear a helmet mounted camera ANYWHERE near Lindsay and surrounding areas. Doesn't matter if we agree with the reg, or it's enforcement, not worth the hassle.
AFJ
Well-known member
Were it me involved in this case, I think that I would ask the prosecuting officer if (and how) he determined that the helmet did not meet the approval criteria as required under the regulation (IN ENGLISH) since it requires an approved helmet to meet all 5 of the standards given in the regulation. Did he present the evidence of the 5 standards that would confirm this?
A further legal consideration is that the wording of the legislation - as printed in official online form - differs in the two official languages that all these regulations must be written. In English, all 5 standards must be met by each and every helmet. In French, it indicates that only one of the five listed standards is needed on any particular helmet being used on Ontario public roads.
The legislation was amended 6 years ago to indicate that the Euro standard was also approved but was not updated to remove the D230 CSA standard which has not been supported (I understand) by CSA for many years.
AFJ
A further legal consideration is that the wording of the legislation - as printed in official online form - differs in the two official languages that all these regulations must be written. In English, all 5 standards must be met by each and every helmet. In French, it indicates that only one of the five listed standards is needed on any particular helmet being used on Ontario public roads.
The legislation was amended 6 years ago to indicate that the Euro standard was also approved but was not updated to remove the D230 CSA standard which has not been supported (I understand) by CSA for many years.
AFJ
Last edited:
You could ask, but the crown is not required to "interpretate" the regs. They are merely required to present the reg to the court and then the adjudicator, (in traffic court a JP), is the one that decides if the reg "as written" are applicable. However, the downside of that is that JP's do NOT have any "formal" legal training, (unlike judges, they are NOT lawyers).
As for the wording being different in french and english, rarely, as you are aware do things "translate" directly. The jurisdiction, (in this case, Lindsay), operates primarily in French. The OP would have had to indicate he wanted the trial conducted in French, (so that they could get an interpreter, in advance). My experience with courts is that the crown would simply state, that the translation issue would NOT alter the intent of the reg, and therefore, the reg should stand as written. As I previously stated regs, and statutes are VERY poorly written, and open to various interpretations, (I suspect purposely so as to cast as wide of a net as possible, has ALWAYS been that way).
As for the wording being different in french and english, rarely, as you are aware do things "translate" directly. The jurisdiction, (in this case, Lindsay), operates primarily in French. The OP would have had to indicate he wanted the trial conducted in French, (so that they could get an interpreter, in advance). My experience with courts is that the crown would simply state, that the translation issue would NOT alter the intent of the reg, and therefore, the reg should stand as written. As I previously stated regs, and statutes are VERY poorly written, and open to various interpretations, (I suspect purposely so as to cast as wide of a net as possible, has ALWAYS been that way).
Which is still a moot point. The helmet need only not meet ONE of the standards, not fail all of the standards to be considered "an improper helmet." Otherwise, theoretically, a rider could simply cut off the strap and argue it was still a "proper helmet", as it "passed" the other standards...lol
AFJ
Well-known member
The English says that a helmet must meet standards a), b), c), d), e).
The French version - translated into English says "one of a), b), c), d), e)"
I am not aware of any motorcycle helmet which has been tested to all 5 of the possible standards. Therefore the regulation is impossible to meet.
This error came in when the regulation was revised in 2012 and the Euro standard was added.
AFJ
AFJ
Well-known member
Which I would interpret as the first 4 standards being required as a group OR the last which is the Euro one which the MMIC wanted added to the list.
The French version uses the conventional "one of the following".
Think I'll write to the new Minister of Transportation - whoever that might turn out to be.
AFJ
Riceburner
Well-known member
Actually it states a); b); c); d); or e)
The ; separates them as somewhat common, but separate entities. Makes each an independent clause.
Last edited:
FenelonPaul
Member
Ok, thought I would give an update. Went to court last Monday, and the prosecutor asked if I had disclosure. I said no. Neither did she, so she was going to send it to me. Got a copy a few days later, but basically had nothing other that a list of my previous traffic tickets from 1985 to 2010 - all auto related, no motorcycle;p a copy of my ticket which I already had; and a copy of the officer's hand scribbled notes. Only thing 'wrong' in the notes, is my bike is blue, not black. My 'trial' is now set for Sept 4th
Attachments
Technically the notes don't say the camera was attached to the helmet, just that it was on top of the helmet. Not sure I'd want to go down that road as a defense though. Maybe you could argue the helmet was smooth, go pro was held on with a suction cup that would obviously release in a crash. The officers notes have nothing to contradict that.
I think that a better direction might be to state that the helmet was not "modified", therefore it still meets the requirements. No permanent attachment was made and, if possible, find manufacturer's information stating that the mount is designed to detach in a crash, thereby preserving the helmet's function.
J_F
Guest
perfect, maybe bring the helmet into court, and demonstrate
Riceburner
Well-known member
Ask them to point out the part of the law that is contravened too?
|
|
|
|
|