Pete,
Perhaps you could be a consultant for the Cobourg Police. You seem to have a good eye for un-safe vehicles.

Molten wrote:

---

Pete,
Perhaps you could be a consultant for the Cobourg Police. You seem to have a good eye for un-safe vehicles.

 

---

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see "bad' welds, "crappy' tires, & throttle linkage made out of a bath tub stopper chain!!!!  Believe me, I've seen this crap at car shows!!!!! 

dualquadpete wrote:

---

Saw a news posting on guys I phone last night saying Cobourg Police will be stopping any modified vehicle or any one they "think "is modified during the month of Aug. for extensive roadside safety checks. Newspaper article also said they are asking citizens to report vehicles & offering a $2000 reward if vehicle is found to be "UNSAFE"!!!!  I googled Cobourg police & Northumberland paper & sure enough there it is!!!  would suggest everyone AVOID Cobourg for this month unless your ride is "PERFECT" in the safety department in the eyes of the Cobourg police & the MTO, & MOE as paper said there were 17 charges laid in last mths. blitz in spot checks!!!  Geez, & I thought Port Perry was bad for MTO & MOE checks!!!  Think this beats it out???? 

---

 Port perry HA HA Ha Ha What a joke!!!!!!!!!

FYI =below an yes we won an yes there's more.

AFFIDAVIT
Information No.
10-15769-00
10-16015-00
10-16019-00
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Durham Region
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
FALSE ACCUSER

and
  Deleted- LEGAL Fiction

AFFIDAVIT OF Living Breathing Human Being.
:deleted
All Rights Reserved
Common Law Jurisdiction Claimed.

  Of the Geographical area of Ontario Canada.

Regional Municipality of Durham –.
1 September – seventh – in the year two thousand and ten.
P.C. Mark Ashworth badge # 3266 Working as a Peace Officer/Policy Enforcement Officer.
2 P.C. Mark Ashworth badge # 3266 [public servant] entered private lands seeking conflict/contract/joinder/-walked over to a private automobile [not in commerce] owned by the private land owner an began a illegal /unlawful- search of said automobile without consent - nor with reasonable cause - nor with a notarized warrant for such time/ place / lands /automobile/persons/.

"In determining whether or not a motor boat was included in the expression household effects, Matter of Winburn's Will, supra [139 Misc. 5, 247 N.Y.S. 592], stated the test to be ``whether the articles are or are not used in or by the household, or for the benefit or comfort of the family''." In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 785 (1955).
"The use to which an item is put, rather than its physical characteristics, determine whether it should be classified as ``consumer goods'' under UCC 9-109(1) or ``equipment'' under UCC 9-109(2)." Grimes v Massey Ferguson, Inc., 23 UCC Rep Serv 655; 355 So.2d 338 (Ala., 1978).
"Under UCC 9-109 there is a real distinction between goods purchased for personal use and those purchased for business use. The two are mutually exclusive and the principal use to which the property is put should be considered as determinative." James Talcott, Inc. v Gee, 5 UCC Rep Serv 1028; 266 Cal.App.2d 384, 72 Cal.Rptr. 168 (1968).
"The classification of goods in UCC 9-109 are mutually exclusive." McFadden v Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co., 8 UCC Rep Serv 766; 260 Md 601, 273 A.2d 198 (1971).
"The classification of ``goods'' under [UCC] 9-109 is a question of fact." Morgan County Feeders, Inc. v McCormick, 18 UCC Rep Serv 2d 632; 836 P.2d 1051 (Colo. App., 1992).
"The definition of ``goods'' includes an automobile." Henson v Government Employees Finance & Industrial Loan Corp., 15 UCC Rep Serv 1137; 257 Ark 273, 516 S.W.2d 1 (1974).
Household goods
"The term ``household goods'' ... includes everything about the house that is usually held and enjoyed there with and that tends to the comfort and accommodation of the household. Lawwill v. Lawwill, 515 P.2d 900, 903, 21 Ariz.App. 75" 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. Cites Mitchell's Will below.
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile Page 3 of 24


(2a)Entered private land’s without consent not working in proper capacity as when Officer was asked for his bond number claimed he had no idea as to what the question referred too.[ignorance is no excuse for the law]





Section 7.4 of the uniform bonding code "bonding of specific performance" states :

The Identification of a law enforcement officer declares the authority of the officer to act by :

number 3 , Stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the officer .

Number 4 stating the bond number of the officers bond.

an officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform and is acting as a regular citizen and is acting on his own personal liability.His personal property is then his true pledge under writing his authority.


So in essence he is not bondable if he cannot or will not provide this information to the public upon request.

"Bequest ... of such ``household goods and effects'' ... included not only household furniture, but everything else in the house that is usually held and used by the occupants of a house to lead to the comfort and accommodation of the household. State ex rel. Mueller v
Probate Court of Ramsey County, 32 N.W.2d 863, 867, 226 Minn. 346." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) 514.
"All household goods owned by the user there of and used solely for noncommercial purposes shall be exempt from taxation, and such person
entitled to such exemption shall not be required to take any affirmative action to receive the benefit from such exemption." Ariz. Const. Art. 9, 2









Automobiles classified as vehicles
"``[H]ousehold goods''...did not [include] an automobile...used by the testator, who was a practicing physician, in going from his residence to his office and vice versa, and in making visits to his patients." Mathis v Causey, et al., 159 S.E. 240 (Ga. 1931).
"Debtors could not avoid lien on motor vehicle, as motor vehicles are not ``household goods'' within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code lien avoidance provision. In re Martinez, Bkrtcy.N.M., 22 B.R. 7, 8." 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
Automobiles NOT classified as vehicles
"Automobile purchased for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of
employment was ``consumer goods'' as defined in UCC 9-109." Mallicoat v Volunteer Finance & Loan Corp., 3 UCC Rep Serv 1035; 415 S.W.2d 347 (Tenn. App., 1966).
"The provisions of UCC 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods (a term which includes automobiles, whether new or used, that are bought primarily for personal, family, or household use)." Maryland Independent Automobile Dealers Assoc., Inc. v Administrator, Motor Vehicle Admin., 25 UCC Rep Serv 699; 394 A.2d 820, 41 Md App 7 (1978).
"An automobile was part of testatrix' ``household goods'' within codicil. In re
Mitchell's Will, 38 N.Y.S.2d 673, 674, 675 [1942]." 19A Words and Phrases – Permanent Edition (West) 512. Cites Arthur v Morgan, supra.
"[T]he expression ``personal effects'' clearly includes an automobile[.]" In re Burnside's Will, 59 N.Y.S.2d 829, 831 (1945). Cites Hillhouse, Arthur, and Mitchell's Will, supra.
"[A] yacht and six automobiles were ``personal belongings'' and ``household effects[.]''" In re Bloomingdale's Estate, 142 N.Y.S.2d 781, 782 (1955).
NO Law requires you to record / pledge your private automobile


CONCLUSION
Is an automobile always a vehicle (or motor vehicle)? No.
This is a question of fact that turns on the use to which the automobile in question is put (i.e., either personal or commercial). While the presumption of an automobile being a vehicle (or motor vehicle) is created by the owner of said automobile registering same with the state as a vehicle, this presumption may be overcome by an
affirmative defense to the allegation of the automobile being a vehicle, baring any evidence to the contrary indicating commercial use.

3 P.C. Mark Ashworth :Entered private land’s without consent not working in proper capacity as when Officer was asked for his bond number claimed he had no idea as to what the question referred too.[ignorance is no excuse for the law]
(a) A bonding company will not bond a defective statute because it does not want to pay the claim on the misuse of the statute.

(b) A bonding company shall not bond negligence.

(c) If a statute can easily be misused to get money or power, its misuse is virtually certain.

(d) Defective statutes invite the deliberate misuse of the statutes.

(E) Deliberate misuse (misapplication) of a statute is a criminal act.

(f) No statutes are bonded against deliberate misuse, i.e., criminal use

(g) An officer is acting without the protection of a municipal bond , is acting on the municipal corporate assests, or is acting “out of uniform” and on his own personal liability if he:

(1) behaves in a clearly anti-social manner,


(2) does not have an education in law adequate for his specific Performance as a law enforcement officer.


(3) is not adequately bonded for law enforcement,i:e. to enforce law


(4) does not have an adequate identification card or does not show his identification

card or does not show his identification card when necessary.


(5) act on an judication statue,and/or


(6) violates a citizen’s constitution rights or equal protection of the law.


(7) The identification card of a law enforcement officer declares the authority to the
Officer to act by:




(1) stating the specific performance of his job for which he is bonded , such as the class of states he is bonded to enforce,


(2) stating that he is licensed and bonded.


(3) stating the name of the bonding company which is bonding the executive acts of the
officer ,and


(4) stating the bond (policy ) number of the officers bond(insurance)


An officer who cannot or does not display his official identification card is deemed out of uniform an acting as an ordinary citizen on his own personal liability .his personal property is then the true pledge underwriting his authority.


Liability by association:


An officer can be sued for injury caused by acts) of another officer, if the acts)was committed and injury was caused while the two officers worked together. The assessment of transfer of liability rest upon such concepts as reasonable diligence, accident, neglect, and conspiracy.










S.52 of the Consititution covers this:

Criminal acts include acts committed in violation of a citizen's constitutional rights and in violation of guarantees of equal protection of the law (civil rights).


(5) When P.C. Ashworth was demanded to stop. Stated he had every right to continue [in which he did not].
As he was told and demanded to stop as he was trespassing on the alleged accused estate- without expressed written consent to adjudicate/probate/administer-the estate or affair’s.





(6) Code of conduct section 2.11 States there is no power to stop or detain a ”person”
[using the word “person lighty as a “person” is a corporate entity /legal fiction.]
In order to find grounds for a search.

3: 10 Before the search takes place the officer
must inform the person (or the owner or person
in charge of the vehicle that is to be searched) of
his or her entitlement to a copy of the record of
the search, including his entitlement to a record of
the search if an application is made within 12
months, if it is wholly impracticable to make a
record at the time. If a record is not made at the
time the person should also be told how a copy
can be obtained (see section 4).The person should
also be given information about police powers to
stop and search and the individual’s rights in these
circumstances.

4.2 A copy of a record made at the time must be
given immediately to the person who has been
searched.The officer must ask for the name,
address and date of birth of the person searched,
but there is no obligation on a person to provide
these details and no power of detention if the
person is unwilling to do so.

Torture
269.1 (1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
Definitions
(2) For the purposes of this section,
• “official”
« fonctionnaire »
“official” means
(a) a peace officer,
(b) a public officer,
(c) a member of the Canadian Forces, or
(d) any person who may exercise powers, pursuant to a law in force in a foreign state, that would, in Canada, be exercised by a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c),
whether the person exercises powers in Canada or outside Canada;
• “torture”
« torture »
“torture” means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person
(a) for a purpose including
(i) obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a statement,
(ii) punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, and
(iii) intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or
(b) for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
No defence
(3) It is no defence to a charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or a public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject-matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency.
Evidence
(4) In any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction,(jurisdiction can only be assumed upon “CONSENT”)any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an offence under this section is inadmissible in evidence, except as evidence that the statement was so obtained.
• R.S., 1985, c. 10 (3rd Supp.), s. 2.
Fabricating evidence
137. Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
• R.S., c. C-34, s. 125.

Improper disclosure of information
8 For the purposes of section 4 (1) (d), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of improper disclosure of information if the police officer
(a) except as required in the performance of his or her duties, as authorized by his or her supervisor or as required by due process of law,
(i) discloses information that is acquired by the police officer in the course of being a police officer, or
(ii) removes or copies a record of any municipal police department or a police force, or
(b) makes, signs or circulates a petition or statement, in respect of a matter concerning any municipal police department or a police force,
(i) knowing that all or any part of the petition or statement is false, or
(ii) having reckless disregard as to the truth of the petition or statement.


Deceit
For the purposes of section 4 (1) (c), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of deceit if
(a) the police officer makes or signs a false, misleading or inaccurate oral or written statement or entry in any official document or record, or
(b) the police officer, with intent to deceive, falsify or mislead,
(i) destroys, mutilates or conceals all or any part of an official document or record, or
(ii) alters, erases or adds to any entry in an official document or record.
Discreditable conduct
5 For the purposes of section 4 (1) (a), a police officer commits the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct if
(a) the police officer, while on duty, acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner that is
(i) prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed, or
(ii) likely to discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed,
(b) the police officer's conduct, while on duty, is oppressive or abusive to any person,
(c) the police officer contravenes a provision of the Act, a regulation, rule or guideline made under the Act, or does not comply with a standing order of the municipal police department with which the police officer is employed,
(d) the police officer withholds or suppresses a complaint or report against any other officer,
(e) the police officer fails to report to an officer whose duty it is to receive the report, or to Crown counsel, any information or evidence, either for or against any prisoner or defendant, that is material to an alleged offence under an enactment of British Columbia or Canada, or
(f) the police officer suppresses, tampers with or fails to disclose to an investigating officer, or to the discipline authority of a respondent, information that is material to a proceeding or potential proceeding under Part 9 of the Act.

Disciplinary defaults
4 (1) In this Code, "disciplinary default" means
(a) discreditable conduct,
(b) neglect of duty,
(c) deceit,
(d) improper disclosure of information,
(e) corrupt practice,
(f) abuse of authority,
(g) improper use and care of firearms,
(h) damage to police property,
(i) misuse of intoxicating liquor or drugs in a manner prejudicial to duty,
(j) conduct constituting an offence,
(k) being a party to a disciplinary default, or
(l) improper off-duty conduct.
(2) It is a breach of this Code to commit, or to attempt to commit, a disciplinary default referred to in subsection (1).


R vs.Trask (1985),45CR. (3d) 137,18 c.c.c. (3d) 514(s.c.c.)-Where defendant has been denied the right to retain an instruct counsel without DELAY, evidence  should be excluded because its admission would, in all the circumstances, bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

A friend sent us this:An is 100% correct in term's of those who consent via; tacit agreements an by ignoring the Constitution!


Not convinced you’re a slave?


If everything you think you own was acquired with IOUs, is what you acquired really yours, or the one who loaned you the “money”? If you own nothing and have no hope of owning anything, aren’t you a slave?



The Dollar is not money; it’s a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE (IOU / Debt).

The FEDERAL RESERVE is no more FEDERAL than Federal Express (FedEx).

The FEDERAL RESERVE has no reserves; they counterfeit currency out of thin air (computer bits).

The FEDERAL RESERVE is a private bank which charges interest on all of the Dollars in circulation (Typically 3% annually – the same rate as inflation). One mans inflation is another mans deflation.

The FEDERAL RESERVE Act was passed by Congress (Fraudulently) in 1913. It's fraudulent because it violates the US/Canadian Constitution(s) (contract) and Natural Law (Unlawful). Twenty years later in 1933 the Gold Seizure Act was passed and all of " NORTH"Americas Gold and Silver was Seized (Fraudulently), under threat of Fine ($350K in today's value) or 10 years in Prison (Extortion). Notice that WW1 (1914) and WW2 (1939) took place shortly after each Crime which concealed the Crimes with the Fog of War. All is fair in love and war (or so they say). After the Gold was Seized the price of Gold was reset from $20.00/oz to $35.00/oz to reflect the "Interest earned" during that 20 year period. Every 20 years since the value of the Dollar is cut in half, and today 100 years later the value of the Dollar has been cut in half five times (Rule of 72 / 78).

If you are inclined to reject my claims, please check with Ron Paul (YouTube) or G. Edward Griffin the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island.

As the FEDERAL RESERVE is not Federal it could be called McDonald's, Coca Cola, Halliburton, or Monsanto, they are all Corporations (Legal Persons / Legal Fiction / Fraud). Fraud is made Legal when we Consent to the Fraud. One function of a Jury is to Nullify any Legal Fiction (Fraud) the people find repugnant.

The legal definition of a NOTE is; A promise to pay:

Google wrote:
note - Legal Definition. n. In commercial law, a writing representing a promise by a maker to pay a specified amount of money to a payee or to the bearer, on demand or by a specified date. A short article in a law review, typically written by a law student.

The FEDERAL RESERVE is not promising to pay you, they are informing you that the Dollar in your pocket and bank account is theirs, and everything you have acquired with Dollars; House, Car, Motorcycle, Clothes, Food, Vacation, etc. – all belongs to the FEDERAL RESERVE, and by extension you and I are their slaves.

There is no need to distress, because all of this activity is FRAUD, committed by the FEDERAL RESERVE and its minions. However it will never be addressed as Fraud, unless or until the FEDERAL RESERVE or the Criminals are charged with their crimes and brought to justice.

In case you missed it; WW3 is the End Game. If the Criminals get us to kill each other and ignore them the Criminals (1%) win, if we refuse to fight each other and go after the Criminals instead and bring the Criminals to Justice, humanity (99%) wins.


Please make copies and spread it around!

peace

-

Iwannagofast wrote:

---

toomuchjunk wrote:

---

HOOLIGANS that's all they are is HOOLIGANS !!! 

---

 LOL

---

 Good grief Randy I'm surprised you noticed my post after the BOOK that was posted after it!!! 

TMJ

Well my truck sounds great but could be considered loud.
So I'm out, can't goto Cobourg anymore.

All,

I've re-read through this post a few times now and I really think some of you are missing the point.  If you want to try and turn this into some sort of conspiracy theory, why not stick it to the man and just drive a safe car.  You have access to all the regulations, you know what is legal, so either fix it or don't drive it on the road..... period.  I don't want the police wasting time pulling over a 2012 Caliber looking for modifications and bad frame welds, its a waste of my tax dollars.  As some of you already know I got hurt in a head on crash with some !@#$hole who decided it was a god given right to drive an unsafe modified piece of crap on a public hwy.  It came across a double yellow and I get to pay for his selfishness ever since.  Do you really think the Mayor of Cobourg will be upset that you are threatening to keep your unsafe cars out of his township?  To me, all you are doing is making yourself and the rest of us look foolish.  Yes, as a matter of fact I have been "inspected" by both the MTO and the MOE for compliance.  I found the officers to be both knowledgeable and respectful and I fully embrace the process without reservation.  As a suggestion, why not take all of the energy you seem to have to fight "the man" and invest it in checking ball joints and aiming headlights.  The little kid you don't run over will thank you.      

If you don't agree with a particular vehicle requirement, by all means challenge the law and get it changed through the proper channels.  Until then, the e-laws website will show you exactly what the vehicle requirements are to operate your ride on a highway.  I hear where you are coming from, but you simply do not get to pick and choose when it comes to vehicle requirements.  If you as a vehicle owner (not picking on you personally) choose to make changes to a cars frame or, in the case of the car that hit me, decide to put the wrong size tires on the front and it contributes to an injury, its not just a ticket, its "criminal negligence causing bodily harm".  I'd really like to see all you guys take a lesson from what happened to me.  The clown that hit me probably did not mean any harm either but that does not help me much does it?

I've mentioned this before and I'll keep getting back on point.  What are you going to feel like if something you did hurts someone or your wife or your son or daughter?  I'm not talking about recalls here, I'm talking about the dumb ass modifications people make like wheel spacers, frame connectors, 4 link rears, cages etc.  Ok for the track, not for the street.  You don't get a second chance at this stuff guys.

Smokin Joe wrote:

---

Last night at the show on the 115 a rat rod there would have looked better in a scrap yard. The one that had 39 on the doors. Bungee straps holding down the hood and hood pins holding the wheel nuts. But the worst part was I could see the white cords in the cracks of the tires.

---

That's the one I was talking about with the "Cracked" tires!!!!  Guess he didn't burn them off & still driving on them??? That's what paints us all with the 'BAD" brush 

Livetodrive wrote:

---

All,

 

  I don't want the police wasting time pulling over a 2012 Caliber looking for modifications and bad frame welds, its a waste of my tax dollars.    

---

 Ok what about a car that's been hit in a rear end collision an not properly fixed?[or other wise]

What type of car is on the road more often?

The rat rod/hot rod or the 2012 caliber?

Which is more then likely to have more then one occupant?

Which is more likely to a child seat or child in such car?

37 years in the collision industry says there's alot more improperly repaired on the roads then the older ones...an of course the government will target the old thus cause u own it you're not indebted to anyone....

No boogyman here, I'm just sharing personal experience, some facts and physics.  Look at it this way, if you make a modification, it has not been crash tested, may be better or worse but I personally don't think its worth risking it, on the street.  We all have too much to lose and its unfair to other people on the road to put them at risk while we "test".  I had a big block e-body myself (Call me dumb ass #1) with frame connectors and I installed solid engine mounts because the left side kept tearing.  Buddy at Chrysler pointed out that in an accident the mounts are designed to shear off and the engine should slide down and away from the passengers as the K frame bends up.  Who knows what my set up would do?  I put the rubber mounts back in and drove the car for the next 25 years without incident so who knows?  The fact that we are talking about this and people are looking out for each other at the shows suggests we are making some progress.   By the way, wheel spacers have been illegal in Ontario since July 1st for all LDV cars.

I admit I may be slightly bias, at least once or twice each week at work I get assigned to assist a motorist that has had his plates pulled for modifications.  Sometimes, the only fix is to return the vehicle back to its original configuration.  I'm not kidding when I tell you I've actually had to listen to guys cry in frustration because they spent XXX dollars.  Just don't want one of you to be that guy.

Bob, In other news, I posted the follow up on that Turnpike Cruiser and never heard back from you???  This car is a little out of my era so I'm looking for some thoughts.  It has a really strange thermostatic air door on the air cleaner with what looks like 1 normal spring and one thermostatically controlled spring.  I wired it open temporarily and I'll try and get a pic next time he comes by the shop, does anyone know how these ones work?

Agree X2.  If there is a way to do this without starting a pissing match we all benefit!

Poncho,

After 20 years I think they would have a hard time proving negligence against an individual.  If the individual has a conscience like mine they would probably have a hard time living with themselves though.  If it was a shop it might be a different story.  I remembered this one from a while back.

 http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/mechanics-found-liable-for-single-vehicle-collision-for-negligent-brake-repair

Well we're at it!!

What about headlights being made irresponsibly out of plastic?
How many Alleged G 1 travelers cant see? Hell no one can see with them as they glaze over..
Just came in from fixing three set's ...wet sand dry clear coat..that simple..!!
However they should not be produced in the first F@@k"n -place.

Quote by livetodrive..
I had a chance to work with some engineers at both Ford and Chrysler...epic fail on the headlights...
Did you also know Halogen headlights are still illegal??
Back in the 70's they were blinding people an causing unintentional collision's an were banned to which is still written!,as well as solid mounted hood ornaments an wheel spinners.
How about how bright FORD truck headlights are to this day?[ not to mention others ! Who's Liable?
Who is gonna pay the Alleged "PERSON(S)" bills when You all have a right to"FREE" health  care {yes its written} for lazer eye surgery?
Or for the Sh@t show after the fact?

Did you also know you dont have to pay too be in an old age home..Food or housing.=Thats for a possible other thread.?

Livetodrive wrote:

---

Good point.  Does anyone else remember getting sent to the Downsview "safety lanes" in their youth?

---

 Yes