The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread | Page 228 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread

Found the son of a b….

Reasons for running

DUI
No insurance
Stolen vehicle
Wanted on other charges

When an at fault driver kills a rider the fine if I recall correctly is $600. I expect a pedestrian is similar. Barring the above co charges.

In some cases the pedestrian was at fault but the driver runs, making it a crime.

At 61 years old one would think the driver would be intelligent enough to do the right thing.
 
A few more.

G1, no insurance, on 401 in snow storm, crash with ejection.

Dump truck box up in Brampton. Knocked down power wires. Didn't run away.
 
A few more.

G1, no insurance, on 401 in snow storm, crash with ejection.

Dump truck box up in Brampton. Knocked down power wires. Didn't run away.

The dump truck in Brampton gave me a day off work.
 
Obviously this person thought they were in woodbridge not caledon. Barely slowed for a stop sign and didn't see the obvious cruiser sitting there.

 
Obviously this person thought they were in woodbridge not caledon. Barely slowed for a stop sign and didn't see the obvious cruiser sitting there.

It's the Brampton spillover effect.
 
Obviously this person thought they were in woodbridge not caledon. Barely slowed for a stop sign and didn't see the obvious cruiser sitting there.

White car could also have been done for fail to stop. You have to stop first before the line/sign and then move forward and stop again, if your view is obscured. I'd say it's pretty obvious the second driver was also going to blow the sign.
 
White car could also have been done for fail to stop. You have to stop first before the line/sign and then move forward and stop again, if your view is obscured. I'd say it's pretty obvious the second driver was also going to blow the sign.
Cop also blew the stop line (a quick stop but well into the marked pedestrian crossing). I agree, white car wasn't planning on stopping but was at least going slow enough to process what they saw and stop. Still eligible for a ticket but I probably wouldn't ticket because they did pay attention and stop.
 
White car could also have been done for fail to stop. You have to stop first before the line/sign and then move forward and stop again, if your view is obscured. I'd say it's pretty obvious the second driver was also going to blow the sign.
I was under the impression that you only have to make a full stop at the line? After that you can creep until you can see and go.

Sent from the future
 
I was under the impression that you only have to make a full stop at the line? After that you can creep until you can see and go.

Sent from the future
The letter of the law is "proceed in safety." If your view is blocked then you don't know if it is safe to proceed, and so should stop again and look in such an instance. If it's a 2-way stop and someone hits you, when you pull out after stopping, it's still your fault. The second stop is a safe practice thing, not a legal one.

*EDIT* - Mind you I once did that while riding a bike and got hit from behind by someone who though I wasn't going to make the second stop. If I hadn't made that second stop in order to check the blocked view then I would have been squashed by a transport, so it was lose-lose.
 
Is this a new record? CMV Stopped Saturday in South Porcupine (four tickets), Sunday in Val cote (four tickets), sunday again near Smooth Rock falls (16 tickets and removed from service).


A southern Ontario driver has been charged with 24 Highway Traffic Act (HTA) offences this weekend, police say.

As a result of the OPP investigation, the 45-year-old driver from Brampton was charged with 24 total offences:

  • Careless driving (three counts)
  • Driver failing to surrender licence (three counts)
  • Failing to surrender inspection schedule (two counts)
  • Failing to enter defect in daily inspection report (two counts)
  • Improperly driving a commercial motor vehicle with a minor defect in it
  • Unnecessary slow driving (two counts)
  • Failing to maintain daily log (two counts)
  • Failing to take 10 hours off in a day
  • Exceeding 13 hours driving time without eight hours off
  • Driving after 14 hours on duty without eight hours off
  • Driving after 16 hours since last break without eight hours off
  • Failing to surrender daily log
  • Driver in possession of more that one daily log
  • Failing to keep record of duty status
  • Failing to manually input information into ELD
  • Entering inaccurate information in record
Additionally, the owner of the CVM from Edmonton, Alta was charged with requesting, requiring or allowing a driver not to comply with section 18 of HTA, failing to surrender inspection, two counts of failing to enter defect in daily inspection report and improperly driving a commercial motor vehicle with a minor defect.
 
Ummm, this press release is useless without pics. How do you end up 40,000 kg overweight? They caught someone crossing a 5 ton limited bridge? @PrivatePilot any ideas how you could get this far over?

They pulled over 13 trucks and 9 were overweight with four removed from service. Yes, they were probably targeting specific classes of truck but wtf, that is a crazy percentage.


"Public complaints concerning overweight loads sent police on a truck enforcement blitz.
The Grey Bruce OPP would also like to share one occurrence of note - in which a loaded commercial motor vehicle was operating while 40,000 kg overweight."
 
Last edited:
Had a friend awhile ago that got nailed for way overweight. He was hauling wood chips (a chip truck!) and it was raining bad. The cover either wasnt on properly or was leaky and the chips absorbed the rain. I dont remember how much over he was but it was a lot. Called his boss who showed up and decided it was cheaper to park him for a few days to let it dry out than to try to offload some to another truck.
 
Ummm, this press release is useless without pics. How do you end up 40,000 kg overweight? They caught someone crossing a 5 ton limited bridge? @PrivatePilot any ideas how you could get this far over?

Unclear if it was 40K overweight for the bridge they were doing enforcement at, or 40K overweight. That's over 80,000# overweight which seems really unlikely unless it was a steel hauler or something. It might have been someone 40K over their *registered* weight, IE they tried to save money by getting a cheap plate sticker vs paying for their actual weight they use the truck for.

But yeah, unclear.

As for all the other overweight tickets, if they setup anywhere where they were getting gravel trucks, that doesn't surprise me at all. Aggregate haulers are the worst of the worst for overloading and driving unmaintained dangerous junk. If you see an aggregate truck out on the road anywhere, keep your distance. If you're on 2 wheels, drop a gear and disappear.
 
Speaking of overloaded trucks, saw this gem a couple of weeks ago around the corner from work.

f2cb15895d29bc71a89b9318c7d94230.jpg


c9740fcb35bb28bcbf63766bffc1ba94.jpg


0e028a57089da88dbd4a972562d248a4.jpeg
 
Probably damaged the bottom rail at some point (dragging it around a bollard is a common way it happens) and it wasn't repaired. That big aluminum rail on the sides of trailers along the bottom is actually where a massive amount of a semi trailers strength comes from. If it's damaged it becomes a weak spot that can indeed cause a trailer to fold like this.
 
Probably damaged the bottom rail at some point (dragging it around a bollard is a common way it happens) and it wasn't repaired. That big aluminum rail on the sides of trailers along the bottom is actually where a massive amount of a semi trailers strength comes from. If it's damaged it becomes a weak spot that can indeed cause a trailer to fold like this.

For reference, the trailer was loaded with pallets of eggs on their way to a processing plant, and pallets of eggs ain’t lightweight cargo!
 

Back
Top Bottom