Speaking of rustled jimmies...
 

... this should be entertaining (I know it is with the Jeep crowd): RCMP ticket cars for having windows rolled down... LEARN WHY. | united sovereigns

Setting aside the fact that the website seems to be CharlesInCharge's mothership, I'd be interested to hear the resident cops' take on it.

Kinda dumb IMO -- she has an X5. You can't just 'hotwire' it and drive away with it. In the summer you always see convertibles left with the top down parked

Speaking of rustled jimmies...
 

Well this is my thinking: they seem to be using only half of the section - leaving am unsecured vehicle - and conveniently ignoring the other half - to prevent unauthorized use.

As long as you don't leave your key in the ignition, the section is satisfied, no?

I couldn't even read that garbage because it was so poorly written, wtf are they trying to say?

Ignore the stupid article which is pretty well just a string of random words.

Watch the video:

so could you get a ticket for starting your car up with your computstart while youre not near by ? lol

This is a new one on me. I wrote tens of thousands of tickets over the decades I worked Traffic & only ever issued "unsecured vehicle" tickets for those that had left keys in the car, engine running etc. I did also twice write for standard transmission vehicles that had not been left in gear & no park brake, after they had rolled away & hit something. Ignoring the black Helicopters/Free Man' hyperbole on that website, I could not see how open windows in a car in park with the brake on could be considered "unsecured" in my books? I would not be able to articulate my rationale to a JP for the circumstances as shown here. Maybe I missed that course?

I do know that the C.O.P.s do parking lot patrols at time and issue warning to vehicles where stealable contents are visible, in an effort to reduce theft from vehicles, but they are not VT's.

Speaking of rustled jimmies...
 

Pretty much what I figured.

Of course this has the Jeep community all a-tizzy, guys wondering if they can get a ticket now for running topless or even with soft tops. Doesn't help that Nanaimo cops already have a rep with Jeepers for being dicks about the no doors laws (one lady in Duncan has even been hassled over her factory half-doors).

her car is actually the neon, no?

Why are people getting all worked up over a warning? It seems like Nanaimo RCMP is using this as an educational lesson to vehicle owners, rather than a money grab. And because most people don't know it is illegal, it is a good way to educate them.

Here is the section of the MVA
Leaving parked vehicle
191 (1) A motor vehicle must be equipped with a lock or other device to prevent the unauthorized use of the motor vehicle.

(2) A driver must not permit a motor vehicle to stand unattended or parked unless the driver has
(a) locked it or made it secure in a manner that prevents its unauthorized use, and
(b) if the motor vehicle is standing on a grade, turned the front wheels of the vehicle to the curb or side of the highway.

Zulu, I remember reading somewhere in the MVA regarding keys and being in the ingnition as well. Not sure if they repealed it, or made the section more "general"...

EDIT: or maybe the keys thing was what I read in our detachment's Traffic "cheater".

I guess it depends on what you think "unauthorized use" entails, but any car with the windows open could be popped into neutral and rolled around in whatever direction the wheels are pointed pretty easily.

I would assume no since the doors are still loked and the steering lock is still engaged.

Most automatics won't shift out of park without the key turned, or inserted into the manual release.

If they really wanted to be snarky about the law, I suppose a standard that didn't have a Club or boot could be considered unsecured, given how easy it would be to smash a window and then pop it into neutral.

It wasn't a warning until AFTER she talked to the cop - if she hadn't caught up with him she would have been stuck with the VT.

Both subsection 1 and 2 specifically state that the main reason of securing the vehicle is to prevent unauthorized use, not so stuff doesn't get stolen out of the car. Every car build for Canada since 2007 has a mandatory immobilizer installed. That means that a car cannot be driven without a key or some other way of hot wiring it/disabling the immobilizer. So if someone's car is 2007 and they leave their top down/windows open/doors unlocked, but does not leave their keys in the car, they have complied with that section of the MVA. It seems that the RCMP in Nanaimo have nothing better to do or simply don't know what they are doing...

Speaking of rustled jimmies...
 

Well it's like guys running their jeeps without doors - yeah, it's illegal (except CJs and older) but most cops won't bother you for it unless you're doing something else stupid that gets their attention. Nanaimo cops are notorious for being the exception.

It has already been mentioned that if the car for whatever reason starts moving, whether or not the engine is on, is still being "used". "Used" is still somewhat subjective. Because the section is vague, it leaves room for interpretation, and it will most likely be up to the JP to hear the side of the cop and the defendant. It is a "meh" fine though. Personally I would never issue a VT for the same situation as the video. I would just laugh when the owner of the car calls to report their unlocked vehicle stolen.

People don't realize that their mentality of "if it's gonna get stolen, it will regardless whether it's locked" is flawed. A lot of thieves also commit crimes due to opportunity. For example, a dirtbag walking down the street with no real intention of breaking into person's house that time and day sees a ground level apartment window wide open. Looks inside and sees no one is there. What do you think is going to happen vs if the window was closed/locked.

The cop went into her work and found her. He did not just leave the ticket on the windshield and walk away.

My stance?

It's my car, aside from basic safety in the interest of pedestrians (such as using the handbrake) and not being a dick in parking lots, I'll store it however I please.

Whoever came up with this part of the MVA can eat shit, full on rustled jimmies.

IF there was a VT being issued it must be served personally, so it would require a face to face with the owner of the car.

This really seems like a case of the cop just trying to be a cheeky sob. If you leave your keys in the ignition sure, I could see that as being unsecured. Just leaving the windows down? Find better use of your time officer.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Members were instructed by higher ups in the Nanaimo RCMP to start cracking down on this as they believe it is attributed to the high numbers of theft of vehicles, and theft from vehicles... Who knows. If he really was trying to be "cheeky", he could have left her with the VT and not a warning.

The autos I've dealt with don't need the key for the manual release. Either way, the law is very unlikely to specify that manuals need to be better secured than autos.

This is a perfect example of when people are issued tickets and respond with "Don't you have anything better to do", now we know exactly why that phrase exists.

This officer sees a car with its windows down, then takes the time to write a VT, then goes and finds the owner to "educate" them, only to then cancel the VT?

Seriously? Doesn't he/she have anything better to do? :fulloffuck:

Surely there must have been some calls waiting to be attended from the non-emergency line. Or heck, even a lunch break would be time better spent. Or why not go stand on the corner and write a ticket for using a cell phone. Won't be hard to find someone.

I feel bad for the PR officer who ends up finding himself in front of news cameras answering questions because of the illogical actions of one of his fellow colleagues.

More response from Nanaimo RCMP:

Because nobody wants a police record. You might get a kick out of marking up someone's squeaky clean record, but the poor sap at the receiving end sure doesn't.

That being said, after seeing the video the RCMP should have hunted her down and issued a jaywalking ticket.

A warning doesn't go on your record, sir. Also, it isn't j walking unless you obstruct vehicles. Come on Sebastian, I thought you would have known that!

Must have been REALLY slow for current events that day...