pulled over for "dark license plate cover"

[aghuman]

I was pulled over for the same CT smoked cover you have. The cop told me the bigger problem with the cover is that it is convex which bends the light making it illegible at some times from certain angles and especially to cameras. I didn't get a ticket for that but I just went out and bought a cover that was a slightly less dark smoke and was flat to avoid the hassle of being pulled over, protecting my plates and keeping that nice smoked look I want. (I have asphalt too)

[PANDA86]

Originally Posted by aghuman

I was pulled over for the same CT smoked cover you have. The cop told me the bigger problem with the cover is that it is convex which bends the light making it illegible at some times from certain angles and especially to cameras.................

as I have stated earlier...

Originally Posted by PANDA86

Covering the plate with tint/clear transparent type "plastic" cover/shield can/may block or deflect and obscure the plate on state camera, if you brake any traffic laws. Reflection of sun, headlights, street lights, shop lights, etc. on plastic can have this type of effect especially on white background and angle of light.

Off topic, there's a certain type of spray that that blocks the reflective plate from camera without the plastic cover/shield, If you do that sort of thing.

[joergasm]

Originally Posted by drei

so this cop followed me down bayview from 407 to john st in thornhill and pulled me over on a side street.. "hi sir I'm pulling you over today because your license plate covers are too dark"
they are the ones you buy from Canadian Tire that are tinted.. he told me I should take them off before the end of the week. Should I bother? I see every other car has tinted license plate covers and I've never heard of anyone being pulled over for this.

Yeah if the cop thinks it's too dark(even if you have a clear one) if he wants to be a **** about it he will.

You aren't even technically suppose to have those wrap around plate covers because they still "obstruct" the view of the license plate.

It all depends on the cop. I know that you're thinknig but Canadian Tire has em, why would they sell illegal stuff. I was thinknig of fighting that shiet too but it says in fine print "check to make sure these are obey the laws in your state or province".

I'd say keep em, and if some other cop pulls you over(i'm sure that cop left a warning/flag on your car) tell him I got lighter plate covers cause my last one's were too dark and that these were different front the one's you got pulled over for. unless you get pulled over by the same cop LOLOL.

[joergasm]

Are those dangly characters from rear tow hooks illegal in Ontario??

[Burrcold]

Never been pulled over for having one on (15 years of driving). Although I probably will tonight lol. *knock on my wooden keyboard*

[edocura]

Originally Posted by headlikeahole

I have pulled people over for burnt out tail lights and had them blow 3 times the legal limit, with absolutely zero signs of impairment other then a smell of liquor on his/her breath. This is not uncommon either.

So, the driver has no signs of impairment (e.g. he's driving normally) but ticketing / arresting him makes the rest of us safer? I get that it's illegal, but I thought the spirit of the law was to remove unsafe drivers, not just have a legal threshold of alcohol content for ticketing / arresting people. If he's not showing signs of impairment, he's not being unsafe by definition... right? What service are you providing by doing this?

I get what you're saying as a whole, but I don't fully buy the argument. If stopping people semi-randomly is the only way to do police work, the system is broken. It's the same thing as having a system with mandatory checks every x miles (which is largely morally wrong imo due to infringements on personal liberties), except it's disguised as non-random checks for minor infractions.

I do see value in police work but this fishing for problems when none are apparent seems wrong to me in the case of a kid driving around with a <red, fast, low, too tinted, too dark, too loud, etc.> car. I would have preferred to think that officers just were strict about the law (which I may not agree with, but can logically understand, respect, and accept) instead of having one tell me they do it on purpose to work around the fact they can't legally randomly stop people.

Kinda messed up man.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by edocura

So, the driver has no signs of impairment (e.g. he's driving normally) but ticketing / arresting him makes the rest of us safer? I get that it's illegal, but I thought the spirit of the law was to remove unsafe drivers, not just have a legal threshold of alcohol content for ticketing / arresting people. If he's not showing signs of impairment, he's not being unsafe by definition... right? What service are you providing by doing this?

How would you feel if someone close to you was hit and killed by a drunk driver that a cop could've stopped for something unrelated but let it go? Just because they weren't driving unsafe yet doesn't mean something wouldn't happen further down the road that they couldn't react to fast enough.

Originally Posted by edocura

I get what you're saying as a whole, but I don't fully buy the argument. If stopping people semi-randomly is the only way to do police work, the system is broken. It's the same thing as having a system with mandatory checks every x miles (which is largely morally wrong imo due to infringements on personal liberties), except it's disguised as non-random checks for minor infractions.

I do see value in police work but this fishing for problems when none are apparent seems wrong to me in the case of a kid driving around with a <red, fast, low, too tinted, too dark, too loud, etc.> car. I would have preferred to think that officers just were strict about the law (which I may not agree with, but can logically understand, respect, and accept) instead of having one tell me they do it on purpose to work around the fact they can't legally randomly stop people.

Kinda messed up man.

I wouldn't call stopping someone for a minor infraction semi-randomly... like it or not, a minor infraction is still illegal.

[edocura]

Originally Posted by wparsons

How would you feel if someone close to you was hit and killed by a drunk driver that a cop could've stopped for something unrelated but let it go? Just because they weren't driving unsafe yet doesn't mean something wouldn't happen further down the road that they couldn't react to fast enough.

The argument isn't to let drunk drivers go, but rather to not have police officers skirt the law so they bust more people every month. You're right, in different situations it may get more unsafe right after said stop. However, if you're 3 times over the limit, I'm pretty sure you've been drinking for a while. And I'm pretty sure it's not the case that the first x hours of drinking you're fine, then instantly on the 4th hour you're gone. Cops could also follow and observe instead of trying to get through it as soon as possible to nail the next guy.

Either way, the details don't even really matter in what I was trying to explain, namely that stopping someone for a crime they haven't committed yet with no suspicion of wrongdoing is wrong, and profiling a set of people (statically, we all know who gets pulled over more often) because they have a higher % "risk" of crimes you can tack on there is wrong.

Originally Posted by wparsons

I wouldn't call stopping someone for a minor infraction semi-randomly... like it or not, a minor infraction is still illegal.

If 90% of times they don't ticket you, as what was said in an earlier post here, it would imply that the officers themselves don't think it's a valid offense, but more of just as reasons to check people that aren't showing any other suspicious behavior. Hence semi-randomly. There's a lot of old laws that are technically applicable now, but are never enforced. Are those valid? Again, maybe technically, but the spirit of the law clearly has them outside of the realm of valid infringements. If you're randomly pulled over depending on what the officer feels like at the moment, it's random. If its that but there's a law they can site you, no matter how it applies I've called it "semi"-randomly.

I'm not implying that if someone is stopped for another reason they shouldn't be held accountable to other things found, just that the reason for the stop needs to be valid. It's more of the general feeling that an officer seems to feel he/she can play with the law, then justify it however possible with bs technicalities. (I thought that's what lawyers did, not cops )

I don't have any issue with police officers, so don't misunderstand me. I don't have a better way so, admittedly, this may be the best thing to do for now. But it's still not "right". I see the cops' point of view as well here. I guess I'm too idealistic.

[headlikeahole]

Originally Posted by edocura

So, the driver has no signs of impairment (e.g. he's driving normally) but ticketing / arresting him makes the rest of us safer? I get that it's illegal, but I thought the spirit of the law was to remove unsafe drivers, not just have a legal threshold of alcohol content for ticketing / arresting people. If he's not showing signs of impairment, he's not being unsafe by definition... right? What service are you providing by doing this?

That's insane. Some people are functional alcoholics and can seem perfectly sober at a blood alcohol level that would kill anyone else... by your logic these people should be allowed to drive.

[edocura]

Originally Posted by headlikeahole

That's insane. Some people are functional alcoholics and can seem perfectly sober at a blood alcohol level that would kill anyone else... by your logic these people should be allowed to drive.

I'm not sure what you mean by functional alcoholic... what level of functionality? If they can drive with the same control (mechanical control, as well as reflexes and all that) as a sober person, why not? In other words, if the only difference is that they read a different number on a machine, but everything else is the same - if you're talking about someone who has the same driver skill level as a sober person - except they're marked as "illegal" by law... it's insane to follow it just because the law states it when it doesn't make any sense.

What I'm getting at is: look at what people do, not what you label them due to whatever (law, stereotype, etc.).

[The359]

Originally Posted by edocura

If they can drive with the same control (mechanical control, as well as reflexes and all that) as a sober person, why not?

If you think functional alcoholic means they can function normally, then I don't think you understand the definition of functional alcoholic.

Which would you rather have? A numerical limit that most common people can agree on as "drunk enough to not be driving", or every cop out there simply having to say "he looks drunk" to start arresting people? Do you think only people who "look drunk" crash their cars?

[edocura]

Originally Posted by The359

If you think functional alcoholic means they can function normally, then I don't think you understand the definition of functional alcoholic.

I did just ask what the definition was. That's me trying to figure out how he defines it.

Originally Posted by The359

Do you think only people who "look drunk" crash their cars?

I think impaired people do. If you drink and aren't impaired (whether that's possible or not is a different thing and completely tangential to what I'm saying since this is a semantical example), then being "drunk" - again, in this example - doesn't mean anything.

But I digress, I guess people can't step away from this example and understand what I'm actually saying. No point repeating myself again.

[The359]

If you're blowing .05, you're impaired, no matter how you look.

What you seem to be saying is that people should be allowed to drive intoxicated if they can show certain motor skills required to drive a car. Which sounds to me like a dumb idea. The whole point of breathalizers is to stop people who may be able to slip by the physical test on the roadside, and are still at risk and should not be driving.

[wparsons]

I'll probably take some heat for this comment, but flame away...

IMO, the legal limit should be 0, not 0.05, not 0.08, 0. That way there is zero tolerance for it and no grey area at all. Someone can make a strong argument that they function relatively better at 0.06 than someone else at 0.04, but no one can argue that they function relatively better at 0.XX than someone else at 0.

*edit* - by "relatively better" I mean compare person A at 0.00 and 0.06, and compare person B at 0.00 and 0.04. You'll never find someone who is more co-ordinated/functional after a drink or two, it just won't happen. You could find someone who is better at 0.06 compared to themselves at 0 than someone else at 0.04 compared to themselves at 0 though.