[crs1026]

The idea of the police (or the Crown) having automated access to one’s CRA data striks me as hugely intrusive…. and fraught with problems…. to use an extreme example, we have Donald Trump claiming tax losses over several years. How many years of income do we use to set fines and how do we deal with such cases where wealth and taxable income are not in synch ?

I suppose one could implement a graduated drivers license system where one proves lower income to the MOT and one’s license class is thereby changed - GA, GB, GC instead of just G. Fines could vary by class. The question is, how much effort is that and does it improve things or stigmatise more?

My own solution is simply - reduce the number of demerits to 12 or 10; impose demerits for all offenses eg including speeding under 16 km/h, and make the threshold for suspending bad drivers that nuch more sensitive. We are perhaps overthinking monetary fines where the privilege of driving ought to be what is at risk.

PS - since automated enforcement can only grow, why are we not enforcing the prohibition on license plate covers? Their sole purpose is to evade automated enforcement. My solution - create a Municipal Code offense prohibiting parking a vehicle equipped with license plate covers on a public street. That way, Parking Control Officers can tag such vehicles when they find them in Green P lots or parked on the street - no traffic stop or police officer needed. It’s a parking violation and not a moving violation. Won’t catch them all, but will create a disincentive.

- Paul

 

[Pacer]

The idea of the police (or the Crown) having automated access to one’s CRA data striks me as hugely intrusive…. and fraught with problems…. to use an extreme example, we have Donald Trump claiming tax losses over several years. How many years of income do we use to set fines and how do we deal with such cases where wealth and taxable income are not in synch ?

I suppose one could implement a graduated drivers license system where one proves lower income to the MOT and one’s license class is thereby changed - GA, GB, GC instead of just G. Fines could vary by class. The question is, how much effort is that and does it improve things or stigmatise more?

My own solution is simply - reduce the number of demerits to 12 or 10; impose demerits for all offenses eg including speeding under 16 km/h, and make the threshold for suspending bad drivers that nuch more sensitive. We are perhaps overthinking monetary fines where the privilege of driving ought to be what is at risk.

PS - since automated enforcement can only grow, why are we not enforcing the prohibition on license plate covers? Their sole purpose is to evade automated enforcement. My solution - create a Municipal Code offense prohibiting parking a vehicle equipped with license plate covers on a public street. That way, Parking Control Officers can tag such vehicles when they find them in Green P lots or parked on the street - no traffic stop or police officer needed. It’s a parking violation and not a moving violation. Won’t catch them all, but will create a disincentive.

- Paul

Really like the idea of a municipal code, but I do have a question. Would the province not be the one who decides if we can do this, especially as it concerns motor vehicles?

 

[crs1026]

Really like the idea of a municipal code, but I do have a question. Would the province not be the one who decides if we can do this, especially as it concerns motor vehicles?

Possibly - I'm no expert on who approves what.

My reasoning was, municipalities clearly have legislative and enforcement rights over parking, and municipal enforcement officers can write up offenses for parked vehicles. So long as we are talking about parked vehicles, it would be no different than rules about displaying parking stickers, or prohibition of parking eg trucks in residential areas, in fire lanes, etc......and that's clearly municipal.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

Really like the idea of a municipal code, but I do have a question. Would the province not be the one who decides if we can do this, especially as it concerns motor vehicles?

The City is (in the end) governed and controlled by the Province and even if the COULD do something (impose tolls on the Gardiner or move to preferential voting for example) if they try to do something the Province (aka Doug) does not like then the Province (i.e Doug) can pass a law to forbid it.

 

[evandyk]

Income-linked fines are an idea I like, but are probably never going to happen here. But having actual enforcement, mostly through automated means, would make a huge difference in compliance. And I think that's realistic, especially speed limit and red light/gridlock cameras.

 

[evandyk]

Most license plate covers (as well as most tinted windows) are already illegal, but nobody enforces the rules.

 

[evandyk]

The cops are the people vested with enforcing the rules, but many of them have license plate covers and tinted windows in their personal vehicles.

 

[lenaitch]

Possibly - I'm no expert on who approves what.

My reasoning was, municipalities clearly have legislative and enforcement rights over parking, and municipal enforcement officers can write up offenses for parked vehicles. So long as we are talking about parked vehicles, it would be no different than rules about displaying parking stickers, or prohibition of parking eg trucks in residential areas, in fire lanes, etc......and that's clearly municipal.

- Paul

Without doing a lot of digging (or thinking), an offence related to licence plates or covers would fall under Part II of the HTA and not municipal parking bylaws. I doubt the Municipal Act would empower a municipal bylaw to attempt to regulate something already regulated by provincial legislation.

Carrying on with the 'geared-to-income' fine concept, the fact that information in databases can be electronically shared doesn't necessarily mean they can be legally shared. I have no clue how they do it in other countries, and what their legal structures are, but I remain unconvinced that such a system would be Constitutionally possible in this country. I can think of several Charter problems, even if the Province could convince the federal government to amend several pieces of legislation that ensures that income tax records are confidential and privileged.

 

[Pacer]

I would like to see personally a version of NYC idling reporting for traffic offences in the city.

for reference

If we're unwilling to hire more specific officers, incentivize others to pick up the mantle by offering 25% of any reported ticket that is validated.

Issues that could be reported:
- Bike lane/fire route/snow route blocking
- Parking next to Hydrant or in a transit lane
- Illegal licence plate covers

Again, I'd prefer more specific officers, but I'd take any action over inaction.

 

[slickpete83]

how about instead of the fine $$ being based off your annual income, it should be based on the blue book value of your car which ministry of transportation already has*

 

[crs1026]

Without doing a lot of digging (or thinking), an offence related to licence plates or covers would fall under Part II of the HTA and not municipal parking bylaws. I doubt the Municipal Act would empower a municipal bylaw to attempt to regulate something already regulated by provincial legislation.

I suspect I’m waaay overthinking this, but it does seem to me that if this offence could be charged by having someone (a police officer, if need be) simply slip a ticket under the windshield wiper of the offending vehicle, it would be a lot easier to enforce than by having an officer make a traffic stop of a moving vehicle.
Every traffic stop has risks and is resource intensive, and I would not expect an officer to pull over a vehicle on a busy road for this kind of thing….. but it is imperative that drivers not be able to get away with this.

- Paul

 

[DSC]

I suspect I’m waaay overthinking this, but it does seem to me that if this offence could be charged by having someone (a police officer, if need be) simply slip a ticket under the windshield wiper of the offending vehicle, it would be a lot easier to enforce than by having an officer make a traffic stop of a moving vehicle.
Every traffic stop has risks and is resource intensive, and I would not expect an officer to pull over a vehicle on a busy road for this kind of thing….. but it is imperative that drivers not be able to get away with this.

- Paul

I certainly agree that, in most cases, it would be stupid to enforce this with moving vehicles (unless stopped for some other reason. Surely the simplest way to enforce the law about the 'physical car" - licence-plate 'covers' or tinted windows - would be to allow parking control officers to enforce it. They walk or cycle around looking for parking infractions, not too much to expect them to notice and ticket other things.

 

[lenaitch]

The current laws are not in your favour.

The only slip-under-the-wiper offence notice that can be issued is for parking infractions (Part II, Provincial Offences Act).

A licence plate cover is, in an of itself, not illegal. In order for it to be illegal, it must obstruct visual or enforcement camera view (btw, this can also be accomplished by some frames, including some issued by dealers, as well as things like bike racks, etc.). I would argue that, if a parking control officer could sufficiently see the plate number to record it on a 'ticket', not offence is made out.

(Interesting aside: If I wanted to, which I don't, I could drive my Harley Davidson motorcycle on Hwy 407 for free. The positioning of the top storage box wrt the licence plate obscures it from the cameras. This is apparently true for some US toll systems)

The window tinting legislation confuses me. The wording the the appliable sections of the HTA are completely subjective. In addition, it is a so-called 'moving violation:

73(3)​

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 coloured spray or other coloured or reflective material that substantially obscures the interior of the motor vehicle when viewed from outside the motor vehicle.​

​

The confusing part is websites speak of a maximum 30% tint value for front side windows. Quite frankly, I can find no reference to that in the HTA or Regulations. It might be there - there are a lot and would be interested if somebody were to quote the legislation.. Even if it were true, a numeric value implies some sort of measuring device. I'm not that familiar with the technology but I believe they need access to both side of the window.

 

[crs1026]

A licence plate cover is, in an of itself, not illegal. In order for it to be illegal, it must obstruct visual or enforcement camera view (btw, this can also be accomplished by some frames, including some issued by dealers, as well as things like bike racks, etc.). I would argue that, if a parking control officer could sufficiently see the plate number to record it on a 'ticket', not offence is made out.

The Star recently quoted a police officer as saying otherwise - see here.

The confusing part is websites speak of a maximum 30% tint value for front side windows. Quite frankly, I can find no reference to that in the HTA or Regulations. It might be there - there are a lot and would be interested if somebody were to quote the legislation.. Even if it were true, a numeric value implies some sort of measuring device. I'm not that familiar with the technology but I believe they need access to both side of the window.

I suspect one would have to know the actual process that was used, or have some fairly complicated measuring device, to manage this.

The problem being that to the layperson’s eye, there are certainly tints that are over by a country mile…. just as there are speeders who are leaving the speed limit in the dust, but an officer needs to provide an objective speed measurement before they can write a ticket.

I suspect in both cases, it’s a matter of government happy to have a law on the books that appeases one faction while not really posing a threat to others who might be offended if it actually applied,

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

The Star recently quoted a police officer as saying otherwise - see here.

I've seen statements like that before. I would ask him to comment on the actual legislation in HTA Section 13:

(2) Every number plate shall be kept free from dirt and obstruction and shall be affixed so that the entire number plate, including the numbers, is plainly visible at all times, and the view of the number plate shall not be obscured or obstructed by spare tires, bumper bars, any part of the vehicle, any attachments to the vehicle or the load carried. 1994, c. 27, s. 138 (7).​

​

Obstruction prohibited​

(3) The number plates shall not be obstructed by any device that prevents the entire number plates including the numbers from being accurately photographed using an automated speed enforcement system. 2017, c. 9, s. 3.​

​

Same​

(3.0.1) The number plates shall not be obstructed by any device that prevents the entire number plates including the numbers from being accurately photographed using a red light camera system. 1998, c. 38, s. 2 (1).​

​

Same​

(3.1) The number plates shall not be obstructed by any device or material that prevents the entire number plates including the numbers from being identified by an electronic toll system. 1996, c. 1, Sched. E, s. 2 (1).​

As for prohibited sale of covers, etc., it's not something done lightly in a free market economy, is certainly beyond the scope of the HTA, and may well be beyond the scope of provincial legislation. Besides, one doesn't have to spend a lot of time on sites like Amazon to learn that the online sale of what are otherwise illegal products is rampant.