Helmet laws in Ontaro

hedo2002 · Jun 29, 2018

Trials said:
Was the visor attached when the helmet was tested and determined to comply with safety requirements? I think maybe yes, but the camera was likely added and the visor raised way up to clear it. Is not about reality it's about what can I nail this guy with now that I have pulled him over. and that !@#$% camera is right in my face.

1000% having a camera mounted simply provides the officer a LEGAL reason to pull you over, from there they can go on a virtual fishing expedition. Once a mount is glued on the helmet is no longer useful in Ontario even WITHOUT the camera, and paints you for a possible pull over and ticket. NOT worth it. Hell you know the world is ending when Trials and I agree...lmao

Enjoy the long weekend everyone and BE SAFE. The OPP especially in Cottage country AND Kawartha Lakes will be out in FULL force. We may very well see more of these tickets over the weekend.. Easy as shooting fish in a barrel...

Trials · Jun 29, 2018

hedo2002 said:
1000% having a camera mounted simply provides the officer a LEGAL reason to pull you over, from there they can go on a virtual fishing expedition. Once a mount is glued on the helmet is no longer useful in Ontario even WITHOUT the camera, and paints you for a possible pull over and ticket. NOT worth it. Hell you know the world is ending when Trials and I agree...lmao

Enjoy the long weekend everyone and BE SAFE. The OPP especially in Cottage country AND Kawartha Lakes will be out in FULL force. We may very well see more of these tickets over the weekend.. Easy as shooting fish in a barrel...

Come riding with me some time! Bring a cop bike that would be so cool! I'll take the MV and we can switch back and forth if you like

hedo2002 · Jun 30, 2018

Trials said:
Come riding with me some time! Bring a cop bike that would be so cool! I'll take the MV and we can switch back and forth if you like

Well given I haven't been on the job since the 90's, me bringing a cop bike, wold be an issue, I am pretty sure any chief would take a dim view of me having one...lol Then there is the whole still being in rehab from my last crash, and unable to ride a bike, (even if I wanted to, I can't get a boot over my ankle since the surgery)... But thanks for the offer. I never rode dirt, (other than being on an ATV when I was the VP of the largest ATV org in ontario)...

Trials · Jun 30, 2018

hedo2002 said:
Well given I haven't been on the job since the 90's, me bringing a cop bike, wold be an issue, I am pretty sure any chief would take a dim view of me having one...lol Then there is the whole still being in rehab from my last crash, and unable to ride a bike, (even if I wanted to, I can't get a boot over my ankle since the surgery)... But thanks for the offer. I never rode dirt, (other than being on an ATV when I was the VP of the largest ATV org in ontario)...

No worries, a Harley might not make it up my driveway anyway

come ride my trials bike, would be good therapy for you, if you fall down I'll help you get back up, np.

... we'll find you one really big boot.

FenelonPaul · Jun 30, 2018

Sorry, I have not been here for a while.. rather busy with other things.

I have seen a number of posts quoting "The reg states a helmet can NOT have anything ATTACHED, to the helmet which protrudes more than 5 mm, This would include the "mohawks", "spikes" "cameras", (not limited to GoPro)."

Can someone please give me a link where this reg is actually found? I have seen this in respect to US regulations, but not Canadian or Ontario regs. I have looked at 104(1) and 610 - neither of which references cameras or anything >5mm. So, if you can point me to a reference related to the Ontario HTA or Canada HTA, please let me know.

Just fyi for those following this saga, here is my summary of events:

[FONT=&quot]Reference: 2225932Z[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Background[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On the evening of May 9[SUP]th[/SUP], 2018, I was returning from Peterborough on my motorcycle. The evening was nice, and I was enjoying a leisurely ride home, when I noticed the flashing lights of an OPP cruiser behind me. As I was not speeding, I thought the cruiser was wishing to pass me, so I pulled over. After seeing the cruiser also pull over behind me, I stopped my bike and removed my helmet to greet the officer as he approached me.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In a friendly manner, I asked the officer what was up. He asked if that was a camera on my helmet. I replied it was. He asked if I knew that it was illegal to have a camera on my helmet. I replied that I was not aware of this.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The officer then said, “give me your license so I can write you a ticket.” Never asked for registration or insurance, which I found odd, as even though it was my bike and was insured, he had no way of knowing this without asking for these papers.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He returned from his vehicle and gave me the ticket, saying something to the effect that I seem to have a clean record and could contest the ticket at the court house across the street. (The stop was on highway 7 near Polito Ford, just south of the court offices on Kent Street.)
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wanting to know more about this apparently obscure law, I asked the officer if it was illegal for bicyclists (non-motorized, peddle operated) to have a camera on their helmet, and he replied he did not know. I asked if it was illegal to have an in-helmet communications system; he thought about it and said that technically, it probably was – but did not give me a ticket for this.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
It should be noted that the offence listed on my ticket states, “fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle.” I find the term ‘proper helmet’ to be very subjective and not a legal term. It did not state a non-certified or non-DOT approved, which I believe it should have. In my opinion, I was wearing a DOT approved helmet and it was clearly marked as such, and thus the officer could not issue me a ticket for not wearing a DOT approved helmet.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Supporting information[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On May 12[SUP]th[/SUP], my Harley dealer (Longley HD) in Peterborough held an open house and demo day, at which several members from our Harley Owners Group participated. An OPP officer on a motorcycle stopped by and several us were having a friendly discussion with him, when I noticed a small plastic GoPro mount on his helmet. I mentioned that I just got a ticket a few days ago for having a GoPro camera on my helmet. He just laughed and said many motorcycle officers use helmet mounted GoPro cameras. Unfortunately, I did not get the name of this officer, but this info might be available from OPP records for officers in that area on that day.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On May 27[SUP]th[/SUP], our Chapter participated in the annual Ralph Kitchen Memorial Ride just north of Madoc. There was an OPP officer on hand to provide traffic control for the ride. His name was Orr. I asked him about helmet cams and he stated that there was no law against using them on a helmet while riding a motorcycle.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I have since spoken with a number of other OPP and Durham Region officers, and none of them stated that it is illegal to have a camera mounted on my helmet.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My Case[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I would like to state that at all times I was friendly and polite with Officer Hoogerdyk who issued me the ticket. I did not argue with him and accepted the ticket he gave me. On the other hand, I found Officer Hoogerdyk to be aggressive and unfriendly, showing no empathy or compassion. I would have expected a caution or warning like when a vehicle has a tail light out and the driver was not aware of it - not an immediate ticket for a so-called offence I was not aware of. If Officer Hoogerdyk had a body-cam or dash cam recording the traffic stop, this will confirm my comments and observations.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I have researched this in the HTA, can could find no reference to a helmet cam being against the law. Therefore, I am requesting that this ticket be cancelled and removed from my driving record.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]On a personal note, I believe that Officer N. Hoogerdyk had a personal agenda in stopping me, and it is was not to serve and protect.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Attached are copies of section 104 of the HTA referring the motorcycle helmets and O. Reg 610. Neither of which states that it is illegal to have a helmet mounted camera while riding a motorcycle, nor is it illegal to have an in-helmet communications system.[/FONT]
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Rob MacLennan · Jul 1, 2018

I have definitely heard that officer's name before.

TK4 · Jul 1, 2018

Buddy got jacked for a $240 ticket yesterday in his kayak. No bailing can or whistle 'warning device'.
He's going to fight it, the OPP were just out looking for easy marks and not worrying about all the DUIs out in their boats.

bigguy1 · Jul 1, 2018

TK4 said:
Buddy got jacked for a $240 ticket yesterday in his kayak. No bailing can or whistle 'warning device'.
He's going to fight it, the OPP were just out looking for easy marks and not worrying about all the DUIs out in their boats.

Its s the law. What’s he going to fight? Kayak’s have the same requirements as a row boat and canoe.

fastar1 · Jul 1, 2018

hedo2002 said:
I get it, people think this is a silly regulation. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but assume it was likely that a manufacturer, (likely for liability reasons with lawyers involved), said they "couldn't certify the safety of the helmet" with something attached to it. So some bureaucrat wrote the reg. Trying to come up with a "creative" way to try to beat the charge, "may" end up pissing of the JP. The courts have ruled, (the rulings stand for now, until someone spends the tens of thousands on an appeal).

I thought this made a lot of sense at first, but on second thought there's no way any manufacturer ever said if their helmet has something attached in any way, of any size or shape, in any location, they certify it will pass the crash test as long as the attached thing is no more than 5 mm tall. So there's something missing to the story behind the formulation of this law.

But it's hard to imagine any story that explains away the silliness of the regulation.

Baggsy · Jul 2, 2018

fastar1 said:
I thought this made a lot of sense at first, but on second thought there's no way any manufacturer ever said if their helmet has something attached in any way, of any size or shape, in any location, they certify it will pass the crash test as long as the attached thing is no more than 5 mm tall. So there's something missing to the story behind the formulation of this law. But it's hard to imagine any story that explains away the silliness of the regulation.

It was probably the other way, and 5 mm is an arbitrary number, unless it has something to do with the communications device stick on bits.

hedo2002 · Jul 2, 2018

I am not home, and don't have access to regs, but it has been posted in this sub forum last year, so you can search for it. Firstly, an officer has NO obligation to provide a warning on ANY offence it is merely a discretionary option they have. People get tickets everyday for burned out lights. The dash cam evidence, (if any existed) won't be entered into evidence as you didn't receive during discovery, therefore, not being used. Also the fact that it will confirm you "eren't aware it was illegal" is a moot point as you yourself have already stated and it IS a legal fact ignorance of the law is not an excuse. You had the camera mounted, it is illegal under the regulation.

You are as I previously stated, unable to locate a specific section of the HTA that states it is illegal to have a camera, (or for that matter anything attached to your helmet). It is in violation of a REGULATION, not a specific section of the HTA. It is the regulations that govern the certification compliance of MOTORCYCLE helmets, it is NOT applicable to bicycle helmets therefore a cyclist CAN wear a camera. The mere fact that you are unable to locate the appropriate regulation does not mean it doesn't exist, nor that you violated it.

As for many other officers being unaware of the regulation is NOT at all surprising. Not every officer is aware of every reg or section of the HTA, or many other laws. If I asked 50 Toronto cops is riding 2 people on a 2 up ATV on a road where atv's are permitted, ok I bet 49 would say sure is. BUT, in fact it is illegal, you can only have ONE person on said machine. Because 49 out of 50 say it is ok doesn't make it so.

I would HIGHLY suggest you NOT go into court and state what you typed under "my case" that will be viewed by the crown and very likely the JP as passive aggressive. You are already going into a court that has registered several convictions for this offence you need to be as contrite as possible. Also what you "believe" to be the officers reason for stopping you is not relevant to the court nor is the fact, how you "feel" he treated you. An officer has NO obligation to be polite to you. He merely must do his job in a proper fashion. No where do any manuals or force policy manuals state and officer must be polite.

I also wouldn't refer to it as a "so called offence" it is an offence the crown WILL have the reg there to show the JP if requested by the JP, but given convictions have already been registered and there are only a few JP's in Lindsay the JP will already be aware of it.

You NEED to remember this isn't their first day on the job nor is this the first time this offence has been heard in that court. If you go in with the attitude you have written here, you are going to be in for a VERY rude awakening and have ZERO opportunity to have the ticket tossed. Also don't ask the court to "remove the ticket from your driving record. If you are found not guilty the system is designed to do that. If your given a suspended sentence, found guilty etc, it WILL remain as part of your record.

So search the legal sub forum the reg is already posted here. You wanted the expereince of fighting the ticket then YOU need to do your due diligence. I can tell you if you go to court as unprepared as you currently are, there will be only one outcome, and it won't be favorable to you. Sorry just giving you the straight up from someone who has accumulated approx 2 years 40 hours a week in various courts, most of it traffic court.

FenelonPaul said:
Sorry, I have not been here for a while.. rather busy with other things.

I have seen a number of posts quoting "The reg states a helmet can NOT have anything ATTACHED, to the helmet which protrudes more than 5 mm, This would include the "mohawks", "spikes" "cameras", (not limited to GoPro)."

Can someone please give me a link where this reg is actually found? I have seen this in respect to US regulations, but not Canadian or Ontario regs. I have looked at 104(1) and 610 - neither of which references cameras or anything >5mm. So, if you can point me to a reference related to the Ontario HTA or Canada HTA, please let me know.

Just fyi for those following this saga, here is my summary of events:

Reference: 2225932Z
Background
On the evening of May 9[SUP]th[/SUP], 2018, I was returning from Peterborough on my motorcycle. The evening was nice, and I was enjoying a leisurely ride home, when I noticed the flashing lights of an OPP cruiser behind me. As I was not speeding, I thought the cruiser was wishing to pass me, so I pulled over. After seeing the cruiser also pull over behind me, I stopped my bike and removed my helmet to greet the officer as he approached me.

In a friendly manner, I asked the officer what was up. He asked if that was a camera on my helmet. I replied it was. He asked if I knew that it was illegal to have a camera on my helmet. I replied that I was not aware of this.

The officer then said, “give me your license so I can write you a ticket.” Never asked for registration or insurance, which I found odd, as even though it was my bike and was insured, he had no way of knowing this without asking for these papers.

He returned from his vehicle and gave me the ticket, saying something to the effect that I seem to have a clean record and could contest the ticket at the court house across the street. (The stop was on highway 7 near Polito Ford, just south of the court offices on Kent Street.)

Wanting to know more about this apparently obscure law, I asked the officer if it was illegal for bicyclists (non-motorized, peddle operated) to have a camera on their helmet, and he replied he did not know. I asked if it was illegal to have an in-helmet communications system; he thought about it and said that technically, it probably was – but did not give me a ticket for this.

It should be noted that the offence listed on my ticket states, “fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle.” I find the term ‘proper helmet’ to be very subjective and not a legal term. It did not state a non-certified or non-DOT approved, which I believe it should have. In my opinion, I was wearing a DOT approved helmet and it was clearly marked as such, and thus the officer could not issue me a ticket for not wearing a DOT approved helmet.

Supporting information
On May 12[SUP]th[/SUP], my Harley dealer (Longley HD) in Peterborough held an open house and demo day, at which several members from our Harley Owners Group participated. An OPP officer on a motorcycle stopped by and several us were having a friendly discussion with him, when I noticed a small plastic GoPro mount on his helmet. I mentioned that I just got a ticket a few days ago for having a GoPro camera on my helmet. He just laughed and said many motorcycle officers use helmet mounted GoPro cameras. Unfortunately, I did not get the name of this officer, but this info might be available from OPP records for officers in that area on that day.

On May 27[SUP]th[/SUP], our Chapter participated in the annual Ralph Kitchen Memorial Ride just north of Madoc. There was an OPP officer on hand to provide traffic control for the ride. His name was Orr. I asked him about helmet cams and he stated that there was no law against using them on a helmet while riding a motorcycle.

I have since spoken with a number of other OPP and Durham Region officers, and none of them stated that it is illegal to have a camera mounted on my helmet.

My Case
I would like to state that at all times I was friendly and polite with Officer Hoogerdyk who issued me the ticket. I did not argue with him and accepted the ticket he gave me. On the other hand, I found Officer Hoogerdyk to be aggressive and unfriendly, showing no empathy or compassion. I would have expected a caution or warning like when a vehicle has a tail light out and the driver was not aware of it - not an immediate ticket for a so-called offence I was not aware of. If Officer Hoogerdyk had a body-cam or dash cam recording the traffic stop, this will confirm my comments and observations.

While ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I have researched this in the HTA, can could find no reference to a helmet cam being against the law. Therefore, I am requesting that this ticket be cancelled and removed from my driving record.
On a personal note, I believe that Officer N. Hoogerdyk had a personal agenda in stopping me, and it is was not to serve and protect.

Attached are copies of section 104 of the HTA referring the motorcycle helmets and O. Reg 610. Neither of which states that it is illegal to have a helmet mounted camera while riding a motorcycle, nor is it illegal to have an in-helmet communications system.

hedo2002 · Jul 2, 2018

OP, you need to understand the "mechanics" of traffic court. Firstly, Lindsay has 2 maybe 3 JP's that do traffic court. They are NOT lawyers, in fact they have NO formal legal training. In "complex" cases they tend to look to the crown for in essence guidance.

Having said that, your particular charge has been heard three separate times. Each time a conviction was registered. That means it is highly likely the JP that will be hearing your case has already ruled on the "legalities and merits" of the charge. If he/she hasn't then one of the others that they eat lunch with most days has.

The court isn't at all interested in your "theories, feelings or anything other than the law."

Having convictions on this very charge previously, the crown WILL have the pertinent regulation, as well as the previous cases, and their dispositions, (guilty). That really is all the crown need present.

Your uphill battle is to find a case which has been heard by a JUDGE, (appealed), and that the conviction was overturned. For the record, I haven't found one. Therefore, the crown will summarize their case as your honor, here is the relevant statute, here are previous cases which resulted in a conviction. The JP will then turn to you and "may" ask do you have any cases which resulted in a not guilty verdict, or that were overturned upon appeal?"

"No your honor"

Thank you, given the evidence presented to me I find you guilty, your fine is XXXX Do you require time to pay? Next case please.

Other than an over turned appeal, about the ONLY other way I can see for a win is if you had an "expert witness", which would need to be a certified engineer, (you would have had to provide the crown this info in advance), The engineer would have done extensive testing on helmets and be willing to state that having something attached to the outer shell in NO way affects the outer shell.

J_F · Jul 2, 2018

selective interpretation of the law by a particular police detachment should not happen
what is with this Supervisor or whomever it is pushing this in Kawartha Lakes?

must have a bad moment in his past related to a motorcyclist
maybe his dad was a biker and beat the shyt out his mom
or maybe he lost his HS GF to a dude that rode

regardless, this is not the intended role of police
to sneak around and catch people technically, possibly, breaking rules
when common sense will tell ANYONE there is not a problem

hedo2002 · Jul 2, 2018

Selective enforcement happens EVERY day, on EVERY force, some officers don't like S172 so they simply refuse to enforce it and go with the older applicable charges. Besides, it is not just Kawartha Lakes OPP that are laying charges, I can't recall if it was Waterloo Regional of the OPP in the Kitchener area that also laid the charge and got a conviction.

I would say if more officer's became aware of this offence and the regulations we would be seeing a LOT more charges. It is similar to a speeding ticket, (which have virtually a 100% conviction rate). so simple charge to lay and easy to get a conviction on.

In order for this not to become a wide spread issue it will be up to the ministry, to change the regs, (although one presumes they put it in place for a reason). Or for the manufacturers to state to the ministry that a protrusion attached to the outer shell does NOT negate the certification of said helmet, (But I suspect that will NEVER happen as their lawyers will never let them take the potential liability).

Some fool crashes with a camera on, breaks his neck, and is paralyzed, then sues the manufacturer, stating they certified in essence that mounting a camera was "safe", wins a multi million dollar lawsuit

JavaFan said:
selective interpretation of the law by a particular police detachment should not happen
what is with this Supervisor or whomever it is pushing this in Kawartha Lakes?

must have a bad moment in his past related to a motorcyclist
maybe his dad was a biker and beat the shyt out his mom
or maybe he lost his HS GF to a dude that rode

regardless, this is not the intended role of police
to sneak around and catch people technically, possibly, breaking rules
when common sense will tell ANYONE there is not a problem

Trials · Jul 2, 2018

hedo2002 said:
...
Some fool crashes with a camera on, breaks his neck, and is paralyzed, then sues the manufacturer, stating they certified in essence that mounting a camera was "safe", wins a multi million dollar lawsuit

Oh for petes sake :/
I've tested a Lot of helmets and had a Lot of head injuries. :I and I'm here to say; helmets All work great if you are lucky enough to be wearing one when you smash your head into something.

Secondly you can Never predict the outcome of an accident so to suggest that a chunk of plastic stuck on a helmet with 2 sided tape is going to render the helmet useless is a completely ludicrous conclusion, that helmet might have cost 800 bucks and still outperforms 6 other helmets that all meet the minimum certification requirements!

This whole 'is it safe' debate on helmet approvals has gotten way out of hand, the intent of the law in the first place was to prevent people from wearing a cooking pot on their head with a shoe string for a chin strap and you know it :/ which by the way still might totally save your life under the correct circumstances. Motorcycle riders are coming under far too much scrutiny and being subjected to stupid fines and insurance expense because 'we are a danger to ourselves' and when a cop chases down and gives a ticket to somebody for being a danger to themselves and the reasoning is as ridiculous as the additional friction of a helmet mount sliding on pavement might snap your neck! or whatever else you guys are imagining. :/ come on cops, give it a break, this is where you get paid to use your brain and discretion instead of the letter of the law to issue a warning and not write a summons.

J_F · Jul 2, 2018

hedo2002 said:
Selective enforcement happens EVERY day, on EVERY force, some officers don't like S172 so they simply refuse to enforce it and go with the older applicable charges. Besides, it is not just Kawartha Lakes OPP that are laying charges, I can't recall if it was Waterloo Regional of the OPP in the Kitchener area that also laid the charge and got a conviction.

I would say if more officer's became aware of this offence and the regulations we would be seeing a LOT more charges. It is similar to a speeding ticket, (which have virtually a 100% conviction rate). so simple charge to lay and easy to get a conviction on.

In order for this not to become a wide spread issue it will be up to the ministry, to change the regs, (although one presumes they put it in place for a reason). Or for the manufacturers to state to the ministry that a protrusion attached to the outer shell does NOT negate the certification of said helmet, (But I suspect that will NEVER happen as their lawyers will never let them take the potential liability).

Some fool crashes with a camera on, breaks his neck, and is paralyzed, then sues the manufacturer, stating they certified in essence that mounting a camera was "safe", wins a multi million dollar lawsuit

thanks for cogent reply
and hope you get riding soon
cheers

TK4 · Jul 2, 2018

bigguy1 said:
Its s the law. What’s he going to fight? Kayak’s have the same requirements as a row boat and canoe.

He was 50 feet off his dock spotting for some swimmers. Looks like a cherry pick to me.

Trials · Jul 2, 2018

So should I tell the guys it's illegal to shoot the Ottawa river whitewater rapids on their beer coolers and inner tubes any more,
or is that still ok?

hedo2002 · Jul 2, 2018

TK4 said:
He was 50 feet off his dock spotting for some swimmers. Looks like a cherry pick to me.

Doesn't matter if he was 2' off the dock. Good luck to him with that argument in court.

I guess if I am within a block of home or work I can drive as fast as I want, cause I am close...lol

Not to mention, it was ALL over the media that the OPP would have increased patrols on the highways, Trails AND waterways. Your friend is an idiot, (increased patrols means you make sure your in FULL compliance). Doesn't matter 50' is ON the water...

I also call BS on your friend being told by the cops they were just getting people on little stuff and ignoring the Impaired boaters. MOST of the S.A.V.E team guys are fanatical about impaired boating, atv'ing, sledding. So, if your friend had been hammered they would have just tagged him for what they did and let him go on his way hammered??? GMAFB

hedo2002 · Jul 2, 2018

Trials said:
So should I tell the guys it's illegal to shoot the Ottawa river whitewater rapids on their beer coolers and inner tubes any more,
or is that still ok?

Still ok, IF you don't do it on a long weekend when the OPP has TOLD you they were going to be out in force and their boat is 50' away...lmao

OR if you are within 50' of a dock...

Helmet laws in Ontaro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-endowed member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member