Jump to content

eye in the sky


Wildbill

Recommended Posts

Minister may prescribe different rate of speed

(3) The Minister may by regulation prescribe a higher or lower rate of speed upon any trail or any part thereof, public park or exhibition ground not under the jurisdiction of a municipality, than is prescribed in subsection (1).  R.S.O. 1990, c. M.44, s. 14 (3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 269
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/13/2018 at 9:01 PM, zoso said:

if any of us followed the law all we would need is an ace 600 and even it would be hard to keep to 50kmh.We all know the limit is stupid, ad that is why something like this plan to nail tons of people for speeding will just put another nail in trail ridings coffin.

 

LOL on the 600 ACE. A couple my parents rode w/ bought 2 MXZs w/ them back when they were intro'd. "I should get one. No smoke, you don't have to bother w/ injection oil..."

"What's the horsepower?"

"60!"

"That might be OK around here, but it isn't going to cut it when touring up north"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, revrnd said:

 

LOL on the 600 ACE. A couple my parents rode w/ bought 2 MXZs w/ them back when they were intro'd. "I should get one. No smoke, you don't have to bother w/ injection oil..."

"What's the horsepower?"

"60!"

"That might be OK around here, but it isn't going to cut it when touring up north"

I think an ace 600 can cruise all day at 65mph, even on the highways up north i rarely ride faster than that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revrnd, mike37 rides a 600 ACE and he has no trouble keeping up with us up north.  Of course, none of us are really speed demons, but he did keep ApeXMAN worried on the ride to Cochrane :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sledjunk said:

Revrnd, mike37 rides a 600 ACE and he has no trouble keeping up with us up north.  Of course, none of us are really speed demons, but he did keep ApeXMAN worried on the ride to Cochrane :-)

 

I never saw much of Mike that day LOL. Obviously he was faster than me! I was following irREVerent & the missus & liked what I saw of the 900s. You know I was happy later when we were on TOP C north of Timmins :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, revrnd said:

 

I never saw much of Mike that day LOL. Obviously he was faster than me! I was following irREVerent & the missus & liked what I saw of the 900s. You know I was happy later when we were on TOP C north of Timmins :D

I have ridden with many that would have you believe that you would need to pin a thundercat all day to keep up.  End of day , average speed while moving ,60kmh. a 550 fanner would keep pace. Have a bud with an 800 cat , have to wait for him all the time . He also has a vmax bike , rides it like a turtle . 99% that have high hp sleds never need more than a 600

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, zoso said:

Wrong. 

So if there is an ofsc trail that runs through your backyard and you have a LUP with the ofsc which specifies a speed of 50 you think the municipality has the authority to override that agreement. Wrong. It has nothing to do with the municipality. Your backyard is not their jurisdiction 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

So if there is an ofsc trail that runs through your backyard and you have a LUP with the ofsc which specifies a speed of 50 you think the municipality has the authority to override that agreement. Wrong. It has nothing to do with the municipality. Your backyard is not their jurisdiction 

There is nothing in the  LUP concerning speed . Go and educate yourself. We researched this ten years ago . You  are wrong . get over it .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, zoso said:

There is nothing in the  LUP concerning speed . Go and educate yourself. We researched this ten years ago . You  are wrong . get over it .

Educate yourself. The municipality does not have jurisdiction over an ofsc trail on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I sign a LU P  for a trail with certain expectations. If someone tries to tell me that the speed limit on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY is going up because the municipal government decided so, I also have the right to say the trail is closed. Get off my property. I'm now concerned about the liability. Parry Sound are currently working on a reroute due to liability concerns closing a section of trail. Remember the push back over the Fiberals bill 100, I believe that was the number, regarding trails when landowners saw themselves losing control over their property. The municipality can and does change speeds in places like parks which they have jurisdiction over. I've seen those go down not up. 

 

Back on ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 02Sled said:

Educate yourself. The municipality does not have jurisdiction over an ofsc trail on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I sign a LU P  for a trail with certain expectations. If someone tries to tell me that the speed limit on MY PRIVATE PROPERTY is going up because the municipal government decided so, I also have the right to say the trail is closed. Get off my property. I'm now concerned about the liability. Parry Sound are currently working on a reroute due to liability concerns closing a section of trail. Remember the push back over the Fiberals bill 100, I believe that was the number, regarding trails when landowners saw themselves losing control over their property. The municipality can and does change speeds in places like parks which they have jurisdiction over. I've seen those go down not up. 

 

Back on ignore.

Utter willful  ignorance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 02Sled said:

I can't see them raising a speed limit on a multi use trail where you'll find hikers etc.

Yes O2, that was what I was thinking, just didn't say it very well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is limit is 50, lowered to  as low as 20 where requested to allow the trial to exist. I don't have an issue with it. You want to go faster and possibly get a ticket, big deal. Stop complaining.

Highways are the same, posted at 80, most drive 90-100. 401 says 100, cruise set at 120. Big difference is there shouldn't be any 12 year olds driving on the highways.

Give an inch, they'll take a mile. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Crow said:

Bottom line is limit is 50, lowered to  as low as 20 where requested to allow the trial to exist. I don't have an issue with it. You want to go faster and possibly get a ticket, big deal. Stop complaining.

Highways are the same, posted at 80, most drive 90-100. 401 says 100, cruise set at 120. Big difference is there shouldn't be any 12 year olds driving on the highways.

Give an inch, they'll take a mile. 

 

I think the issue is, if opp use air support for enforcement on trails, they will adopt a zero tolerance approach. Zero tolerance would be mandated to cover the high cost of this type of enforcement. That means nearly 100% of all riders being observed will be fined. Now picture this scenario on a Saturday along the seguin.  Sledders will be forced to wait in line to get their ticket . This will kill the sport. Very few will tolerate multiple fines and riding would be as exciting as clearing snow if you did the speed limit all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zoso said:

I think the issue is, if opp use air support for enforcement on trails, they will adopt a zero tolerance approach. Zero tolerance would be mandated to cover the high cost of this type of enforcement. That means nearly 100% of all riders being observed will be fined. Now picture this scenario on a Saturday along the seguin.  Sledders will be forced to wait in line to get their ticket . This will kill the sport. Very few will tolerate multiple fines and riding would be as exiting as clearing snow if you did the speed limit all the time. 

Bottom line is that what you are stating would happen IF the OPP did use helicopter patrol is only conjecture on your part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

Bottom line is that what you are stating would happen IF the OPP did use helicopter patrol is only conjecture on your part. 

The only if is if they use the aircraft. There will be zero tolerance if they do. Te officers on the ground will not have any autonomy to use discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OPP have used aircraft to patrol the 400 highway. The officers in cars on the ground issue the tickets. Zero Tolerance doesn't seem to be the case or they would have to block off the highway and ticket virtually everyone yet someone believes assumes that if aircraft are used zero tolerance is the only option.

 

It would be ridiculous to think that any municipality would raise a speed limit on a multi-use trail where you are going to encounter people walking with their kids and dogs and others perhaps cross country skiing etc.

 

One trail I know of that runs through a residential area with peoples yards backing onto the multi-use trail not only reduces the speed they limit the hours at which snowmobilers can use the trail.

 

A couple of years the township was about to close the trail leading into Elmvale that ran parallel to hwy 27 due to high speed, people being seriously injured, concerns of residents and liability concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, PISTON LAKE CRUISER said:

So in a few words, how does the OFSC sell their insurance carrier and the Government of Ontario on your idea?

USSR had a common spoken social construct which was'

 

"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us"

Apply that to our police where we pretend to ride under the limit and they pretend to enforce it and we're all good. We NEED trust and sense. Its out there already I know some officers who are SOLID as the Canadian shield in this regards. The concept is policing for safety and no one will argue that when it truly serves safety and not power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 02Sled said:

The OPP have used aircraft to patrol the 400 highway. The officers in cars on the ground issue the tickets. Zero Tolerance doesn't seem to be the case or they would have to block off the highway and ticket virtually everyone yet someone believes assumes that if aircraft are used zero tolerance is the only option.

 

It would be ridiculous to think that any municipality would raise a speed limit on a multi-use trail where you are going to encounter people walking with their kids and dogs and others perhaps cross country skiing etc.

 

One trail I know of that runs through a residential area with peoples yards backing onto the multi-use trail not only reduces the speed they limit the hours at which snowmobilers can use the trail.

 

A couple of years the township was about to close the trail leading into Elmvale that ran parallel to hwy 27 due to high speed, people being seriously injured, concerns of residents and liability concerns.

Wow. Left  field. Multi use trails are not even being discussed, and you are now arguing with yourself. Fact is, any trail in a municipality sans those on a open road can have the speed limits changed by council. Nobody said  any would do so, just that they are empowered to do so. You then dispute this fact by claiming land owners have a say in the speed limits as if they were asked when 50 was decided on, they were not. You would argue black is white and throw a fit when it is proven you are wrong .  The opp could not close the 401 down to have zero tolerance ,but sleds ,are different , much like they stop every sled they see now , at times lining up  people to do it . Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Crow said:

Bottom line is limit is 50, lowered to  as low as 20 where requested to allow the trial to exist. I don't have an issue with it. You want to go faster and possibly get a ticket, big deal. Stop complaining.

Highways are the same, posted at 80, most drive 90-100. 401 says 100, cruise set at 120. Big difference is there shouldn't be any 12 year olds driving on the highways.

Give an inch, they'll take a mile. 

 

Don't even talk about that! The media had major $%^&fit years ago when they broke the story when kids younger than 16 were crossing roads on their snowmobiles. They confronted the Minister in charge of the MTO about this. Before you could say 'complete overreaction', the regs were changed. AFAIK, nothing tragic had happened, just the media going on about something they knew nothing about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, revrnd said:

Don't even talk about that! The media had major $%^&fit years ago when they broke the story when kids younger than 16 were crossing roads on their snowmobiles. They confronted the Minister in charge of the MTO about this. Before you could say 'complete overreaction', the regs were changed. AFAIK, nothing tragic had happened, just the media going on about something they knew nothing about...

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was referring to youths under 16 driving a VEHICLE on the roads, as opposed to a legally licenced 12 year old riding a sled on the trail. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Crow said:

Maybe you misunderstood me. I was referring to youths under 16 driving a VEHICLE on the roads, as opposed to a legally licenced 12 year old riding a sled on the trail. 

 

 

Oh I understood completely. My inference was some day the media will freak out about kids under 16 'running amok' on the OFSC trails...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I have been pretty busy with personal matters and have been busy getting my districts Trail Patrol program going and did put on my first course that was well received by those that attended to my knowledge as I gave more tools to do more enforcement side of things for our Trail Patrol to do that is well within their power to do so under trespass to property act, MSVA act etc. 

 

As Bill mentioned this as it was a part of my long list of Trail Patrol emails to the ofsc big cheese. Apparently they are looking at bringing in the aircraft to "patrol" trails for excessive speeding, reckless behaviour, trespassing etc. I personally dont see them doing so very much as it costs are too great just to patrol trails. At most i see them yes as mentioned before doing it as a PR statement that they can be deployed to patrol trails so look out then they never use them the rest of the season unless there is a major concern to bring them out. Or they could be out for the one long weekend in our season just so they can say they patrolled it.

 

I had a chat with a friend of mine who is actually doing this detail for the OPP now and I asked his views on it, he stated. Yes he surprisingly does see them using the aircraft to a degree for patrolling trails as its in their mandate to do so. He doesn't see them using the helicopter much as its more costly to run $1500-$2000 for only an hour of run time on fuel and is limited to that run time. The fixed wing has about 4 hours run time costing about $600 on fuel for that time. Yes the cameras are really sophisticated and have pin point accuracy so much so they can tell if a person is wearing a seat belt in a car or if they have a trail permit on their sled etc. They are also capable of tracking multiple targets and your speed of course. Yes it will require ground units to intercept but remember you cant outrun a radio nor eyes in the sky! They can also be used at night so this is not just a day operation. My friend will advise me to an update to this if he goes out to do any enforcement on the trails or is told otherwise. 

 

Hope everyone has a great christmas   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SuperG said:

Sorry I have been pretty busy with personal matters and have been busy getting my districts Trail Patrol program going and did put on my first course that was well received by those that attended to my knowledge as I gave more tools to do more enforcement side of things for our Trail Patrol to do that is well within their power to do so under trespass to property act, MSVA act etc. 

 

As Bill mentioned this as it was a part of my long list of Trail Patrol emails to the ofsc big cheese. Apparently they are looking at bringing in the aircraft to "patrol" trails for excessive speeding, reckless behaviour, trespassing etc. I personally dont see them doing so very much as it costs are too great just to patrol trails. At most i see them yes as mentioned before doing it as a PR statement that they can be deployed to patrol trails so look out then they never use them the rest of the season unless there is a major concern to bring them out. Or they could be out for the one long weekend in our season just so they can say they patrolled it.

 

I had a chat with a friend of mine who is actually doing this detail for the OPP now and I asked his views on it, he stated. Yes he surprisingly does see them using the aircraft to a degree for patrolling trails as its in their mandate to do so. He doesn't see them using the helicopter much as its more costly to run $1500-$2000 for only an hour of run time on fuel and is limited to that run time. The fixed wing has about 4 hours run time costing about $600 on fuel for that time. Yes the cameras are really sophisticated and have pin point accuracy so much so they can tell if a person is wearing a seat belt in a car or if they have a trail permit on their sled etc. They are also capable of tracking multiple targets and your speed of course. Yes it will require ground units to intercept but remember you cant outrun a radio nor eyes in the sky! They can also be used at night so this is not just a day operation. My friend will advise me to an update to this if he goes out to do any enforcement on the trails or is told otherwise. 

 

Hope everyone has a great christmas   

It still seems to me a large waste of money, since they would be able to write fines all day at just about any straightaway if they sat waiting...Also seems to me that the impact would be much larger with a larger amount of fines.....Not encouraging, but just saying....i never go over 50 anyways of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, snowman said:

It still seems to me a large waste of money, since they would be able to write fines all day at just about any straightaway if they sat waiting...Also seems to me that the impact would be much larger with a larger amount of fines.....Not encouraging, but just saying....i never go over 50 anyways of course...

This will drive people out. Me included. I just returned from a weeks ski vacation, no cops telling me to slow down,to not drink , to not smoke a joint, no nazi demands my papers.  Sledding has lost the very reason I am in  it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoso said:

This will drive people out. Me included. I just returned from a weeks ski vacation, no cops telling me to slow down,to not drink , to not smoke a joint, no nazi demands my papers.  Sledding has lost the very reason I am in  it.

Maybe if we eliminated the entitled azzhats that don't give a rip about how their actions affect the rest of us we wouldn't be subject to this possibility.

 

For any chairbound bureaucrat in Queens Park or Orillia to expect ALL sledders to putt putt along railbeds @ 50 kph, they're dumber than we think they are.

 

As per usual the OPP is dealing w/ a perceived issue that all sledders are law breakers & treat us as such. When in fact those of us who enjoy the sport wish they would deal w/ the trespassers & 'reckless/dangerous' riders who don't or won't ride to conditions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...