You are/should be allowed to phone emergency services while driving. It accounts for a statistically insignificant amount of calls while driving but has an obvious benefit to the society.
*taps his helmet* Hi everyone...
- Thread starter Bike Cop
- Start date
You are/should be allowed to phone emergency services while driving. It accounts for a statistically insignificant amount of calls while driving but has an obvious benefit to the society.
Bike Cop
Well-known member
I can't speak for insurance rates, I know they're high for certain classes of bikes and riders. Been there. As for Bill 203, I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. There were some good changes as a result of that particular Bill, most notably, the warn range suspensions that are now tracked and have escalating sanctions. I know that the stunt legislation was a tough one for some people to swallow, and I am on the receiving end of those arguments on a weekly basis. Simply put, if you don't exhibit that driving behaviour, you will have nothing to worry about.
As for the flight from police guys, some were stopped, some weren't. One that wasn't, will be dealt with later this week, as his driver's licence had been suspended for a criminal code conviction.
So with that logic, might as well trow all civil rights away, as long as I don't intend to kill anyone, I shouldn't be worried right?
I had a friend that got stopped and when the cop tried to charge her with over 50, she pulled her gps that clearly tracked her speed and proved she wasn't over 50, needless to say she wasn't charged - I guess she needed to be worried even when she wasn't exhibiting the behavior.
There is also the cop that got charged for giving people false over 50 tickets so he could get kick backs from the tow truck companies.
This topic has been discussed in extent in here and i am not going to get into it, but there is something really wrong with giving a police officer the side road right to be judge and Juror!
Last edited:
Add to that the fact that it is WIDE open to the officer's interpretation, including the terms "lawful rate of speed" and "significantly above".... It's a big can of worms on many levels. While truly dangerous vehicle operators should be penalized and I like the escalating levels of punishment, this law, as written, is a piss-poor piece of legislation and needs to be replaced.
Bike Cop
Well-known member
The difference between a stunt driving charge and a speeding ticket is the suspension and impound. Otherwise, it's still just a charge that can be argued in court. Alcohol in excess of 0.00 for novice and young drivers, and over 0.05 for full class drivers will get a roadside suspension. Impaired operation, Over 80, and Refuse to provide, also result in roadside impound. Does anyone debate those suspensions or impounds?
Supported even by the "good cops" because of course, they are not the ones being ****ed every day by power trip police officers out there
So if there is already a law that deals with speeding why the need to add another law that deals with speeding? so a very poorly written law can be put in place so you guys have more "grey areas" to act on? or is it "for the children"
damn right I am against suspension on the side of the road and impound, if we exercise the right to go to court (as you mentioned) and win, we don't get those impound fees back, or do we?
So someone that committed no crime (if found not guilty) is paying for consequences of something they didn't do by having their license suspended and having to pay for 7 days of impound fees and the tow charge
Last edited:
OMG! OMG! OMG! *runs to underground parking to get rid of 190db loud pipe, fender eliminator, flashing led lights, train horn and flush mounted darkened signal lights...
Ahem, welcome to the forum Bike Cop!
Kudos for being open from the get go, hope to see you some day and perhaps ride in a group!
:lmao: Somebody delete that "running" thread
Relax and realize that stereotypes are there for a reason. The same way you wouldn't stop and frisk senior citizens in an old folks home to try and stop illegal sale of firearms, but rather go after the demographic that you know, is usually involved in these crimes. Call it whatever you want but common sense applies...
Now be honest, what percentage of riders that run actually get away?
:violent2:
ccasion5:Oh and welcome officer...
:happy1:
Well that escalated quickly.
Welcome. I like the upfront attitude you're putting out. Out of curiosity though what exactly are you trying to accomplish when aimed towards the people who flee. I understand you would like to open dialog but how exactly is this going to help?
As for the fleeing relating to insurance thats a never ending circle. Insurance is high because of the fleeing and people flee to try and keep insurance down.
Either way. Welcome. I hope to never meet you on a professional level. Ive done my best to keep a 5star insurance rating and plan on keeping it that way.
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Welcome. I like the upfront attitude you're putting out. Out of curiosity though what exactly are you trying to accomplish when aimed towards the people who flee. I understand you would like to open dialog but how exactly is this going to help?
As for the fleeing relating to insurance thats a never ending circle. Insurance is high because of the fleeing and people flee to try and keep insurance down.
Either way. Welcome. I hope to never meet you on a professional level. Ive done my best to keep a 5star insurance rating and plan on keeping it that way.
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Bike Cop
Well-known member
I get the grey area argument, I do. I take that as 'areas of the law open to interpretation'. One officers perception of an incident vs. someone else's. There are so many ways to be charged under this section, it might help to be specific. The over 50 definition is the biggest one, I would define that as 'excessive speeding'. Pre-2007 we would charge by way of a summons and send the person to court, but it didn't involve a roadside suspension and impound.
Since then, I can't say that I've seen the number of over 50 speeders drop, but I don't have the stats to back that up.
For riders, the big ones are:
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle. 3. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,
ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, or
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).
I would only point out that all of those definitions (of "race") involve excess speed, but are in conjunction with either chasing, surfing, or accelerating in some extraordinary way.
I have no doubt that this topic is covered somewhere else in this forum as this section isn't new.
Same here...
10+ years of riding and i've never been stopped except went through ride once and a seatbelt checkpoint on a ramp another time.
Now in my 120hp civic i get singled out on a regular basis for the dumbest **** ever, 120 km/h on the highway, 10km/h over on a road etc..
Thank god for paralegals
What if my interpretation is different from yours? Isn't the idea to have a law that clear and everyone can understand it?
SweetOnion
Well-known member
This is very interesting indeed, and also welcome to the forum!
Personally, I am scared of the new stunt driving charges and I do feel they could contribute to making someone run.
I am 33 now, and when I was 16 a friend of mine was stopped doing 160 on the 401 between London and Ingersoll, and received roughly $600 fine.
He learned from it... Is this fine just not enough penalty now? Or why the stunt charge towards speeding, specifically. Or the term "street racing" when in fact there was never a race. Just hooligan riding.
I married a police officer's daughter, who retired from the GTA a few years ago. We don't talk about bike stuff too much because I have a supersport and it is obvious that nobody rides them at the speed limit.
I have never been pulled over since I started riding 7 years ago. I am definitely scared of the consequences of getting a stunt charge. I don't do wheelies ever.. But still feel like if I came over a hill and saw a cop going the other way, and I was way fast already... There used to be a time when you would pull over before he even turned around and he said "oh thanks for not being an idiot" or something when they got to your window (or bike) .. I feel those days are gone.
Personally, I am scared of the new stunt driving charges and I do feel they could contribute to making someone run.
I am 33 now, and when I was 16 a friend of mine was stopped doing 160 on the 401 between London and Ingersoll, and received roughly $600 fine.
He learned from it... Is this fine just not enough penalty now? Or why the stunt charge towards speeding, specifically. Or the term "street racing" when in fact there was never a race. Just hooligan riding.
I married a police officer's daughter, who retired from the GTA a few years ago. We don't talk about bike stuff too much because I have a supersport and it is obvious that nobody rides them at the speed limit.
I have never been pulled over since I started riding 7 years ago. I am definitely scared of the consequences of getting a stunt charge. I don't do wheelies ever.. But still feel like if I came over a hill and saw a cop going the other way, and I was way fast already... There used to be a time when you would pull over before he even turned around and he said "oh thanks for not being an idiot" or something when they got to your window (or bike) .. I feel those days are gone.
While we have your ear, how about those ridiculously low speed limits? The vehicles we drive and ride have improved over the last 50 years but speed limits have stayed the same or have gotten lower.
In some extreme cases, speed IS the contributing factor to an accident, but I believe that in most cases, the primary cause of an accident is frustration (which accumulates) with drivers actually following the lawful but illogical speed limit, causing some drivers to act somewhat recklessly.
Illogically low speed limits also cause disrespect for the law. It just feels stupid sometimes driving along certain stretches at the posted limit.
If speed limits were increased by 20 kph across the board, and enforced strictly, there would be fewer accidents in my opinion.
i understand that bike cop has to be careful what he posts, because his superiors could be reading his responses.
In some extreme cases, speed IS the contributing factor to an accident, but I believe that in most cases, the primary cause of an accident is frustration (which accumulates) with drivers actually following the lawful but illogical speed limit, causing some drivers to act somewhat recklessly.
Illogically low speed limits also cause disrespect for the law. It just feels stupid sometimes driving along certain stretches at the posted limit.
If speed limits were increased by 20 kph across the board, and enforced strictly, there would be fewer accidents in my opinion.
i understand that bike cop has to be careful what he posts, because his superiors could be reading his responses.
Last edited:
and can you please cure cancer as well
Schneller is all about the revenue generation, nothing to do with public safety - this is why I was ok with Bike cop until he started agreeing with laws and regulations that make no sense, but of course if they come up with a law that benefit me, i am sure I would also support it.
Schneller is all about the revenue generation, nothing to do with public safety - this is why I was ok with Bike cop until he started agreeing with laws and regulations that make no sense, but of course if they come up with a law that benefit me, i am sure I would also support it.
Last edited:
Good stuff - glad to see you making the point of reaching out. I think that taking the high road and keeping open lines of communication is a great thing to do. Also - maybe start another thread in another part of the forum if you want to take and respond to questions, it'll get more visibility.
However, since we're on the topic, at one of the leslie / lakeshore bike nights on a Thursday night last year there was a police presence on private property, and before they would let bikes into the parking lot, they required bikes to pull over and submit to a paperwork check and a roadside inspection.
Given that it was private property and the primary reason to inspect the bikes was because they were there, I was wondering whether the police were in the right, and what would have happened if I had politely refused, given that I was on private property.
I understand that on public roads I must pull over and submit to a spot-check, and that police don't necessarily need cause to do this, but what's the case on private property?
However, since we're on the topic, at one of the leslie / lakeshore bike nights on a Thursday night last year there was a police presence on private property, and before they would let bikes into the parking lot, they required bikes to pull over and submit to a paperwork check and a roadside inspection.
Given that it was private property and the primary reason to inspect the bikes was because they were there, I was wondering whether the police were in the right, and what would have happened if I had politely refused, given that I was on private property.
I understand that on public roads I must pull over and submit to a spot-check, and that police don't necessarily need cause to do this, but what's the case on private property?
I believe this is wrong (someone please correct me), you can not be stopped for "spot checks" unless you have done something that gives the police officer any idea that you are not following the law like a traffic violation or something related to your vehicle not being legal or safe.
Last edited:
eljay
Well-known member
NO. It's for fundraising/extortion (same as "for the children"). Read Atlas Shrugged (I assume Paul already has). The point is to make everyone a criminal no matter what so everyone is feeding the political class... until they don't. Cops are to laws/politicians as are salespeople to a product/managers.
Bike Cop
Well-known member
I can say from my perspective that when I turn the lights on and the riders stop, I am very lenient with them. On the other hand, I am less likely to be lenient when I have to use my bike to force them to the shoulder, or call another car ahead to slow traffic down so I can get closer.
The act reads:
Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day licence suspension
(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver's licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment
(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (b), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,
(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and
(b) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
The interesting part there is the section I bolded, the officer shall impound, suspend, etc. The lawmakers wrote that to take away the discretion of the officer. That is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of officers. There's also the part below:
Intent of suspension and impoundment
(1)The suspension of a driver's licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
I'm trying to keep up with the posts as best I can, but I can see that some are being edited after they're posted. If I'm not getting to your point or if you have a specific question, shoot me a PM.
Last edited:
