Alright so I get stopped by the police and move over to the right lane to stop. So he checks all my papers and then I get a ticket for what.. because when i moved over to the right to stop I didnt put my flasher ... this ticket is ***** bs, Im definately bringing this officer to court.
Another Ticket
- Thread starter emir
- Start date
i have to say that's a good one....
that's good for the image your get from the policy enforcer
so you got this one ??
372
. The driver of a road vehicle who is about to make a turn, change lanes, make a U-turn or return to the roadway from the shoulder or a parking area must, after ascertaining that he may do so in safety, signal his intention by means of his turn-signal lights.
1986, c. 91, s. 372.
but if i read this realy fast ...pulling over could be excluded...but i don't think a jugde would go my way lol
636
. Every peace officer recognizable as such at first sight may, in the performance of his duties under this Code, agreements entered into under section 519.65 and the Act respecting owners, operators and drivers of heavy vehicles (chapter P-30.3), require the driver of a road vehicle to stop his vehicle. The driver must comply with this requirement without delay.
1986, c. 91, s. 636; 1987, c. 94, s. 98; 1990, c. 83, s. 236; 1998, c. 40, s. 148; 2005, c. 39, s. 52; 2008, c. 14, s. 90.
but if i follow a policy enforcer logic 636 state that The driver must comply with this requirement without delay. to do so you can't comply with 372 that ask after ascertaining that he may do so in safety, signal his intention by means of his turn-signal lights. but that logic will probably make the judge smile but not more lol
but personnaly i would fight it just for the injustice of it
that's good for the image your get from the policy enforcer
so you got this one ??
372
. The driver of a road vehicle who is about to make a turn, change lanes, make a U-turn or return to the roadway from the shoulder or a parking area must, after ascertaining that he may do so in safety, signal his intention by means of his turn-signal lights.
1986, c. 91, s. 372.
but if i read this realy fast ...pulling over could be excluded...but i don't think a jugde would go my way lol
636
. Every peace officer recognizable as such at first sight may, in the performance of his duties under this Code, agreements entered into under section 519.65 and the Act respecting owners, operators and drivers of heavy vehicles (chapter P-30.3), require the driver of a road vehicle to stop his vehicle. The driver must comply with this requirement without delay.
1986, c. 91, s. 636; 1987, c. 94, s. 98; 1990, c. 83, s. 236; 1998, c. 40, s. 148; 2005, c. 39, s. 52; 2008, c. 14, s. 90.
but if i follow a policy enforcer logic 636 state that The driver must comply with this requirement without delay. to do so you can't comply with 372 that ask after ascertaining that he may do so in safety, signal his intention by means of his turn-signal lights. but that logic will probably make the judge smile but not more lol
but personnaly i would fight it just for the injustice of it
Last edited:
after thinking about it i would probably go the same way as this judgement for article 372
when your in the left turning lane you don't need to flash since the law already say that you have to turn...you don't do a sign to say hey by the way i will follow the law
it's like if you on your running on a line that will turn right...do you have to flash to turn...man the line is turning why would i flash
so in the same logic if a cop open it"s light then The driver must comply with this requirement without delay that is the law
at that moment nobody care about your intention like stated in 372, the law say's you have to move over ...end of line
when your in the left turning lane you don't need to flash since the law already say that you have to turn...you don't do a sign to say hey by the way i will follow the law
it's like if you on your running on a line that will turn right...do you have to flash to turn...man the line is turning why would i flash
so in the same logic if a cop open it"s light then The driver must comply with this requirement without delay that is the law
at that moment nobody care about your intention like stated in 372, the law say's you have to move over ...end of line
i also found this on a youtube site it's an american version but probably the same logique apply
Signal?
Under a "Cloak of Official Protection" Subject is NOT Required for this requirement on a traffic stop. The understanding within the law; that the ensuing agent is NOW deemed to be in control! Most likely, that charge would be dropped instantly!
(unless that judge is extremely ill imformed as to the laws)....
it's saying what i was saying you can't state YOUR intention since the law says you HAVE TO pull over anyway
Signal?
Under a "Cloak of Official Protection" Subject is NOT Required for this requirement on a traffic stop. The understanding within the law; that the ensuing agent is NOW deemed to be in control! Most likely, that charge would be dropped instantly!
(unless that judge is extremely ill imformed as to the laws)....
it's saying what i was saying you can't state YOUR intention since the law says you HAVE TO pull over anyway
just an advice just don't finish your speech with a question...is it really illegal ??
but with caratere....and it's not illegal !!!
if you finish with a question it's asking the judge to choose for you and you don't want that
so you finish with an affirmation! not really giving him any choice
i'm no lawyer but i'm sure in not bad
but don't go overboard...like saying your the law lol
but with caratere....and it's not illegal !!!
if you finish with a question it's asking the judge to choose for you and you don't want that
so you finish with an affirmation! not really giving him any choice
i'm no lawyer but i'm sure in not bad
but don't go overboard...like saying your the law lol