Search found 3 matches
- Tue Apr 26, 2011 4:57 pm
- Forum: General Talk
- Topic: Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
- Replies: 12
- Views: 15921
Re: Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
When I had a person claiming their fog lights were head lights for the purpose of 62(1), I charged under O/Reg 596 s. 2(1) for the lack of high/low beam capability. It's an $85/110 fine as well. That is the correct wording for a charge under HTA 62(1). You can look it up under O.Reg 950. "Driv...
- Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:12 pm
- Forum: General Talk
- Topic: Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
- Replies: 12
- Views: 15921
Re: Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
Hi Stanton, The reason I'm saying that my ticket should not be valid is based on the fact that the officer gave me that ticket on the incorrect perception that "headlights" are required. The ticket says "Drive without headlights - motor vehicle" 62(1). My argument is that based o...
- Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:50 am
- Forum: General Talk
- Topic: Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
- Replies: 12
- Views: 15921
Driving without Headlights...Interpretation of Law
So my luck (and arrogance) has finally run out. But I still need to understand if I'm interpreting Section 62(1) correctly. Background: I've been driving around GTA for several months now with no headlights, only my fog lights on. I've done this pretentiously because of my interpretation and underst...