You Know What Really Grinds My Gears....The Sequel!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Why would you have to prove this? I recognize you're not a cop but I don't see anything that suggests this.

.

If you don't register or plate the vehicle, I would suggest that is a pretty good way to prove it.

Why you would have a vehicle with tinted windows and not plate/register it I don't know, racing?

[Violator]

Frustrating waiting for my application for the Apprenticeship board its supposed to take 10 weeks
no wonder they cant find skilled people to do work when the government is that slow.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If you don't register or plate the vehicle, I would suggest that is a pretty good way to prove it.

Why you would have a vehicle with tinted windows and not plate/register it I don't know, racing?

No, I'm asking why you would need to prove that it wasn't going to be driven on public roads. I.e., prove your intent not to drive it. That's inherently crazy.

There's an offence listed in the act and we're ticketing you because we think you might contravene it, prove to us you're not going to? Yeah, no, sorry, that's so far beyond unconstitutional it boggles the mind.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Why would you have to prove this? I recognize you're not a cop but I don't see anything that suggests this.

Just what I was told

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

It applies everywhere, not just areas that are accessible to the public, but you still have to do the things it tells you not to do in order to commit an offence and be punished with a ticket.

By having tint on his windows, isn't that committing the offence? I know the wording is a bit hazy in the "A person shall not install, replace or cover" bit, and interpreting whether or not that means having it on the car at all or simply the act of having it installed.

You want an even more messed up one (in the way it's worded) how about the "Widened exhaust outlet" VER. That one's a friggin' mess, but still gets enforced and held up in court.

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I'm pretty sure this is simply wrong. Intent has nothing to do with these offences. If there's an element of intent, it's a criminal provision, which can't be enacted by the Province.

Well it's not a moving violation, therefore my understanding is by simply having your vehicle registered it implies you intend to drive it.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me as well, but this isn't the first time I've heard about it happening. I'm just passing on what a cop said when we were having this exact discussion a few years ago. This was what I took away from the discussion.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by fotze

Some people really need to jerk off while driving. Is there another reason for the front tint?

Some of us get road head.

Does an off road vehicle need to be plated and registered?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by btimbit

By having tint on his windows, isn't that committing the offence? I know the wording is a bit hazy in the "A person shall not install, replace or cover" bit, and interpreting whether or not that means having it on the car or all or simply the act of having it installed.

Two principles apply: you have to commit the act described in the offence, and courts aren't entitled to read words in to make the thing apply the way they want it to. They have to apply the law as read. Did I install anything? Did I replace anything? Did I cover anything? No, I own a car and parked it.

Well it's not a moving violation, therefore my understanding is by simply having your vehicle registered it implies you intend to drive it.

A reasonable assumption, but again, you can't punish someone for their intent to commit an act prior to them committing it. This is some minority report s*** right here.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me as well, but this isn't the first time I've heard about it happening. I'm just passing on what a cop said when we were having this exact discussion a few years ago. This was what I took away from the discussion.

I am actually not surprised it happens, I'm just saying if you contested this ticket and said "here's the section he says I contravened, but I didn't do any of the things listed in it", you're off the hook. Just because a cop puts a ticket on your windshield citing a particular offense doesn't mean he understands what the offense is and it doesn't mean you've contravened it.

[btimbit]

@19Yzerman19: Certainly a good argument to make but I've never heard of someone protesting it that way, and I guess in court would be the only way to get a real answer on the subject. I guess we simply interpret it differently.

Originally Posted by fotze

Some people really need to jerk off while driving. Is there another reason for the front tint?

Keep the interior cool, protect from UV rays, some people just think it looks cool.

I don't have tint but still don't like the law, I'd rather it be defined by certain percentages and only having the really dark ones illegal.

[JonDuke]

I was diagnosed with Crohn's just under 2 month ago. Since then, I haven't made a huge change in diet, other than beer consumption. I knew that it wasn't recommended for peeps like me, and that was scary...I love beer. So, I cut out all beer at home. That was surprisingly easier than I thought.

I've been out to pubs with friends for drinks about a few times since being diagnosed and each time, usually after the first pint, had a crampy pains on the bottom left side of my stomach.

Today, I finally made the connection and tied that pain together with previous pub visits and am sure it's entirely from the beer. I think I have to give it up.
That RRRRRRRRRGMG.
First world problems...

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GGG

I am aware of that but officers tend not to show up when they can't win. I am waiting for the references to the act which prohibit owning a vehicle with tinted windows when not in operation.

Ugh. So much misinformation in the last couple of pages in the thread. First off, that bolded part is so ridiculously wrong. That's just a horrible perception and nothing based on the validity of the ticket.

Secondly, parking lots, etc. are enforceable under the TSA as its anything that the public has implied access too.

Thirdly, the tinting ticket needs to be operation of motor vehicle. Though, operation is not defined in the TSA. Simply sitting in park with the engine on would definitely pass the threshold...not sure what the original OP's scenario exactly was.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Ugh. So much misinformation in the last couple of pages in the thread. First off, that bolded part is so ridiculously wrong. That's just a horrible perception and nothing based on the validity of the ticket.

Secondly, parking lots, etc. are enforceable under the TSA as its anything that the public has implied access too.

Thirdly, the tinting ticket needs to be operation of motor vehicle. Though, operation is not defined in the TSA. Simply sitting in park with the engine on would definitely pass the threshold...not sure what the original OP's scenario exactly was.

Haha, three pages of arguing solved with one post!

[missdpuck]

flameswin, jar_e, all we need is jayems.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Haha, three pages of arguing solved with one post!

Hahaha I said the exact same thing, but stupider.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Ugh. So much misinformation in the last couple of pages in the thread. First off, that bolded part is so ridiculously wrong. That's just a horrible perception and nothing based on the validity of the ticket.

Secondly, parking lots, etc. are enforceable under the TSA as its anything that the public has implied access too.

Thirdly, the tinting ticket needs to be operation of motor vehicle. Though, operation is not defined in the TSA. Simply sitting in park with the engine on would definitely pass the threshold...not sure what the original OP's scenario exactly was.

Its based on garbage tickets I have recieved vs legitamate tickets I have recieved. I go fight them all. I am 3 for 3 on cops not showing up for garbage tickets and 4 for 4 on legit tickets. I realize that is still annecdotal but in conversation with other people it is a relatively consistant annecdote.

Where is implied public acess defined in law. I have always wondered where that is codified.

Three, I absolutely agree with you which is why I started down the rabbit hole of reading tsa.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Haha, three pages of arguing solved with one post!

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Hahaha I said the exact same thing, but stupider.

Haha yeah I think a few people said the same thing

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its based on garbage tickets I have recieved vs legitamate tickets I have recieved. I go fight them all. I am 3 for 3 on cops not showing up for garbage tickets and 4 for 4 on legit tickets. I realize that is still annecdotal but in conversation with other people it is a relatively consistant annecdote.

Where is implied public acess defined in law. I have always wondered where that is codified.

Three, I absolutely agree with you which is why I started down the rabbit hole of reading tsa.

To your first point, that's more a confirmation bias than anything. Maybe it was previously, but I can tell you within Calgary, that is far from the truth now. Not to get into the politics of it, but cops skipping out on tickets isn't as common as it use to be.

As per the TSA, this is what is defined as a "highway" and thus where police can enforce provincial offences, etc.

(p) “highway” means any thoroughfare, street, road, trail,
avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square,
bridge, causeway, trestleway or other place or any part of
any of them, whether publicly or privately owned, that the
public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the
passage or parking of vehicles and includes

(i) a sidewalk, including a boulevard adjacent to the
sidewalk,

(ii) if a ditch lies adjacent to and parallel with the
roadway, the ditch, and

(iii) if a highway right of way is contained between
fences or between a fence and one side of the
roadway, all the land between the fences, or all the
land between the fence and the edge of the roadway,
as the case may be,

but does not include a place declared by regulation not to
be a highway;

Yeah, the TSA (and a lot of other provincial acts) are strange in that they're incredibly black and white in some offence but also incredibly vague and undefined in others.

[undercoverbrother]

Jar_e are you a police officer?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

I was diagnosed with Crohn's just under 2 month ago. Since then, I haven't made a huge change in diet, other than beer consumption. I knew that it wasn't recommended for peeps like me, and that was scary...I love beer. So, I cut out all beer at home. That was surprisingly easier than I thought.

I've been out to pubs with friends for drinks about a few times since being diagnosed and each time, usually after the first pint, had a crampy pains on the bottom left side of my stomach.

Today, I finally made the connection and tied that pain together with previous pub visits and am sure it's entirely from the beer. I think I have to give it up.
That RRRRRRRRRGMG.
First world problems...

I might be wrong but isn't there a beer for Japan that is rice based?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I might be wrong but isn't there a beer for Japan that is rice based?

I could be wrong but I don't believe the barley/hops is the issue, the problem is the alcohol.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I could be wrong but I don't believe the barley/hops is the issue, the problem is the alcohol.

Maybe you are right, I have a buddy with a guy disease ( can't recall which one) and he downs hard liquor and wine no worries. But I am going from memory and my memory is piss poor.

[Jimmy Stang]

WRGMG is being woken up by my dog early this morning to be let out, only to discover that the deed was already done and it was now on my bare foot. And not on the heel or arch, but squished between my toes.