To Flash or Not to Flash

It is obvious the police officer did not do his/her homework and the prosecutor did not review the case prior to the hearing. It is obstruction of justice, under the Criminal Code and not anything under the HWT Act.

[ 28 January 2008: Message edited by: adam stratton ]

Warning people to obey the law (as for instance by driving within the speed limit) is never obstruction of justice.

Section 161 of the Highway Traffic Act says:

quote:

---

No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than [an emergency vehicle]

---

I doubt whether that section is intended to prohibit people from manually "testing" their headlight beams.

According to the article [b]you posted[/b] it's flash on/flash off.

quote:

---

Sgt. Cam Woolley of the Ontario Provincial Police told me that this law was put in place a few years ago to prevent "civilian" vehicles from impersonating emergency vehicles, notably tow trucks trying to bully their way through traffic to be first on the scene of a wreck....

What's more, [b]Diamond's Chevy Tahoe was not producing "alternating"' flashes of light. "Alternating" means one, then the other (just like police cars and other emergency vehicles can do), not both on/both off.[/b]

---

I guess I misread this. Jim Kenzie is saying the law forbids left-right alternating, whereas the ticket was given for both on/both off.

I'm not aware of any authoritative (i.e. court) interpretation of what s. 161 specifically prohibits.

Simple solution..use fog lamps, as they are not high beams and have the same effect.

What an unlikely, fascinating issue! I went this way and that, reading the posts, and now I'm convinced by the line that the helpful blinker is only advising others to obey the law.

If that's wrong, then so is telling high-school students not to smoke dope, 'cause it feels too good...

This happened many years ago, and laws change, but a friend of mine's mother got hauled into court on this very same charge.

She argued that the whole idea was to have people obey the speed limit, what difference was there if they did so because the police caught them, or they were warned?

The judge agreed with her.

In London, the police set up speed traps-- with a few exceptions-- not in a place where speeding is most dangerous, but in places where it's easiest to catch speeders. The intent is not highway safety, but getting a boner by messing with someone.

The last time I got a speeding ticket was well over ten years ago. I was on my way to work at six in the morning. The cop eventually pulled me over miles away from where he picked up on me. When he wrote the ticket, he mentioned I was speeding past one of London's high schools.

Fair enough. I deserved the ticket, paid the ticket.

But you know, for years, on my way home from work, at three in the afternoon in heavy traffic when the kids left school, I never saw a cop there giving out tickets or even monitoring traffic.

So much for safety.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam stratton:
[b]You may have had another understanding of the topic of discussion (which did drift by the way) is but my understanding of it is: Why was the case withdrawn by the prosecutor at the hearing.[/b]

---

That was the topic? I wouldn't have guessed, based on the thread title and the fact that the withdrawal of the charge is not so much a topic for discussion as idle speculation.

It may be that the Crown had a different interpretation of section 161 than the cop who issued the ticket. It may be that the cop didn't show up at trial (which is a common occurrence).

Does it really matter?

Actually, it was my attempt to contrast the pretext of the higher notion of safety with the practical effect which speaks to a baser instinct.

I've seen and listened to officer Cam Woolley on various news broadcasts, and as a panel member in "Canada's Worst Driver". I think his head, and his heart are unquestionably in the right place.

But for many officers, as the flashing the high beams...hmm there's a segue to a joke there somewhere...case illustrates, safety takes a back seat to the baser emotion of the thrill some people get in "GOTCHA!".

As for my remarks, well, I guess you got me Francesca.

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

How about this? Police officers are really motivated by keeping order -- not enforcing the law as such.

Now, of course in most contexts there is no difference; most criminal law is in some way about keeping order. But sometimes keeping order and enforcing the law are not the same. Dissing cops, helping speeders -- refusing to confess -- on these points police tend to go with order, not law.

Or so I suspect (but IAAL). Would you agree, based on more experience?

Another brick in the wall of the society of fear our corporate and political masters want to construct and uphold. Never forget the mounties slogan ( as it applies to all police forces) :"Maintain the Right."

Ask yourself what "right" really means.