WARNING !

[Mr.Impreza]

I pull the e-brake at very corner when the roads are covered in snow in my accord...

i think the guy who got pulled over was doing more than just swinging his tail out...

[pushrod]

Originally Posted by RFB

As a result of a local canuck who got charged with STUNTING, because his is tail swung out, (winter) !


He is facing -
a 7 day license suspension,
7 day car impound (non appealable),
$2000 to 10,000 fine,
and up to 6 months in jail.
and probable cancellation of insurance after conviction.

Are you just trying to get a rise out of us? Where is the link that shows that this actually happened, and under what circumstances it happened in?

Sincerely,
RWD Sports Car and Firearm Owner

[RFB]

Originally Posted by pushrod

Are you just trying to get a rise out of us? Where is the link that shows that this actually happened, and under what circumstances it happened in?

Sincerely,
RWD Sports Car and Firearm Owner

It happened, but as it is before the courts - NO INFO until after the trial.
I will not jeopardize the accused for the sake of forum curiosity.


Others who know of this incident, please do not divulge details until AFTER the trial.


Title of thread is WARNING, and the law only applies to Ontario.






CERBERUS

[pushrod]

Ok thanks, I'll get back into my buried school bus now.

[Guru Woodman]

Originally Posted by Canadian Greg

It's all true...Most anal retentive place on the planet...
Ontario Law is by far the most restrictive jurisdiction in Canada.

It's just as bad off road too and on the trails.

Coming from Europe and now living in Ontario I am not so sure that it is the most anal retentive place on the planet... but I have to agree that Ontario law is restrictive and the rules, regulations and the bureaucracy mind boggling.
The Stunting law can pretty much mean anything and it is up the the officer to judge the situation, which is never good. I am lucky that where I live they are not too bad.

I am sure that there is more to the story than a simple winter tail swing.

[jamies31]

cop must have been a muscle car fan

[PNA]

I'm really surprised that you can't turn left as the light turns green, quickly beating oncoming traffic!

Though I'm still not 100% sure I understand all the clauses in "iv. making a left turn where, ..."

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by PNA

I'm really surprised that you can't turn left as the light turns green, quickly beating oncoming traffic!

Though I'm still not 100% sure I understand all the clauses in "iv. making a left turn where, ..."

It's worded in a confusing way, but it just means that if you're waiting at a red and it turns green without an advanced left turn signal you can't jump ahead of the oncoming cars going straight.

[N234]

I find that it's the fast drivers who consistently signal, notice me in their blindspots, respect left lane manners, and are generally predictable.

It's not those drivers who turn into the wrong lane exiting intersections, increase their speed to disallow passing, loiter the left lane and brake check maliciously when someone asks then to move over.

[BlueSky]

I know 2 guys that got stunt driving here as well.
They were fish tailing in their trucks on a beach, both got impounded and suspended


http://blackburnnews.com/sarnia/sarn...stunt-driving/


I'm pretty sure my one buddy got out of it, but the other still has court dates

[stugray]

"Definition, “stunt”
3.For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it."

Did the driver maintain control of the vehicle?
If = YES, then case dismissed!

[N234]

Originally Posted by stugray

"Definition, “stunt”
3.For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it."

Did the driver maintain control of the vehicle?
If = YES, then case dismissed!

However #2 catches them intentionally breaking traction of one or more tires, which happens way to easily unintentionally during the winter.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by stugray

"Definition, “stunt”
3.For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it."

Did the driver maintain control of the vehicle?
If = YES, then case dismissed!

The bigger issue is that even if you win in court, they don't remove the suspension from your driving record and you're still stuck with the impound fees.

The instant suspension and impound is the main reason a few judges ruled the law unconstitutional.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by Guru Woodman

Coming from Europe and now living in Ontario I am not so sure that it is the most anal retentive place on the planet... but I have to agree that Ontario law is restrictive and the rules, regulations and the bureaucracy mind boggling.
The Stunting law can pretty much mean anything and it is up the the officer to judge the situation, which is never good. I am lucky that where I live they are not too bad.

I am sure that there is more to the story than a simple winter tail swing.

I thought exactly the same thing, until I learned of the defense evidence.


The "more to the story" will have to come from the court transcripts for intraweb doubters.
Even then, some web "people" tend to refuse to believe what is seemingly irrational.


(Except Kanadians, lotta irrational sh!t up here, too cold to do anything about it till winter, then we forget).






CERBERUS