OPP have a message for you.

Forum Sponsor
Dresden said:
My point being ... it doesn't take much to tip the decision scale on run vs. not. Either way you look at it.. he eff'd if he pulled over.. so may as well go for the jugular and try to get away.. atleast there's a little light at the end of that tunnel
Click to expand...

exactly. it's he pulls over he is looking at potentially $15K, if does what he did, he is looking at $15-20K.

hta172 has really f'd up the system all together. if it wasn't there… then circumstances would be different.
it's a retarded law. especially the way police take the charge to stunting, when they have option of just putting a 55kmh speed charge. maybe some of them don't realize they have that option. not everyone who is don't 50over is stunking/racing. FRANKLY, MOST ppl doing 50 over, AREN"T stunting or racing, especially since traffic flow is 30-40kmh over the limit on most roads as is…. it's messed. police state.
there is a reason why majority of citizens hate the police.
 
HTA172 is the reason why people run, plain and simple... Hell, insurance here is also why some people run even if they aren't in HTA172 territory.
 
Apollo95 said:
exactly. it's he pulls over he is looking at potentially $15K, if does what he did, he is looking at $15-20K
Click to expand...

not exactly

you pull over when you are 50 over. if you do not get cut a break which you may or may not. depends on the officer. if you don't $1,000 for tow/impound. hta 172 charge, usually gets plea bargained to a $490 careless charge.

you run and get caught.
you get every offence you committed while running plus fail to stop hta offence =$thousands + dangerous driving/ fail to stop -criminal charge (you will have conditions that you do not drive until the case is settled a year away for the criminal charge, plus whatever else the judge allows, curfew etc, could be anything.) + could spend the night in jail and get to meet lots of guys who think you're cute. after dangerous charge good luck getting insurance again.
 
Don't know about others but I think will mostly stick close to the flow of traffic, never heard about stunt riding etc.... I don't think would like to meet Bubba in jail :)
 
Everyone has over looked somthing, he did get away scott free. He wasbcharged because he was and idiot. Any time **** goes down the first thing u do when u stop is delete your videos.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk
 
Apollo95 said:
exactly. it's he pulls over he is looking at potentially $15K, if does what he did, he is looking at $15-20K.

hta172 has really f'd up the system all together. if it wasn't there… then circumstances would be different.
it's a retarded law. especially the way police take the charge to stunting, when they have option of just putting a 55kmh speed charge. maybe some of them don't realize they have that option. not everyone who is don't 50over is stunking/racing. FRANKLY, MOST ppl doing 50 over, AREN"T stunting or racing, especially since traffic flow is 30-40kmh over the limit on most roads as is…. it's messed. police state.
there is a reason why majority of citizens hate the police.
Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree. HTA 172 did not come first, it was a reaction to the driving behaviour that lawmakers felt needed to be addressed. While it may seem heavy-handed, and let's be honest, it is a real kick in the pants, it is also written to remove the officer's discretion:
Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited
172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.


When the law was introduced to the law enforcement community in 2007, it was made clear that the section overruled the officer's discretion. This is typical of issues surrounding the police. They are not the ones who make the laws, just the ones who enforce it.
 
I have a message for them too, but I don't wanna break forum rules
 
"they are not the ones who make the laws"

Yeah but when they got the power, they were over the moon about it and continue to destroy people's livelihoods using it for petty reasons.
 
zeniceguy said:
Chance of getting cought is low (if your smart, a good rider, have a decenr bike).
Just a quick twist can net you 70 very very fast. You have a starting speed advantage plus power to weight.
Click to expand...

And if any civilians fail "to give you respect" bash up their cars and beat them up in front of their families :cool: (*)

(*) Not meant as a serious suggestion - just making fun of the certain element on GTAM advocating real hooliganism
 
zeniceguy said:
Everyone has over looked somthing, he did get away scott free. He wasbcharged because he was and idiot. Any time **** goes down the first thing u do when u stop is delete your videos.

Sent from my SGH-T989D using who cares
Click to expand...

Better yet. Stop recording videos. You are not a star. Nobody cares. Not even your friends who pretend to care.
 
Your friends, people I knowbget a kick out of there videos andvthe fun to watch

Sent from my SGH-T989D using Tapatalk
 
RedDogDarren said:
Better yet. Stop recording videos. You are not a star. Nobody cares. Not even your friends who pretend to care.
Click to expand...

But I got like 10 likes on my video. You mean to tell me I'm not the centre of the universe?



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
Bike Cop said:
I would tend to disagree. HTA 172 did not come first, it was a reaction to the driving behaviour that lawmakers felt needed to be addressed. While it may seem heavy-handed, and let's be honest, it is a real kick in the pants, it is also written to remove the officer's discretion:
Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited
172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.

Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,

(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and

(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.


When the law was introduced to the law enforcement community in 2007, it was made clear that the section overruled the officer's discretion. This is typical of issues surrounding the police. They are not the ones who make the laws, just the ones who enforce it.
Click to expand...

It's still the LEO discretion when they feel they observed an operator violating this section of the law.

It's just convenient to say their hands are tied.

Sorry but I'm not buying what your saying. And i tend to support law enforcement and come down on idiot riders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
nakkers said:
It's still the LEO discretion when they feel they observed an operator violating this section of the law.

It's just convenient to say their hands are tied.

Sorry but I'm not buying what your saying. And i tend to support law enforcement and come down on idiot riders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, when it's a 172 violation it's usually pretty obvious. And if I'm to turn a blind eye to what I've witnessed, what good am I doing anyone? I'm sure that the last drunk police officer that I dealt with would have appreciated a look the other way too.
 
Bike Cop said:
From what I've seen, when it's a 172 violation it's usually pretty obvious. And if I'm to turn a blind eye to what I've witnessed, what good am I doing anyone? I'm sure that the last drunk police officer that I dealt with would have appreciated a look the other way too.
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious? Since when the duties of OPP officer now include judging? In this country, the person is innocent until proven otherwise... unless it's HTA172 offence in Ontario...
 
Bike Cop said:
From what I've seen, when it's a 172 violation it's usually pretty obvious. And if I'm to turn a blind eye to what I've witnessed, what good am I doing anyone? I'm sure that the last drunk police officer that I dealt with would have appreciated a look the other way too.
Click to expand...

So you deny that some (if not most) cops have used HTA 172 in a punitive way because a person "deserved it," despite not actually breaking the law in that fashion? Because if that's what you're going to say, I have three personal examples amongst people I know who are as far from deserving as a person can be. Most cops are C-graders with aggression problems and a god complex; they should never be handed the ability to do this.

The constitution agrees. Our idiot supreme court and the police chiefs (with an even stronger god complex) wanted to keep the power, and the law stands. Jeebus wept.
 
Last edited:
ViperZ said:
Pretty obvious? Since when the duties of OPP officer now include judging? In this country, the person is innocent until proven otherwise... unless it's HTA172 offence in Ontario...
Click to expand...

I wish I could show you what I mean. Here's one example: Take a look at the speeding part of this section - +50km constitutes the offence. On a highway with a speed limit of 100km, when the laser says 151, you're there. Is that not obvious? Granted there is the argument of acceptable error with the speed measuring device itself, so maybe 151 isn't the best number to illustrate the point. The last driver that received this charge from me was measured at 180km. To me, that equals obvious. I don't decide guilt, I collect and assess evidence to determine if the grounds to lay a charge are present.
 
Last edited:
@bike cop
the problem with "obvious" is when a car squeezes past a left tuner in order to make a right, obvious becomes subjective.
was it a improper turn
an improper lane change
or 172?

it all depends on the mood of the cop who witnessed it.


there are "obvious" infractions but there's also a "stretch"
both have been handed out to protect the children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom