The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread | Page 212 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread

sburns said:
Why the F does a transport truck need tinted windows! That shouldn't even be allowed.
Click to expand...
It's obviously not allowed. People still do it though. Comments are interesting. Many people asking what the legal limit is and I will be shocked if they get an answer. Cops prefer ambiguity. It's probably somewhere around 70% VLT (ie not 17%) but IIRC the letter of the law is not that clean.

EDIT:
Section 73(3) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act states:

No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle on which the surface of the windshield or of any window to the direct left or right of the driver’s seat has been coated with any colored spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.[1]

A recent Ontario law went into effect for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2017, which prohibits any aftermarket window tinting on a vehicle’s front windshield.[2] The law also limits the allowable window tint on the front left and right windows to a maximum of 30% darkness. The law does not impose restrictions on tinting of the backside windows and rear window.

EDIT 2:
Good image. Most people applying tint are using 35% VLT or darker. Paying to install 70% VLT seems like a waste.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
GreyGhost said:
Loser. Most of the comments are very grumpy that the occupation was mentioned. I think it is reasonably relevant.

www.cp24.com

Durham teacher allegedly caught driving 95 km/h in safety zone on first day of school

An Ontario teacher has allegedly been busted driving nearly double the speed limit safety zone on the first day of school.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1567134086786912257
Click to expand...
I would say that it most definitely is relevant. They should also mention every time that they ticket a parent of a student at the school in front of which they are speeding.
 
Commercial vehicles are different. Not allowed any tint in order to pass the yearly yellow sticker safety... but seeing as half of the yellow stickers on big trucks are 2-3-4 years old and aren't getting it done yearly as required they think it doesn't apply to them.
 
GreyGhost said:
A$$hole. There is no way he gets the punishment he deserves. At least he assaulted a cop so that should increase the pain he feels.

windsor.ctvnews.ca

Driver facing charges after allegedly fleeing from crash, assaulting officer: OPP

A Windsor driver is facing multiple charges after allegedly fleeing the scene of a crash that injured a motorcyclist and assaulting a police officer once caught, police say.
windsor.ctvnews.ca windsor.ctvnews.ca

A Windsor driver is facing multiple charges after allegedly fleeing the scene of a crash that injured a motorcyclist and assaulting a police officer once caught, police say.

OPP and paramedics responded to a two-vehicle collision around 7:49 a.m. Saturday between an Audi and motorcycle on Manning Road in Tecumseh.

Police say the Audi driver ran away from the scene. Officers found him a short distance away and say he assaulted an officer during the arrest before he was taken into custody.

The officer was not injured during the arrest.

Police say investigation found the man was driving on Manning Road and hit a portable toilet. He kept driving and then rear-ended a motorcycle, injuring the rider.

The motorcyclist was transported to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

A 30-year-old driver from Windsor has been charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, failure to stop after an accident, mischief under $5,000 and assault with intent to resist arrest.
Click to expand...
Audi driver...makes sense.
 
GreyGhost said:
But interestingly that charge wasn't listed. I would say maybe they were awaiting test results but if that's the case, they normally say that and say further charges may be laid.
Click to expand...
If it's drugs, then it would likely take a blood test. It would just be icing on the cake, anyway, as he's currently facing (assuming 1st offence):

- 320.13 (2) Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm (Minimum $1,000.00 fine, Maximum 14 years in prison)
- 320.16 (2) Failure to stop after an accident involving bodily harm (Minimum $1,000.00 fine, Maximum 14 years in prison)
- 270 (1) (b) Assault with intent to resist arrest (Maximum 5 years in prison)

Given that he's 30 years old and the string of 'mistakes' he made here, I doubt that it's his first go-round.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
That's a tough one to figure. Patterson has stop signs, but Gore Road doesn't. Can't tell from the way that they ended up.
Click to expand...
Based on the pile of parts on the road in front of the suv, it sure looks like bus pulled out in front of SUV (or ran stop). If SUV was going bottom to top, parts and vehicle locations don't make sense. Left to right same but even moreso. Top to bottom, bus is on wrong side and parts in wrong spot. That leaves SUV going right to left with no stop sign and bus going top to bottom through a stop sign. Maybe bus assumed four way stop (and didn't bother to check if the theoretical stop sign was being respected)?
 
GreyGhost said:
Based on the pile of parts on the road in front of the suv, it sure looks like bus pulled out in front of SUV (or ran stop). If SUV was going bottom to top, parts and vehicle locations don't make sense. Left to right same but even moreso. Top to bottom, bus is on wrong side and parts in wrong spot. That leaves SUV going right to left with no stop sign and bus going top to bottom through a stop sign. Maybe bus assumed four way stop (and didn't bother to check if the theoretical stop sign was being respected)?
Click to expand...
While that seems the most likely, it could as easily have been the other way around, with the SUV blowing the stop sign at speed, then everyone pivoting from the impact. We've all seen enough of these things to know that vehicles don't necessarily end up where you would expect them to.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
While that seems the most likely, it could as easily have been the other way around, with the SUV blowing the stop sign at speed, then everyone pivoting from the impact. We've all seen enough of these things to know that vehicles don't necessarily end up where you would expect them to.
Click to expand...
If bus was going left-right or right-left at speed it should have ended up much further away from intersection. Now, maybe bus was stopped close to its resting position and SUV blew stop and nailed it. From one picture, we can't know for sure which one screwed up. Balance of probability looks like bus as the simplest solution is normally the correct one (but not always).
 
Weight wins every time. My opinion, and that's all it is, is the bus was at the stop sign, and pulled out in front of the CUV. I can see the CUV pivoting from an impact by the bus, but I don't see the bus pivoting too far after that CUV hits it.

That CUV is much lighter than that bus.
 
If they’re anything like the drivers of the screaming yellow scud missiles launched in Halton daily my money is on the bus driver being at fault
 
mimico_polak said:
Weight wins every time. My opinion, and that's all it is, is the bus was at the stop sign, and pulled out in front of the CUV. I can see the CUV pivoting from an impact by the bus, but I don't see the bus pivoting too far after that CUV hits it.

That CUV is much lighter than that bus.
Click to expand...
Add to that, Gore Road in this area is posted at 70 kph with most travelling 80 kph or so in the rush periods. What makes matters worse is the sightlines from Patterson Road are restricted due to a crest in the road just south of the intersection, which severely reduces your view of approaching northbound traffic. I've travelled both roads many times and when entering the intersection from westbound on Patterson you have to be very careful!
I'll await the report before assigning blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom