Police Look To Identify Group Of Stunt Driving Motorcyclists

[hedo2002]

Forum Sponsor

I believe many here are simply misusing the word "impounding" by virtue of removing a plate, and ordering the vehicle towed, some will call that "impounding" when in fact the vehicle can be towed to a repair facility of the owner's choosing. In terms of "impounding a vehicle" there is a form of it, (generally called a hold), used when for example an officer stops a vehicle and the driver has no valid driver's licence. The officer may place a "hold" on the vehicle, in that it will not be released by the two yard until someone with a valid driver's licence presents to claim the vehicle.

We also used to place a "hold" on a vehicle towed if the driver was arrested for impaired, (which of course is criminal and not HTA), for 12 hours from the time the vehicle was towed, (of course back then there was no automatic licence suspension as there is today)

I don't see a specific section in 82 that allows for impounding a private vehicle. I do see a section in 82 allowing an officer to remove the plate, in which case the vehicle will have to be towed. There is a section allowing for impoundment if the driver is street racing or stunt driving, but it is elsewhere in the Act.




Agreed. Fewer truck wheels busting loose these days, but there are still the occasional ones. Missing wheels on cars usually happen when snow tire time comes/goes.



I don't think anyone's defending stunting on busy highways. We're just not willing to give up all our freedoms to get them arrested. Stunters are quite rare in the grand scheme of things. Their thrill seeking is a passing phase in their mental development IMO. We can get the cops to hunt every one of them down, but there will always be more to replace them. If the police can get them as it happens great, but big investigations, dragnets, and province-wide crackdowns on all bikers? It's just a big waste of time for a few clowns who are going to end up in the hospital anyway. They aren't worth the money and the effort.

 

[Neil_V]

believe what you like, the reality is that anyone can be pulled over at any time, reasonable or not

Oh there is no questioning their ability to do so; the question is, why are you okay with it?

 

[Face]

No if you took the totality of what i posted and not just a certain little portion, then tried to "spin it", you would see what I said.

I said a "white male wearing a black jacket" I also then went on the ask if it would not be prudent to stop to chat to any white male wearing a black jacket in the same area. But seeing that you want to make it "appear" that I was skating the race issue It could be reversed, to say a "black male wearing a white jacket". In my original post feel free where I stated it would be okay to stop EVERY white male?? I didn't. Just as I wouldn't say it would be okay to stop as you suggested I did "stop every black male" I added the article of clothing so as to show it was being narrowed to a SPECIFIC gender, race AND article of clothing, not just a blanket fishing expedition. Not in this post or in ANY post I have ever made on GTAM have I supported carding, racial profiling, or any wide spread fishing expeditions, feel free to scour all my posts to prove otherwise. Until then I would recommend you actually READ WHAT IS written rather than attempt to interject your silly assumptions.

So feel free to come back when you represent the facts as I presented them rather than "trying to spin it" to fit YOUR agenda.

So if I understand you correctly, its not a fishing expedition and profiling only because of the colour of the jacket. Race, gender and general area were the same, but a jacket colour equates to probable cause? No narrowing it down to relative age, general build, height, immediate proximity to the time of the incident, suspicious activity (and I'm nervous to add this last one in because the police can easily abuse this term). Please also clarify the practical difference between "any white male" and "every white male". The only difference I see is how much man power the force wants to put into it. It doesn't ad any further criteria for an officer to apply should he feel like stopping any or every white male with a similar jacket that he feels like in the hope of getting lucky.

So how would you apply this to the situation being discussed? Its ok in your mind for police to pull over:

- any SS anywhere in the GTA, or only SS in the near vicinity and within an hour or 2 of the incident?
- any SS with any mods, or only SS with specific mods that can be identified in the videos (or other tangible evidence)?
- does clothing matter, or should it be limited to only clothing identified in the videos (or other tangible evidence)?
- any SS, or only the makes and colours identified?
- one of the above, or is a minimum combination required?

If the police agenda is, as you said "to be seen to be doing something", or to get back at or intimidate any SS rider they see, then these criteria are less important. If its about actually catching the guys who were stunting, then hassling others is just a waste of time.

As to my agenda ...

I would like to see the police held to the same standards and subject to the same penalties as the public. If a civilian assaults someone with a weapon, they get 1 - 3 years in jail and ends up with a criminal record. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Cases/Common_Assault If a cop does it, he gets to keep is job and loses a week's pay. https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...lt-wont-be-fired-but-he-loses-5-days-pay.html Do I really need to pull up more headlines about cops breaking the law in their efforts to theoretically enforce it? The police should lead by example.

I would like to see revenues from HTA enforcement directed to other public benefits such as road maintenance and public transit, and not go to any agency (the courts or police) where it could play any factor in any part of the legal process.

I would like to see speed limits set to road design speeds and the 85th percentile, and not at the whim of a political process. If that was the case, maybe the police could concentrate on things like distracted driving, unsafe left turns or lane changes, you know, the things that actually do have an impact (pun intended). Instead traffic cops would rather go for easier charges and convictions by sitting in a fishing hole.

I could go on but, I know, serious wishful thinking.

 

[-D-]

Can you state categorically that the TPS is NOT dealing with the murder case at the same time?? Do you really believe they have 1 detective that handles EVERYTHING??? A traffic officer, FYI does NOT investigate shootings, stabbings, murders, thefts, Just as a homicide Detective won't pull you over for speeding or running a stop sign., etc etc etc,

The young man's step mom has been on SEVERAL news outlets and I have yet to see her state once that the police are not giving the boys case ALL the attention it requires, in fact one interview she thanked the police for their efforts.. Perhaps if the TPS searching for these idiots on bikes and NOT investigating more serious matters is of such a grave concern for you, you can file your complaints with the Police Services Board, the Civilian Commission On Police, the Attorney Gerneral.

Just as I am sure you don't do EVERY job at your work place, (unless of course your self employed), but I can assure you TPS has more than 1 officer....lol

I am 100% sure you misunderstood what I wrote. I was making the point just as you did in previous post as did others.

 

[油井緋色]

What the flaming **** has happened recently? These stunters are doing it wrong, you're supposed to go fast enough that no one sees you!

 

[hedo2002]

What the flaming **** has happened recently? These stunters are doing it wrong, you're supposed to go fast enough that no one sees you!

LMAO. Thanks I needed a smile today

 

[hedo2002]

I merely added the jacket as a "qualifier" as it does narrow the parameters of the situation. I assumed, (apparently incorrectly), that most reasonable adults would also understand age, height, weight etc may also come into play, but witnesses are notoriously bad at guesstimating height and weight so they don't play as important factor. So in an attempt to clarify it slightly more for you, I wouldn't expect said officer to stop a 70 year old 5'2" 300 lbs white male wearing a black in the area, if the description was of a 18 - 25 year old male 6'5" 180 lbs wearing a black jacket. As to time of day that also is not a relevant factor, (bad guys go out at all times of the day). If you robbed the same store between 9 - 11 PM 5 times are you more likely to go out at 3 pm or 10 pm, knowing the police are looking for you? So yes if the said officer seen that particular male fitting the generalized particulars as listed above at 3 pm I would still expect him to have a chat. As for your "all or every", it really is a moot question. I doubt said officer is likely to come across 1500 people of said criteria. Suspicious activity, also shouldn't be a relative factor for said officer. Many people upon seeing an officer will exhibit suspicious behavior, while some "experienced individuals" may exhibit none. Also as you stated it is open to interpretation and as such abuse.

I have NEVER advocated, for stopping an SS as part of a "fishing expedition". I merely stated that I could foresee that type of action forth coming if these idiots continue with their antics, (again as I posted earlier if a member of the public is severely injured or killed, (especially a single mom or a child) it WILL happen where we see mass "document checks". Likely followed closely by new laws and insurance spikes. But these are just my predictions, I am NOT in support of any of the above lest anyone misconstrue, my comments

Go back and review any of my posts I am the first person on this forum who when asked have ALWAYS answered in the same manner if an officer commits an illegal act he/she should be entitled to the SAME treatment as any member of the public. As for the suspensions etc, those are rules which have been granted NOT by the police upon themselves but in essence by us the pubic. It is generally as a result of collective agreements which were negotiated on OUR behalf by politicians, (weather it be municipal, IE TPS, Provincial, OPP or Federal, RCMP). If we as a society wish to have it changed then it is up to us to demand that be done by those who we selected to do the bargaining on our behalf. It is no different than blaming the police for what we may feel is a "bad law" the police didn't write the law they are merely tasked with enforcing it, Just as your expected to do the tasks assigned to you by your superiors.

Ok so HTA fines are not funneled back into police or court budgets, but are put into road maintenance. How do the police and courts get funded? As someone MUCH wiser than I stated, there is only ONE taxpayer. Personally, I view it more similar to the lottery. You have a CHOICE to fund the lottery by buying a ticket. If I choose not to buy a ticket, my money doesn't fund the operation. If you commit an offence then you fund the courts and police, if I choose not to break the law then MY money doesn't fund the courts or the police. In the end we all fund police, courts and road maintenance. The gov't is one huge money pit, on paper the funds are dedicated but in reality it all comes from the same pot.

As for speed limits again those are set by POLITICIANS not the police nor insurers. I guess if your passionate enough about it you can begin a petition get more than 250,000 signatures and lobby your MPP to have a bill introduced, You could also seek office and once elected, present the bill yourself

So if I understand you correctly, its not a fishing expedition and profiling only because of the colour of the jacket. Race, gender and general area were the same, but a jacket colour equates to probable cause? No narrowing it down to relative age, general build, height, immediate proximity to the time of the incident, suspicious activity (and I'm nervous to add this last one in because the police can easily abuse this term). Please also clarify the practical difference between "any white male" and "every white male". The only difference I see is how much man power the force wants to put into it. It doesn't ad any further criteria for an officer to apply should he feel like stopping any or every white male with a similar jacket that he feels like in the hope of getting lucky.

So how would you apply this to the situation being discussed? Its ok in your mind for police to pull over:

- any SS anywhere in the GTA, or only SS in the near vicinity and within an hour or 2 of the incident?
- any SS with any mods, or only SS with specific mods that can be identified in the videos (or other tangible evidence)?
- does clothing matter, or should it be limited to only clothing identified in the videos (or other tangible evidence)?
- any SS, or only the makes and colours identified?
- one of the above, or is a minimum combination required?

If the police agenda is, as you said "to be seen to be doing something", or to get back at or intimidate any SS rider they see, then these criteria are less important. If its about actually catching the guys who were stunting, then hassling others is just a waste of time.

As to my agenda ...

I would like to see the police held to the same standards and subject to the same penalties as the public. If a civilian assaults someone with a weapon, they get 1 - 3 years in jail and ends up with a criminal record. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Sentencing/Cases/Common_Assault If a cop does it, he gets to keep is job and loses a week's pay. https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...lt-wont-be-fired-but-he-loses-5-days-pay.html Do I really need to pull up more headlines about cops breaking the law in their efforts to theoretically enforce it? The police should lead by example.

I would like to see revenues from HTA enforcement directed to other public benefits such as road maintenance and public transit, and not go to any agency (the courts or police) where it could play any factor in any part of the legal process.

I would like to see speed limits set to road design speeds and the 85th percentile, and not at the whim of a political process. If that was the case, maybe the police could concentrate on things like distracted driving, unsafe left turns or lane changes, you know, the things that actually do have an impact (pun intended). Instead traffic cops would rather go for easier charges and convictions by sitting in a fishing hole.

I could go on but, I know, serious wishful thinking.

 

[hedo2002]

Ok Mea Culpa You are, I am sure correct. I thought you were stating that the police needed to drop this and do other stuff. Apologies sir.

I am 100% sure you misunderstood what I wrote. I was making the point just as you did in previous post as did others.

 

[-D-]

Ok Mea Culpa You are, I am sure correct. I thought you were stating that the police needed to drop this and do other stuff. Apologies sir.

All good. I was going to comment to state your posts were good until you side swiped me

 

[-D-]

What the flaming **** has happened recently? These stunters are doing it wrong, you're supposed to go fast enough that no one sees you!

I bet you did not see the Ninja's.
Kawi ftw.

 

[yodude]

As for the suspensions etc, those are rules which have been granted NOT by the police upon themselves but in essence by us the pubic. It is generally as a result of collective agreements which were negotiated on OUR behalf by politicians, (weather it be municipal, IE TPS, Provincial, OPP or Federal, RCMP).

generally?

 

[Face]

I merely added the jacket as a "qualifier" as it does narrow the parameters of the situation. I assumed, (apparently incorrectly), that most reasonable adults would also understand age, height, weight etc may also come into play, but witnesses are notoriously bad at guesstimating height and weight so they don't play as important factor. So in an attempt to clarify it slightly more for you, I wouldn't expect said officer to stop a 70 year old 5'2" 300 lbs white male wearing a black in the area, if the description was of a 18 - 25 year old male 6'5" 180 lbs wearing a black jacket. As to time of day that also is not a relevant factor, (bad guys go out at all times of the day). If you robbed the same store between 9 - 11 PM 5 times are you more likely to go out at 3 pm or 10 pm, knowing the police are looking for you? So yes if the said officer seen that particular male fitting the generalized particulars as listed above at 3 pm I would still expect him to have a chat. As for your "all or every", it really is a moot question. I doubt said officer is likely to come across 1500 people of said criteria. Suspicious activity, also shouldn't be a relative factor for said officer. Many people upon seeing an officer will exhibit suspicious behavior, while some "experienced individuals" may exhibit none. Also as you stated it is open to interpretation and as such abuse.

Details are important because the discussion was about the appropriateness of general sweeps (often done to be seen to be doing something) vs narrowing the police response to following up on specifics related to the incident. Time relates to this discussion. Someone matching the description walking away from the immediate area 10 minutes after the incident is worth checking because the probability if him being the suspect is much higher than someone walking in the area 2 weeks later who happens to be wearing a similar jacket. Btw, when you say "have a chat" with someone walking on the street, does that chat constitute detaining that person? Do you believe that having a similar jacket to the perpetrator of a crime 2 weeks ago is reasonable grounds to detain someone? Would you request that person to show ID? Would you voluntarily inform them that they have no legal obligation to identify themselves?

I have NEVER advocated, for stopping an SS as part of a "fishing expedition". I merely stated that I could foresee that type of action forth coming if these idiots continue with their antics, (again as I posted earlier if a member of the public is severely injured or killed, (especially a single mom or a child) it WILL happen where we see mass "document checks". Likely followed closely by new laws and insurance spikes. But these are just my predictions, I am NOT in support of any of the above lest anyone misconstrue, my comments

We agree, would probably happen but still not right. Although some others on this forum do think this is an appropriate response.

Go back and review any of my posts I am the first person on this forum who when asked have ALWAYS answered in the same manner if an officer commits an illegal act he/she should be entitled to the SAME treatment as any member of the public. As for the suspensions etc, those are rules which have been granted NOT by the police upon themselves but in essence by us the pubic. It is generally as a result of collective agreements which were negotiated on OUR behalf by politicians, (weather it be municipal, IE TPS, Provincial, OPP or Federal, RCMP). If we as a society wish to have it changed then it is up to us to demand that be done by those who we selected to do the bargaining on our behalf. It is no different than blaming the police for what we may feel is a "bad law" the police didn't write the law they are merely tasked with enforcing it, Just as your expected to do the tasks assigned to you by your superiors.

I'm glad we agree that the police and public should be treated equally. A suspension while being investigated and a sentence after a hearing are 2 different things. As I understand it, Constible Andalib-Goortani served no jail time as a result of his criminal conviction for assault with a weapon at G20, and received a sentence of being docked 5 days pay for a conviction of use of excessive force at a police disciplinary hearing. Certainly not the same sentence as a member of the public, and this disparity seems to be more the rule then the exception.

I work as an urban planner. Part of my job is to advise my superiors and my clients as to what is appropriate development based on the applicable rules and context, and on the general principle of good planning. I need to be able to defend that position under oath at the OMB. If my superiors or my clients chose to move forward with something I can't support, they do it without me. But that rarely happens as I've developed good working relations with these people, I present my rationale in a way they can understand, and they respect my opinion. I guess that's the difference between a professional and being a soldier who is simply following orders. The question is where do the police fall between these extremes.

Ok so HTA fines are not funneled back into police or court budgets, but are put into road maintenance. How do the police and courts get funded? As someone MUCH wiser than I stated, there is only ONE taxpayer. Personally, I view it more similar to the lottery. You have a CHOICE to fund the lottery by buying a ticket. If I choose not to buy a ticket, my money doesn't fund the operation. If you commit an offence then you fund the courts and police, if I choose not to break the law then MY money doesn't fund the courts or the police. In the end we all fund police, courts and road maintenance. The gov't is one huge money pit, on paper the funds are dedicated but in reality it all comes from the same pot.

I recall a time when the Barrie Police would give out speeding tickets (never lowering it curbside) then give the driver a choice of going to court or taking a "course" back at the police station. The "fee" for that "course" was just a little lower than the fine. The course consisted of 10 HTA related questions. If you passed, the ticket went away. I believe that was so the money would go directly to the city police and not the county court system. I understand that practice has now been stopped, but it goes to show that it is not all just one pot. It also shows how the more direct the flow of money is, the more it influences the behavior of the police.

I've got no problem with playing the lottery if I chose to go faster than the design speed or 85th percentile. I do think its wrong that people within the 85th percentile are also playing the lottery, and that the starting point for determining your risk in playing the lottery is a politically chosen number.

As for speed limits again those are set by POLITICIANS not the police nor insurers. I guess if your passionate enough about it you can begin a petition get more than 250,000 signatures and lobby your MPP to have a bill introduced, You could also seek office and once elected, present the bill yourself

Agreed, the police and insurers don't set speed, they just benefit from politicians pandering to Nimbys. A nice win, win, win. And police certainly support this cycle by publicly using the words "speed was a factor" every time they are interviewed, even if they precede it with "it hasn't been determined yet if". Why is it relevant and worth saying if it hasn't been determined yet? Its just application of the basic marketing principle of repetition. I also recall the police either initiating or supporting the "speed kills" marketing promotion.

I've spent enough time with politicians to know I would never be one. I've seen what it does to people with good intentions and I understand they type of people who get drawn to politics. Nothing is ever decided on the floor of government. If it has any hope of passing, there needs to be a groundswell of support first. It's starting to happen in BC, in part because of public awareness brought out by things on the internet like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw The more thoughtful discussion that can get out there first, the better the chance of an improvement ever happening. But the politicians, insurance companies and the police have a vested interest in keeping it the same or making it worse. Its a tough fight, and all credit to BC for swimming against the tide and starting to bring change.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Oh there is no questioning their ability to do so; the question is, why are you okay with it?

There can be no universal ability to do anything and everything one desires when living in civilized society, so to suggest that every little bit of police legislation that allows them to detain you or your vehicle for a few moments is an "erosion of ones rights" is a stretch, especially when in the grand scheme of things it's a fairly minor deal - we are not talking a search of your vehicle or possessions, we are talking a quick walkaround inspection to see if everthing is in order. I suspect police will be focusing on licence plates, and any signs of a plate flip device being installed - that sort of thing takes 30 seconds and you're on your way. IF they find a bigger issue then yeah, you're in for a longer ride...but isn't it totally justified at that point?

If the ability of police to do perform even the most basic of functions was removed there's an argument to be made that many of their other abilities should also be removed? And when the police are reduced to a toothless force who can only ask you nicely to do things but can't actually back them up (or do anything about it if you don't comply), what's the point of having police anymore....and what do you think the effect on modern society may be?

Lets look at the bigger picture here before crying "my rights!" about a silly roadside inspection. Every time I see the sign below on the side of the road with the lights flashing I submit to this exact same inspection we are talking about here - and typically it takes about 30-60 seconds as I roll into the scale, across the weigh scale itself (and the inspector eyeballing my truck) and then as long as everything looks good, I'm free to go. Us guys don't cry about our rights being violated, we know it's part of the regulations that makes our society work, and keeps it safe.

The only ones that typically complain a lot about it a lot are the ones who are not legal to begin with - overweight, running illegal on their hours or service, dangerous vehicle, or incorrect paperwork ie insurance etc, so honestly, they deserve what they get if caught.

 

[yodude]

don't forget, this was your bit

Originally Posted by Neil_V
Realistically, I don't believe they should be able to impede your travels without probable cause; ie your rust bucket needs obvious work.. that's reasonable.

Originally Posted by yodude
believe what you like, the reality is that anyone can be pulled over at any time, reasonable or not

Oh there is no questioning their ability to do so; the question is, why are you okay with it?

it is & has been irrelevant in my life, even had many positive & cordial exchanges including significant breaks,

the last one being a 30 over without a valid licence doc that turned into a chit chat, rookie/noob started with & asked if i was in a rush..

another good one was accelerating hard from a stop, well past the limit, when i noticed a cop ahead & slammed on the brakes, but figured i was done, as i rolled by, his hand came out the window & he wagged his finger at me,

another time i forgot to put the current sticker on my plates.. & it was well past due..

earliest one i recall on a speeding stop, was any more points meant tapped out & cop then gave me a break

 

[yodude]

Lets look at the bigger picture here before crying "my rights!" about a silly roadside inspection. Every time I see the sign below on the side of the road with the lights flashing I submit to this exact same inspection we are talking about here - and typically it takes about 30-60 seconds as I roll into the scale, across the weigh scale itself (and the inspector eyeballing my truck) and then as long as everything looks good, I'm free to go. Us guys don't cry about our rights being violated, we know it's part of the regulations that makes our society work, and keeps it safe.

The only ones that typically complain a lot about it a lot are the ones who are not legal to begin with - overweight, running illegal on their hours or service, dangerous vehicle, or incorrect paperwork ie insurance etc, so honestly, they deserve what they get if caught.

don't mention dope checks or sleep machine realities, prob wouldn't believe it

also a minor addition to "I submit to this exact same inspection" & the rest

you MUST submit and provide as requested or required

 

[Neil_V]

Snip

You continue to distance yourself from your original assertions on how "spot checks" should be used, and why you think it's okay. Despite a small novel for a response, you've merely pivoted from the actual point I'm making, and done nothing to answer the very simple question you quoted me in...

Inspection for commercial vehicles over X weight is a long long way from "spot checks for SS bikes" and the justification you suggested

 

[Neil_V]

don't forget, this was your bit

it is & has been irrelevant in my life, even had many positive & cordial exchanges including significant breaks,

the last one being a 30 over without a valid licence doc that turned into a chit chat, rookie/noob started with & asked if i was in a rush..

another good one was accelerating hard from a stop, well past the limit, when i noticed a cop ahead & slammed on the brakes, but figured i was done, as i rolled by, his hand came out the window & he wagged his finger at me,

another time i forgot to put the current sticker on my plates.. & it was well past due..

earliest one i recall on a speeding stop, was any more points meant tapped out & cop then gave me a break

You said "any time, reasonable or not." My reply was focused on that statement. Quoting me suggesting a time when it may be reasonable only shows that I'm not against reasonable action when obvious concerns are readily visible. I do not however support any type of profiling, whether that be race, religion, class, sex... or TYPE OF MOTORCYCLE YOU RIDE. Is that clear enough?

And what does any of that gibberish have to do with pulling over someone without reason? By your own admission, you did something illegal which warranted being stopped. Last time I checked, having a motorcycle with fairings and clip-ons is NOT illegal.

 

[PrivatePilot]

Inspection for commercial vehicles over X weight is a long long way from "spot checks for SS bikes" and the justification you suggested

Inspections for any vehicle can be random. Truck inspection stations just provide a convenient place for the commercial side, but the police or MTO are equally as capable of rolling through a Tim Hortons parking lot and deciding to inspect a motorcycle as they are going over and inspecting the commercial truck parked next to you.

Clearly you don't like it, it doesn't change the reality. They require no "justification" whatsoever in either circumstance because the process of obtaining a licence and operating a motor vehicle on the road implies you agree to the rules of the HTA, including 82.2, like it or not.

 

[yodude]

You said "any time, reasonable or not." My reply was focused on that statement. Quoting me suggesting a time when it may be reasonable only shows that I'm not against reasonable action when obvious concerns are readily visible.

papers/docs pls, running plates prior might come into that chit chat, as well as vehicle issues

I do not however support any type of profiling, whether that be race, religion, class, sex... or TYPE OF MOTORCYCLE YOU RIDE. Is that clear enough?

Last time I checked, having a motorcycle with fairings and clip-ons is NOT illegal.

 

[Neil_V]

Inspections for any vehicle can be random. Truck inspection stations just provide a convenient place for the commercial side, but the police or MTO are equally as capable of rolling through a Tim Hortons parking lot and deciding to inspect a motorcycle as they are going over and inspecting the commercial truck parked next to you.


Clearly you don't like it, it doesn't change the reality. They require no "justification" whatsoever in either circumstance because the process of obtaining a licence and operating a motor vehicle on the road implies you agree to the rules of the HTA, including 82.2, like it or not.

... and the question was, WHY ARE WE OK WITH THAT? Please do keep telling me things I already know lol



So you can get your train of thought back on track....

Realistically, I don't believe they should be able to impede your travels without probable cause; ie your rust bucket needs obvious work.. that's reasonable. To pull me over on a brand new SS, because it's an SS, to check for vehicle "safety" .. C'mon.

believe what you like, the reality is that anyone can be pulled over at any time, reasonable or not

Oh there is no questioning their ability to do so; the question is, why are you okay with it?

Forum Sponsor