Performance-shop.com

Interested in Advertising on 780Tuners?  Please contact us

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 37 to 43 of 43

Thread: Section 51(d) - Operating vehicle without license in possession

  1. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Not sure. I do know that if the officer noted somewhere on the ticket that they let the tint ticket slide, then you'll get laughed at in court and no additional reductions will be given.
    2010 Jeep SRT8 aka Boris / 2G Toyota 4Runner (22RE) aka Gandalf / 4G 4Runner (2UZFE) aka Blacky Chan / 2007 CBR600RR (race bike)

  2. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,038

    Default

    Jesus man. People with very little understanding of laws and why we have them, trying to rip on someone to take accountability for their actions. Lovely.

    By the black and white definition, yes he is guilty of operating without a license. But anyone that knows anything about the law, knows that the reason for this law is to ensure that an unlicensed driver does not operate a vehicle. OP IS legally licensed to operate a motor vehicle, and therefore is not actually guilty of breaking the spirit of the law(which is actually a totally reasonable argument in court).

    What part of what OP is doing involves him not taking accountability for his actions? He understands he got caught, he is just examining his options moving forward. Taking accountability does not mean just saying "fuck it" and allowing yourself to be railroaded by some poorly worded law with whatever consequences come of it. You can be accountable and still exercise some form of self preservation. The thing that really pisses me off about the accountability argument, is that you never hear anyone bitching about holding law enforcement accountable to serve the public when you hear of these nonsense stories of tax dollar waste.

    Unfortunately law enforcement has virtually no ability to think or act reasonably. Otherwise you wouldn't have been pulled over for tint in the first place. It sucks but it's the way it is. I'm guessing if you go to court you won't get anywhere. Best bet is to go to the CP and explain the situation to see if he will reduce on the spot. Then be thankful at least it's not a demerit ticket.
    Last edited by Viktimize; May 28th, 2017 at 11:46 AM.

  3. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    10,178

    Default

    How is it a poorly worded law?
    51(a) is the one that is there to prevent people from driving unlicensed
    drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person is
    the holder of a subsisting operatorís licence;
    (d) is the you have to be able to present it if stopped bit
    drive a motor vehicle on a highway unless that personís
    operatorís licence is in that personís possession;
    So reading the actual law, it's not a spirit of the law thing, the spirit is that you have to be able to produce your license upon request. Lest we forget driving is a privilege, not a right.

    Unless the Officer somehow checked to see if the OP complies with 51(a), I'm surprised he was permitted to continue on.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fighting bullshit tickets, but it's pretty hard to fight a failure to produce ticket... did you have your license on you? No, well them you couldn't produce it when requested.
    Last edited by SilverNeonRacer; May 29th, 2017 at 09:33 AM.

  4. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    2,067

    Default

    Tint tickets are just as valid too. Would you want a large piece of glass cut your head off or smaller pieces that may do some minor cutting? If you were an officer coming up to a vehicle late at night, would you want to see in the vehicle prior to getting them to roll down the window?

  5. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaverickXeo View Post
    Tint tickets are just as valid too. Would you want a large piece of glass cut your head off or smaller pieces that may do some minor cutting?
    Hahaha oh man, Really?? This is some BS that the RCMP said on the news without any backing behind it.

    If this was true, then why can you have rear window tint? Why is it that MB, ON, QC, NB, and just about all of the US have a certain % of tint legal? Why would the RCMP in AB say this and then two provinces over it is perfectly legal for tint?

    The only valid reason (like you said) has got to do with visibility.

  6. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    10,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaverickXeo View Post
    Tint tickets are just as valid too. Would you want a large piece of glass cut your head off or smaller pieces that may do some minor cutting?
    That's bullshit, 2nd and 3rd gen Durangos and I'm pretty sure other vehicles have dual layer window glass with laminate film in between, pretty much same thing as a windshield, so the sheet vs pieces isn't the reason. Dodge actually markets it as reducing noise and increasing intrusion resistance.

  7. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I think it does have to do with outward visibility at dusk and night. Rear windows can be tinted because by law Windows are not even required behind the driver. But at dusk, it's harder to see a pedestrian or anything that's not lighted, and also harder to see out of side mirrors. Might be law here because someone noticed an increase in accidents related to reduced visibility from side window tint, or lobbied to make it a law at one point.
    1993 B2200, S4 13B Swapped, 5-speed, otherwise stock

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •