This may be old hat for a lot of you, but I think it bears repeating: 613 sect. 10 (b) states "a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly;" and Section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act states: "106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance." Now, if a person were travelling on a county road in Ontario as a passenger in a car; which before entering they were unaware of: a middle seat belt that has been rendered inoperative by an animal chewing it at an unknown time and sit in this seat, as all other positions have been filled. Are they responsible for the inability to buckle up? Also, once receiving a ticket for "fail to properly wear seatbelt" is there any grounds for disputing the ticket? What do you think?
This may be old hat for a lot of you, but I think it bears repeating:
613 sect. 10 (b) states "a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly;"
and Section 106 of the Highway Traffic Act states:
"106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance."
Now, if a person were travelling on a county road in Ontario as a passenger in a car; which before entering they were unaware of: a middle seat belt that has been rendered inoperative by an animal chewing it at an unknown time and sit in this seat, as all other positions have been filled. Are they responsible for the inability to buckle up? Also, once receiving a ticket for "fail to properly wear seatbelt" is there any grounds for disputing the ticket?
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now". If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used. A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak. In some older cars there only lap belts in the center. Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger. Cheers Viper1
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".
If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.
A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.
In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.
Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context. REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies. A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it. For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.
REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.
10.Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;
(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.
A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.
106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.
For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
I think there may have been some foolishness from the passenger, and the passenger did admit to the officer issuing the ticket, that, "The belt doesn't work!" and upon demonstrating, connected the belt to the other, now unoccupied, receptacle. Making it blatantly obvious to the responding officer that seatbelts within the vehicle were functioning. A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it. For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it. Am I right to gather that you're implying there is no grounds for dispute? I did think while reading through these sections that really; the car shouldn't have been driven if the harness was malfunctioning and to push the issue may result in much more hassle for the owner of the vehicle. Do you think that's a correct assumption? Both of you: Thank-you for you time and input on these matters.
viper1 wrote:
The laws have to cover all vehicles. From "buggies to now".
If your vehicle came with a seat belt it should be used.
A animal ate my seat belt defense may be a bit weak.
In some older cars there only lap belts in the center.
Usually this kind of ticket comes out some kind of foolishness from a passenger.
Cheers
Viper1
I think there may have been some foolishness from the passenger, and the passenger did admit to the officer issuing the ticket, that, "The belt doesn't work!" and upon demonstrating, connected the belt to the other, now unoccupied, receptacle. Making it blatantly obvious to the responding officer that seatbelts within the vehicle were functioning.
bend wrote:
You're cherry picking sentences here out of context.
REGULATION 613, 10, deals with motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies.
10.Where a motor vehicle manufactured without seat belt assemblies for each seating position and not modified so that there is a seat belt assembly for each seating position is driven on a highway,
(a) the driver is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (2) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if there is no seat belt assembly at the drivers seating position;
(b) a passenger is exempt from the requirement of subsection 106 (3) of the Act to wear a seat belt assembly if the passenger occupies a position without a seat belt assembly and there is no other available seating position with a seat belt assembly; and
(c) the driver is exempt from clause 106 (4) (a) of the Act with respect to any passenger described in clause (b). O. Reg. 522/06, s. 10.
A dog chewing your seat belt doesn't mean your vehicle didn't come equipped with an assembly, it just means you let your dog chew through it.
106. (1) No person shall drive on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly required under the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) at the time that the vehicle was manufactured or imported into Canada has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative, modified so as to reduce its effectiveness or is not operating properly through lack of maintenance. 2006, c. 25, s. 1.
For example, classic/vintage cars that were manufactured from the original car manufacturer without seat belt assemblies are not required to install them in order to meet today's standards. They were perfectly legal at the time and they've been grandfathered into law. Your car came with a seat belt, you just haven't maintained it.
Am I right to gather that you're implying there is no grounds for dispute?
I did think while reading through these sections that really; the car shouldn't have been driven if the harness was malfunctioning and to push the issue may result in much more hassle for the owner of the vehicle. Do you think that's a correct assumption?
Both of you: Thank-you for you time and input on these matters.
Hi everyone. I'm asking for a friend who has a question of interpretation.
He was ticketed for using a hand-held device. He contends that he was acting within the exemption provided under Subsection 14 (1) of O. Reg. 366/09, which reads as follows (emphasis added):
Hey guys i just wanted to know what speeds you see others do on the roads on a regular basis. As we all know no body drives 100 km. It seems they only hit that speed twice once on the way up and once on the way down.
it seems the De Facto limit on the 401 is about 120-130. But lately i dont know if…
On June 10, 2017, I was pulled over by an OPP on the 403 heading WB and told I registered 136km/hr. I kept chit chat to a minimum and took my ticket and went on with my day. I later requested my disclosure and did not receive it until a week before my Oct. 27 court date, and so I had my date…
Anyone know any more information? Apparently kathleen wynne mentioned trying to introduce legislation after more than 20 years of no speed cameras. My guess is that it wont happen, since they've tried before many times to bring it back after it was abolished.
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I posted this in the 3 Demerit Section and haven't received any
responses.
I received a failure to stop at an amber light ticket on April 17, 2009. At my First Attendance Meeting I asked to read the police officer's notes and remember thinking how ridiculous they were and the difficulty…
I was on the right side of the road going straight when a pedestrian waved down the taxi driver in the lane next to me. He pulled over to the right without any notice or signalling and hit me with the side of his car.
There were many witnesses but I immediately had a concussion and did not think of…
My mother was driving EB on a 4 lane street (2 lanes EB, 2 lanes WB).
She was in the left hand lane and started a left hand turn so as to enter a side street, crossing WB traffic. There was NO intersection. She hit a cyclist who was heading WB. Police where called but none showed up. My…
If the speed limit is 50, and you do 100+, not only do you get 6 points. Your car gets impounded for a week, and your license suspended for 7 days, along with a hefty fine of at least $2000. The penalty is actually the same as for racing. The law came in effect on October 1, 2007. Remember -…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural…
