Driving a city vehicle while on vacation must be perk! I wonder though if the vehicle is impounded or is it in the OPP parking lot for security reasons, like what happened with Habitual Heidi's unmarked car! Jun 30, 2009 09:58 AM Jesse McLean Staff reporter One of Toronto's highest ranking fire officials has been charged with stunt driving after police clocked him driving 150 km/h on Hwy. 401 in a department vehicle. Ontario Provincial Police pulled over Deputy Fire Chief Daryl Fuglerud around 9:30 a.m. Friday, just west of Port Hope. A helicopter patrolling the stretch of highway spotted a red Toyota Highlander travelling 50 kilometres over the speed limit, police said. The Highlander, which belongs to Toronto Fire Services, has been impounded for seven days and the suspect's licence has been suspended for a week. Fuglerud is the department's deputy chief of staff services, administration and communications, and oversees everything from recruitment to payroll, a fire department official said. He is currently on a booked vacation and could not be reached for comment. He is scheduled to appear in court in Cobourg on Aug. 5. http://www.thestar.com/gta/crime/article/658755
Driving a city vehicle while on vacation must be perk!
I wonder though if the vehicle is impounded or is it in the OPP parking lot for security reasons, like what happened with Habitual Heidi's unmarked car!
Jun 30, 2009 09:58 AM
Jesse McLean
Staff reporter
One of Toronto's highest ranking fire officials has been charged with stunt driving after police clocked him driving 150 km/h on Hwy. 401 in a department vehicle.
Ontario Provincial Police pulled over Deputy Fire Chief Daryl Fuglerud around 9:30 a.m. Friday, just west of Port Hope.
A helicopter patrolling the stretch of highway spotted a red Toyota Highlander travelling 50 kilometres over the speed limit, police said.
The Highlander, which belongs to Toronto Fire Services, has been impounded for seven days and the suspect's licence has been suspended for a week.
Fuglerud is the department's deputy chief of staff services, administration and communications, and oversees everything from recruitment to payroll, a fire department official said.
He is currently on a booked vacation and could not be reached for comment. He is scheduled to appear in court in Cobourg on Aug. 5.
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm :?: :?: :?: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Scuze, me. OK I'm done now, snicker.....no, no I'll stop.......gafaw......sorry, really......teehee.......I think you'd look great in the white smock
Bookm wrote:
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Dr. Bookm :?: :?: :?: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Scuze, me. OK I'm done now, snicker.....no, no I'll stop.......gafaw......sorry, really......teehee.......I think you'd look great in the white smock don't forget the gloves *snap*
Reflections wrote:
Bookm wrote:
I'm glad we're uncovering the REAL problem drivers out there; doctors, police officers, fire chiefs, etc., LOL. Turns out I'm in pretty good company, hehe.
Dr. Bookm Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I meant to post that spot in frequent radar spots. I forgot. It is something to see 8-10 people pulled over then drive another mile and still see another cop. It is air radar there. The first time I saw it I didn't think there were that many opp anywhere. Cheers Nadnic
I meant to post that spot in frequent radar spots.
I forgot.
It is something to see 8-10 people pulled over then drive another mile and still see another cop.
It is air radar there.
The first time I saw it I didn't think there were that many opp anywhere.
Cheers
Nadnic
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
And then we would have people crying about favouritism. "Discretion" should be saved for the really, really good excuses (e.g., wife having a baby...explosive diarrhea and rest stop is far away... :shock: ).
And then we would have people crying about favouritism. "Discretion" should be saved for the really, really good excuses (e.g., wife having a baby...explosive diarrhea and rest stop is far away... ).
But that shouldn't matter once the law and the consequences are in the books. I don't know the whole story, but assuming the deputy fire chief had no good reason to be going that fast, then the consequences are set and should not be made more lenient because of his position or use of a department vehicle. It's like how I feel about the speed limit - do it by the book and if it really is unreasonable, public backlash will eventually grow to a point where it will force a change. The "roadside trial" part of 172 is already getting there. Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply. I know, I know...me, Fantino, big gay wedding. :lol:
Radar Identified wrote:
I agree with cruzmisl. No one was protected or safeguarded by seizing that vehicle. 49 km/h over has serious enough consequences.
But that shouldn't matter once the law and the consequences are in the books. I don't know the whole story, but assuming the deputy fire chief had no good reason to be going that fast, then the consequences are set and should not be made more lenient because of his position or use of a department vehicle. It's like how I feel about the speed limit - do it by the book and if it really is unreasonable, public backlash will eventually grow to a point where it will force a change. The "roadside trial" part of 172 is already getting there. Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief) I wonder if that copper thought about the fire department cutting him out of his cruiser one day.......poorly played IMO. I agree with 172. I think it has a place. Assuming the guy wasn't a tool, apologetic, didn't have a horrible driving record and wasn't endangering the lives of others whats the point? A huge ticket would have been a satisfactory slap on his P P.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief)
I wonder if that copper thought about the fire department cutting him out of his cruiser one day.......poorly played IMO.
I agree with 172. I think it has a place. Assuming the guy wasn't a tool, apologetic, didn't have a horrible driving record and wasn't endangering the lives of others whats the point? A huge ticket would have been a satisfactory slap on his P P.
The Officer didn't "have" to do anything. He could have let the guy go, he could have charged under 128, could have written a standard ticket for anything from 0-49km/h over or a myriad of other choices. Instead he takes a "regular" guy who met the magic target and BAM he's screwed. (I could care less he's a firefighter/chief)
S. 128 would have worked in these circumstances and I don't think most of us would've had any problem with the officer using s. 128 instead of s. 172. Nothing about 172 limits or prevents the use of 128. We've even seen one case on this forum where someone was going 155 km/h a few months ago and was charged under s. 128. No roadside trial or impoundment, but severe consequences imposed upon conviction. So, no argument with you on that point. The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger. The fact that he was pulled over meant the speeding was stopped. Very few people who get pulled over then get back on the road and resume driving the exact same way. It is "the law," but the intent of 172 was to "safeguard the public," supposedly. To me that seems to imply that it should only be used in limited circumstances, not whenever possible. (I'd rather just see the whole thing scrapped.) Just remember: You said it, not me. :lol:
Squishy wrote:
Now if "discretion" includes charging for 50 km/h over under Section 128 instead, then I would agree with it - both charges would match the circumstances, and I know of nothing that states the more severe penalty should apply.
S. 128 would have worked in these circumstances and I don't think most of us would've had any problem with the officer using s. 128 instead of s. 172. Nothing about 172 limits or prevents the use of 128. We've even seen one case on this forum where someone was going 155 km/h a few months ago and was charged under s. 128. No roadside trial or impoundment, but severe consequences imposed upon conviction. So, no argument with you on that point.
The use of s. 172 should be limited to circumstances where letting the person continue to drive would have clearly put the public in danger. The fact that he was pulled over meant the speeding was stopped. Very few people who get pulled over then get back on the road and resume driving the exact same way. It is "the law," but the intent of 172 was to "safeguard the public," supposedly. To me that seems to imply that it should only be used in limited circumstances, not whenever possible.
Regular guy is synonymous with "average Joe":D In this context though a "regular" guy is anyone with no significant driving offence history and has the appropriate attitude.
Regular guy is synonymous with "average Joe":D
In this context though a "regular" guy is anyone with no significant driving offence history and has the appropriate attitude.
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
