Pulled Over For Blue Angel Eyes

[twistedspoon]

I'm not sure what OP is trying to achieve with this thread. OP mentions that he was aware of the ETF around him during his drive but he refused (or was not astute enough?) to turn his headlight back on.

In his first post, he says he doesn't want to pay the fine; but a little later, he says "$110 a small price to pay" and "pimpin' ain't free". If it's a small price and pimping isn't free, why not just pay the ticket? Seems to me, he can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

When members made posts saying he was wrong for not having his headlights on, he resorted to name calling. Is it wrong to think that these posts are not to be expected when OP practically bragged about it and showed no remorse for his wrongdoing?

[Gizzmo_jr]

I think the point is to tell that one could get a ticket and violation for having mentioned modifications. One should be prepared to get hassle from the law or tickets. He did, explaining it does happen.
Whether or not he pays, fights in court, etc is up to him and none of our business.

[Aitch]

Actually I think the officers were generous in not fining you for the blue angel eyes. As previously mentioned, the law is written so that you can't have red AND blue together, but from what I've heard the common interpretation is that you can't have either at the front of the car and I wouldn't think it much of a stretch for an officer to write such a ticket. I guess they were realistic and knew that you could fight it in court because of the wording. However, the flipside is that you write someone a ticket for illegally coloured lights and there is a good chance they'll pay anyway, not knowing how the law is written or not wanting to bother with court.

[Fobio]

there's is only one point in this thread: pimping ain't cheap/free, you gotta pay to play

[twistedspoon]

I think the point is to tell that one could get a ticket and violation for having mentioned modifications. One should be prepared to get hassle from the law or tickets. He did, explaining it does happen.
Whether or not he pays, fights in court, etc is up to him and none of our business.

I thought it goes without saying that questionable modifications may have consequences. Are you implying there are many ignorant modders on his forum? That's besides the point anyway; OP was ticketting for "no headlights", not because his car has angel eyes.

It is fair game for dicussion as soon as he brought the point up of him not wanting to pay for the ticket. If he doesn't want to discuss it, why post it?

[Xerox]

...
Listen. My car is lowered, I have after market HIDS (illegal) and etc.

You're lowered now?! Since when? Pics?

[twistedspoon]

I thought it goes without saying that questionable modifications may have consequences. Are you implying there are many ignorant modders on this forum? That's besides the point anyway; OP was ticketted for "no headlights", not because his car has angel eyes.

It is fair game for dicussion as soon as he brought the point up of him not wanting to pay for the ticket. If he doesn't want to discuss it, why post it?

I wish editing was available without going to 100.

[RedRaptor]

The official charge written on my ticket was "Driving without proper headlights. HTA".

I have a lot of things going on in my life right now so my life doesnt evolve around one traffic ticket. As of right now, I am undecided if I am going to court or just pay the fine. I have 15 days to decide.

I love human beings. We'll criticize another person and say things like "You're wasting taxpayer's money by taking it to court." However, when we get charged with something, we feel that we should take it to court. I pay my ****en taxes, lots of it so I have every right if I choose to, to take this ticket to court.

If you have a problem with the justice system, take it up with your MPP. Maybe we shouldn't even be able to go to court.

Things are not black and white in this world. You are sadly dellusional if you see the world that way.

I am 100% guilty of turning off my headlights while I was in the left hand turn lane leading to my home. I could have turned on my headlights when I saw the ETF SUV but I didn't. I didn't think they would care. Obviously I was wrong and received a ticket as a result of it.

There is no point to this thread other than to share my experience. If you don't like the thread, then GTFO and don't read it.

[RedRaptor]

You're lowered now?! Since when? Pics?

Yeah and loving it. Racing Beat Springs with Mazdaspeed Struts/Shocks. Best combo for handling ever.

Before the haters who don't take any risk in their lives tell me that insurance might deny my claim...I just want to say thats just the risk I'm going to have to take to experience a lowered car.

[laksman91]

mleblond: i think vlad would've got it for the yellow film on the headlights as you're not allowed to have anything on the headlights, yellow bulb should be fine; same case as fogs

[DruidB]

Please provide a link to this because I could not find it anywhere here
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...es_90h08_e.htm



All I found was this and even this has loop holes.

Lamps required on all motor vehicles except motorcycles

62. (1) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (1).

I have written exams on the HTA..

[Gods Son]

I drive around at night with HID fogs only all the time. Ive passed several cops and not one have pulled me over.

lol Red Raptor is giving me pure jokes in this thread lol

[Gods Son]

The official charge written on my ticket was "Driving without proper headlights. HTA".

I have a lot of things going on in my life right now so my life doesnt evolve around one traffic ticket. As of right now, I am undecided if I am going to court or just pay the fine. I have 15 days to decide.

I love human beings. We'll criticize another person and say things like "You're wasting taxpayer's money by taking it to court." However, when we get charged with something, we feel that we should take it to court. I pay my ****en taxes, lots of it so I have every right if I choose to, to take this ticket to court.

If you have a problem with the justice system, take it up with your MPP. Maybe we shouldn't even be able to go to court.

Things are not black and white in this world. You are sadly dellusional if you see the world that way.

I am 100% guilty of turning off my headlights while I was in the left hand turn lane leading to my home. I could have turned on my headlights when I saw the ETF SUV but I didn't. I didn't think they would care. Obviously I was wrong and received a ticket as a result of it.

There is no point to this thread other than to share my experience. If you don't like the thread, then GTFO and don't read it.

Breh, let the haters hate and do your thing. Go to court and get a reduced fine or hopefully dropped. There's alot of uptight people here...

[MajesticBlueNTO]

Lamps required on all motor vehicles except motorcycles

62. (1) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall carry three lighted lamps in a conspicuous position, one on each side of the front of the vehicle which shall display a white or amber light only, and one on the rear of the vehicle which shall display a red light only. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (1).

I have written exams on the HTA..

if that is indeed the section RR was ticketed for, could it not be argued that RedRaptor's fogs are "amber", are at each front side of his vehicle, and can probably be seen within 150 metres, even on a clear night like last night?

[DruidB]

if that is indeed the section RR was ticketed for, could it not be argued that RedRaptor's fogs are "amber", are at each front side of his vehicle, and can probably be seen within 150 metres, even on a clear night like last night?

Strength of lamps

(6) Lamps on the front of a motor vehicle shall be so constructed, located, arranged and adjusted that when lighted as required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) they produce under normal atmospheric conditions and on a level road a driving light sufficient to render clearly discernible to the operator of the motor vehicle any person or vehicle on the highway within a distance of 110 metres ahead of the motor vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (6).

I dont know of any factory fog lights that light up anywhere close to 110 meters ahead of the vehicle.

[colinchrisc]

I'm not sure what OP is trying to achieve with this thread. OP mentions that he was aware of the ETF around him during his drive but he refused (or was not astute enough?) to turn his headlight back on.

In his first post, he says he doesn't want to pay the fine; but a little later, he says "$110 a small price to pay" and "pimpin' ain't free". If it's a small price and pimping isn't free, why not just pay the ticket? Seems to me, he can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

When members made posts saying he was wrong for not having his headlights on, he resorted to name calling. Is it wrong to think that these posts are not to be expected when OP practically bragged about it and showed no remorse for his wrongdoing?

Completely agreed.

[MajesticBlueNTO]

Strength of lamps

(6) Lamps on the front of a motor vehicle shall be so constructed, located, arranged and adjusted that when lighted as required by subsections (1), (2) and (3) they produce under normal atmospheric conditions and on a level road a driving light sufficient to render clearly discernible to the operator of the motor vehicle any person or vehicle on the highway within a distance of 110 metres ahead of the motor vehicle. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (6).

I dont know of any factory fog lights that light up anywhere close to 110 meters ahead of the vehicle.

what about this:

Lighted streets
(8) Subsection (6) does not apply to a motor vehicle parked on a highway and subsections (1), (2), (3), (10), (11), (13), (23), (24), (26) and (27) do not apply to a vehicle parked on a highway upon which the speed limit is not greater than 50 kilometres per hour and which is so lighted by the means of any system of street or highway lighting that the vehicle is clearly discernible within a distance of sixty metres. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (8).

CityPlace is well lit from street lighting, the area around there is a 40km/h limit, and with factory fogs the vehicle is clearly discernible from a distance <= 60 metres.


in any case, let's for arguments sake, say the section on the ticket was 62(1), can the prosecution bring up 62(6) which you quoted? that is not the section on the ticket for which he was alleged to have contravened.

[DruidB]

what about this:

Lighted streets
(8) Subsection (6) does not apply to a motor vehicle parked on a highway and subsections (1), (2), (3), (10), (11), (13), (23), (24), (26) and (27) do not apply to a vehicle parked on a highway upon which the speed limit is not greater than 50 kilometres per hour and which is so lighted by the means of any system of street or highway lighting that the vehicle is clearly discernible within a distance of sixty metres. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 62 (8).

“park” or “parking”, when prohibited, means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when standing temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers; (“stationnement”)

As for the charge he was given i dont care what is stated on the ticket... he is lucky only to be given one and not another for the blue halo's

[RedRaptor]

DruidB and MJBN, thanks for all the info regarding this topic.

[thetim]

Listen. My car is lowered, I have after market HIDS (illegal) and etc. I'm not going to keep my car stock over a $110 ticket or an officer quoting the HTA on me. This is real life and youo only get once chance at it. If I wanted a stock car, I'd be driving a Totoya Corolla.

Do you know how many smiles on kids faces my blue angel eyes have brought when they see them? $110 is a small price to pay.

I have to say - I highly doubt kids are paying that much attention to your car.

I'm glad you're enjoying your car; it's true you have one shot at life, but for me, I can't imagine getting a rise out of having modified lights that I'd be suffering a "less-good" life without them.

Chacun a son gout, as they say.

[RedRaptor]

Love the haters.

To each his own.

[RedRaptor]

And I'm sorry I gave the impression that people with negative things to say about angel eyes weren't welcomed in this thread. This is a public forum and therefore, this thread is subject to public opinions. This thread is just to share my experience with the police Saturday night/Sunday morning. I am not asking for sympathy in anyway and I have already stated that I deserved the ticket more than once.

If I was afraid of the haters, I wouldn't have even posted this.

With that said, hate on!

[-RJ3-]

With that said.. When are we ever going to see you in meets?? its been ages buddy!

[RedRaptor]

With that said.. When are we ever going to see you in meets?? its been ages buddy!

I know man! Its been too long. Work has been crazy and I couldn't make it out to the NextMod meet.

[towelsnap]

lol haters and trashin talking... gotta love the net... our balls grow five times bigger lol . Anywanys RR whatever the outcome your thread made work fun tonight lol .