Like rolling thru a stop sign without stopping completely is the "accepted layman's term" for "stopping at a stop sign" :)

But of course, when someone goes by what they THINK the law is, and then you write them a ticket based on the ACTUAL law, guess who's the bad guy?

"Ignorance of the law is no defence"....old legal saying. There's another one
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client"...:accepted:

Hey, all the intentions of the stop sign can be satisfied with a slow roll. Coming to a full stop is simply a formality that in no way ensures all the appropriate checks are being done by the driver.

But hey, it's a good way to issue tickets.

Funny....the MVA calls them "STOP" signs....I can't find any reference to "SLOW ROLL SIGNS?" Did I miss that definition? I thought the intention was to come to a complete stop....you know, a complete cessation of forward movement?

It's like the signs that say "MAXIMUM SPEED"...they don't really mean MAXIMUM....just a suggested speed to base your own choice of speed to drive at because you are a remarkable driver, have a fantastic car & the laws of physics don't apply either. :accepted:

really??

ive never had a ticket before, but ive been pulled over 2-3 times for random reasons, and once because i had a "canada wide arrest warrant", which turned out that the cop entered in my DL wrong and brought up some other thing i guess. plus all the times ive had to call the cops on my neighbors (shit house who seems to only rent their basement suite to crack heads and shit disturbers)

so if im speeding one day and get pulled over and the cop sees ive had a few run ins here and there, nothing ticket worthy, does that affect the outcome of his decision to hand you a ticket or a warning?

No, not every single interaction is documented. If you call in to make a report on anything and you provide your information to the call-taker, your information is documented as being the person who made the report. In your example, you'll have some files showing that you call to make reports on your neighbours. Or a Loss Prevention Officer will have files showing they report on shoplifters/thefts. Or when you phone in to report someone broke into your car/house/business.

You won't have a file for the conversation you have at the park when speaking with an officer who is looking for someone/something in particular (unless its you or something you have) or is there to make general chitchat. Just because there is a police file that includes your name doesn't mean its a negative contact with police.

Well when the maximum speed indicated on that sign is a fucking joke, we all choose to ignore it.

Was going 110 on hwy 1 just by langley (speed limit is 100), I was going this slow because I was early.

Got passed by every type of vehicle under the moon.

At one point I got passed by one of those mammoth tow trucks, towing a school bus.

A GUY DRIVING A TOW TRUCK WITH A SCHOOL BUS ON THE BACK WAS GOING 20km/h over the speed limit. That's when you know the "Maximum" Speed indicated on that stupid sign is a fucking farce.

You should've went into the HOV lane..... It's been safe and slow in that Lane for the last few weeks :pokerface:

Freaking families....

What was said is that they weren't actively searching for these violations, but that doesn't mean they'll ignore one when they see it.

"While tickets are not being issued for unattended vehicles, from a crime prevention perspective, it is not good practice leave your vehicle unlocked."

I guess that's open for interpretation, but it sounds like they aren't issuing them at all, except for the one instance that lead to all this discussion.

And folks... that is how false information gets spread... Stewie, do yourself a favour and try to take what Sebberry says with a grain of salt.. or better yet, not at all.

Sometimes I like listening to the police scanner. It's nice knowing what's going on in the community.

When a police officer asks the dispatcher for records information on a name, and the dispatcher reads back "5 entries on PRIME", etc... but doesn't read back what those records are, is it safe to assume that those 5 records are only negative encounters? Or could they include innocent things like complainant or witness entries?

Its never safe to assume. As the saying goes, when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Or in your case, just you.

If you're determined to assume, I would be assuming the opposite because I would assume the dispatcher would be more likely to elaborate on negative encounters and less likely to elaborate on complainant/witness.

If the Prime entries were an officer safety concern ( Caution V etc) or there were warrants outstanding then dispatch would tell us. If we are further interested then the info is easily accessable on the MDT in the car.

I realize that. But if the dispatcher reads back "there are 5 entries on PRIME" what is the likelihood that the number of PRIME entries has an impact on what decision the officer makes?

None, until i see what the files are about/that person's role is in the files. For example, if i pulled someone over for not signalling and i see 10 files for the same thing, definitely not getting a warning. That would be the only time someone's PRIME/DL history has any impact on what i plan to do.

So if you're walking, on a bike, etc... and don't have an MDT to look up those files... still not going to influence how you proceed?

How could it?

That's what the radio is for...and the dispatcher at the other end who can look at the files if you ask them. Did it all the time while on the Motorcycle. Anything I should know or important? Anything similar to what I'm doing now? Takes a few seconds to ask.