Wait? What the ****?
|
|
|
Police have no right to arrest anyone for the simple act of taking a picture or vid
- Thread starter MarcosSantiago
- Start date
Wait? What the ****?
Re: Police have no right to arrest anyone for the simple act of taking a picture or
1. A helmet worn by a person,
2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the,
Sample Case: http://canlii.ca/t/fnsm0
I generally ride with a camera mounted on the stalk of my right mirror, on the front and on my top box, on the rear. The one mounted on the top box shows marked vibration due to the fact that it's extended out from the rear, and mounted on something that vibrates somewhat itself. The one to the front is rock solid. A brief sample:
[video=youtube;PoQoHRv6k44]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQoHRv6k44[/video]
油井緋色;2051488 said:
1. A helmet worn by a person,
(a) riding on or operating a motorcycle; or
(b) operating a motor assisted bicycle,
on a highway shall,
(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1.
(b) operating a motor assisted bicycle,
on a highway shall,
(c) have a hard, smooth outer shell lined with protective padding material or fitted with other energy absorbing material and shall be strongly attached to a strap designed to be fastened under the chin of the wearer; and
(d) be undamaged from use or misuse. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 1.
2. The helmet referred to in section 1 shall conform to the requirements of the,
(a) Canadian Standards Association Standard D230 Safety Helmets for Motorcycle Riders and shall bear the monogram of the Canadian Standards Association Testing Laboratories;
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, "Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds", and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
(b) Snell Memorial Foundation and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the Snell Memorial Foundation;
(c) British Standards Institute and shall have affixed thereto the certificate of the British Standards Institute;
(d) United States of America Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 and shall bear the symbol DOT constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the standard; or
(e) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No. 22, "Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Protective Helmets and of Their Visors for Drivers and Passengers of Motor Cycles and Mopeds", and shall have affixed thereto the required international approval mark. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 610, s. 2; O. Reg. 102/12, s. 1.
Sample Case: http://canlii.ca/t/fnsm0
I generally ride with a camera mounted on the stalk of my right mirror, on the front and on my top box, on the rear. The one mounted on the top box shows marked vibration due to the fact that it's extended out from the rear, and mounted on something that vibrates somewhat itself. The one to the front is rock solid. A brief sample:
[video=youtube;PoQoHRv6k44]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQoHRv6k44[/video]
I ride my bike everyday with my drift hd ghost attached to my helmet, I don't leave home without one since I drive to downtown. Theres been atleast 2-3 cops that I ran into and they were just curious about the video camera, they dont even know that its illegal... I even made a collision report and told the OPP officer that I use a video camera attached to my helmet to catch the whole accident.
Can anybody confirm that video cameras are legal when its attached to the helmet?
Can anybody confirm that video cameras are legal when its attached to the helmet?
Last edited:
Please read the case I linked to, directly above your post.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
- Just FYI -
Fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle 104(1) ------ SET FINE IS $85.00
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do-i/set-fines/set-fines-i/schedule-43/
Fail to wear proper helmet on motorcycle 104(1) ------ SET FINE IS $85.00
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/ocj/how-do-i/set-fines/set-fines-i/schedule-43/
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Re: Police have no right to arrest anyone for the simple act of taking a picture or
Justice of the Peace Michael A. Cuthbertson in Kitchener ... the most prolific JP in Ontario? Anyway...
"This helmet crest consisted of the ‘plume’ of soft strands, which were at least 5 centimetres in length, woven onto a strip of material with suction cups attached under the strip. It was affixed longitudinally from front to back beginning at the top of the helmet by the suction cups. "
In my very humble opinion he dropped the ball by saying "I find that the attachment of the helmet crest (the mohawk attachment) by Mr. Motorcycle Rider rendered his motorcycle helmet to be uncertified". (as not SNELL certified)
Come'n...
Justice of the Peace Michael A. Cuthbertson in Kitchener ... the most prolific JP in Ontario? Anyway...
"This helmet crest consisted of the ‘plume’ of soft strands, which were at least 5 centimetres in length, woven onto a strip of material with suction cups attached under the strip. It was affixed longitudinally from front to back beginning at the top of the helmet by the suction cups. "
In my very humble opinion he dropped the ball by saying "I find that the attachment of the helmet crest (the mohawk attachment) by Mr. Motorcycle Rider rendered his motorcycle helmet to be uncertified". (as not SNELL certified)
Come'n...
Last edited:
Re: Police have no right to arrest anyone for the simple act of taking a picture or
I think we should forever be in Cuthbertson's debt for his R. v. Schlesinger decision, which has helped defendants with speeding charges Durham v. Zhu
ferdieboy@live.com
New member
wow
Last edited:
100% correct. Now as I said being a former copper myself, MOST officers aren't even going to be aware of this. Meaning your chance of being ticketed are pretty low. Just be aware the you "could" be dinged for it. If your doing something stupid on your bike and the cop wants to ding you good he will look for every possible infraction and if you have a camera mounted you just gave him yet another charge to add to the list.
Late last year on the 401 in bumper to bumper I spent about 5 minutes talking to an OPP cst, who was in the lane next to me and he was curious about the GOPro. Asked if it was recording, I said yes sir, he asked why. I replied so that when some A hole in a car hits me and your scraping my broken body off the highway you can now look at the recording and see what and why it happened..lol He chuckled and said good point I will have to remember to check for a camera at all my crash sites.
I commute approx 170 KMs per day from outside Port perry to Thornhill and I record every trip. If nothing of note happens I delete file and record, my next adventure..lol Just now it is all done from the handlebars.
If you have a GPS you could download the track and see your route, speed etc. I used to do this all the time when flying my ultralight as if there was ever a complaint against you (say someone thought you were too close to houses, etc) they could charge you up to a year later and you would have nothing to dispute the claim
I commute from inside Port Perry to Woodbridge each day (I moved here in May). Depending on which way I go the round trip is from155 to 170 km. What roads and times do you commute? What bike?
..Tom
I know Windsor police officer was charged with false arrest and the city was sued as a result.You can also record anybody with out their knowledge as long as you are party to the conversation.It would make for a bad day in court for any police officer to over step those bounds with the wrong person thats why it's news worthy.Windsor was the police brutality capital of Ontario a few years back so everybody was recording and videoing everything.
Last edited:
Police have no right to arrest anyone for the simple act of taking a picture or
There is no basis for the officer to make such a request other than to interfere with your lawful filming or picture taking & violate your rights, so there is no obstruction of justice. If that were the case, a cop could demand you perform ANY lawful act, no matter how humiliating. Imagine that!
There is no basis for the officer to make such a request other than to interfere with your lawful filming or picture taking & violate your rights, so there is no obstruction of justice. If that were the case, a cop could demand you perform ANY lawful act, no matter how humiliating. Imagine that!
|
|
|
|
|