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 followed the procedures mentioned in the previous threads regarding the disclosure and received it today. My court date is November 5 2009 in Whitby. After going through the notes I realized 2 things:
1- the notes are horribly illegible and difficult to read
2- I have notes from two different officers.
Now I am not sure if this means that both the officers will be at court for the hearing or…
I hope I can paint the picture with the accuracy that the truth deserves. I have no intention of just beating a ticket.. but more like beating a really unfair ticket. You decide!
I had entered Canada after a short trip downsouth through Detroit on my way to Toronto. Not being equipped with a GPS unit I had to rely on the printable poorman's version from Mapquest. I followed Huron Church Rd.,…
Need an expert advice here. 10 days ago I got a speeding ticket. Ticket has a fatal error on its face-offense not known to law. It says speeding 75km/hr in posted 60km/hr zone. What is the best way to proceed?
1. Should I completely ignore this ticket and let the JP to quash it?
2. Should I go with option 3 - request a trial and force the fatal error by not showing up at court?
My name is Brian. I am in my late 20s and live in Toronto. I do not own a car but half a dozen times a year I rent one with my Visa. (To get out of the city and go to a beach or ski for example.)
I have never drunk and drive but I face a problem and Im wondering if anyone can tell me what to do. Several months ago I was at a weekend party and had quit a bit to consume. When I stopped…
I was travelling east bound on ellesmere road and approached markham road attempting to make a right turn. All signal lights were red and cars traveling down markham road south were given the green arrow. I slowed down and attempted to make the right turn. I got ticketed by a cop who was parked in a gas station facing the intersection in a (no parking zone). I…
Crested a hill, officer coming at me, pulled a u turn and pulled me over.
I will go back and look again but I thought I was in an 80 not a 70 and I am positive I wasn't doing more than 120. My speedo read 110-115. I have aftermarket tires and rims so I assume this would be the difference.
It was around 7pm, already dark, nobody on the road but myself,…
I am looking for the case law that is commonly used when the prosecution says they only need to disclose the testing pages of a radar manual or laser manual.
I am only interested in the binding decisions (appeals court or higher?), and not in the non-binding Justice of the Peace decisions.
I was pulled over two nights ago and charged with failing to stop a stop sign. On the ticket, it says 'disobey stop sign - foil to stop' and does not say 'fail' -- something I think may be a fatal flaw? I have been driving for 12 years with no tickets, yet I live in Brampton where insurance prices are high so I do not want to be convicted as my insurance rates will spike significantly and…
A friend of mine (who is from China and with no knowledge of English at all) asked me to interpret for him on court.
He got pulled over by a stealth patrol car last october, got 3 tickets (fail to show insurance card, using cell phones and fail to stop on right for emergency vehicle) , court date is next week. He told me his insurance expired for less than a month and other charges are false…
I understand the severity of my offences, and I can't stress how much I regret it. I know I endangered the lives of myself and more importantly others. I usually do not speed and I know running late for work is an unacceptable excuse. I will be a man and accept the consequences of my actions although I would appreciate any advice for my situation.
Guys back in january i got a speeding ticket on dvp, but i am 90% sure he did not caught me on radar, i asked for disclosure request and i just received today, I have asked for: a full copy of the police officers notes, a copy of both sides of the officers copy of the ticket, witness will say statements, speed gun manual, calibration record, repair history and officer's training certificate but…
I need some help here. So today I was on my way to get my tires changed from my winter tires to my regular summer staggered set of tires. I was driving in mississauga on my way to my destination, I got pulled over by an officer where I was given a ticket for having improper mudguards. For some context, I drive a stock 2013 C63 AMG with winter tires at the time. I was never…
I'd like to start this off by saying for the last two weeks I have been browsing the forums. I'm trying to prepare myself for an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor (in Brampton, if that matters). I have a clean record and as a teacher, I always do my best to follow rules (trying to practice what I preach!)
On December 4, 2014 I was preparing to turn right at a very busy intersection.…
I have question, today I was going to work in my normal route there is a triangle intersection with my side being the only one with a stop sign.
There's a car in front me who stopped at the stop sign, and the third-side there's a incoming car with their hazard-light flashing but they don't have stop sign, yet coming in at a slow speed.
Right after the car in front me went through the stop sign,…
On my way to work this morning I received a ticket for disobey sign. I was on Hwy 10 Mississauga in the right lane. The right lane leads to the 401 and there is a sign saying Right Lane Exits. I Tried to merge left before the on ramp as did 3 other people. We all got a ticket for doing that. Is there anything I can do? I did not realize I was breaking any law it was a dotted line where I tried to…
This is my first post, before I jump right in I would like to thank the forum, members, posters and moderators for all the information posted. I feel like I have been able to learn a lot from others experiences, so thank you all.
This will be a lengthy post. But if you are dealing with a Disobey Sign HTA 182(2) - No Straight Through Intersection you may find this extremely…
Let me start this with saying that this isn't in regards to a ticket, more a discussion surrounding front license plates and learning about the rules behind them. (Most of the quote stuff is using colloquial terms, mostly because I couldn't really find a better way to describe it; it's not meant to be offensive.)
I know Ontario law/HTA mandates having a front license plate unlike some States in…
Hi Guys! I've just had my trial day yesterday. I was not at fault but was convicted anyways.
It is such a travesty! There is no justice at the traffic court. It is just a no mercy machine to part someone with his money, no common sense applies and no reasonable argument being considered. Such a shame! The justice, the policeman and the prosecutor ganged up against me. The justice kept interrupting…
Well first of all ... glad to have found the forum - hoping to find answers to 'alot' of questions
I was unfortunate in July 2010 in that I ended up rolling my 2009 Ranger three times, through a fence and landing on the roof on a rained-out road that was/is in need of proper repair in Eastern Ontario.
I was assisted out of the vehicle by the driver who was behind me.
I was traveling down the 401, noticed a speed trap, and started flashing my lights -- in order to warn oncoming drivers.
Within a 30 seconds, a car slowed, crossed the grass, and approached me from behind. Lights appeared, and I then realised that this was an officer in an undercover car.
The officer pulled me over, and while he was polite, clearly his motivation was to…
Does anyone know the specific law, statute, Charter right to refer to when a prosecutor or justice attempts to change the charge on a ticket after a trial has begun? I assume I'd object immediately (without interrupting anyone, of course) but what would be the specific legal basis of my objection?
I was right behind a school bus that looked like it was pulling over to the side in order to turn down a side street, I saw no lights so decided to go around (wide street). Was still moving as I was passing, then as I did pass I heard horn and looked back and in fact it was pulling over to p/u school kids (was a block away from my son's school, so just assumed it wouldn't be picking up kids...it…
