In another thread it was brought up about a LEO exercising right to speed without lights\siren for the purpose of "traffic enforcement". The MVA emergency vehicle act states :
4 (1) A peace officer operating an emergency vehicle for purposes other than pursuit may exercise the privileges granted by section 122 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act if
(a) the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the risk of harm to members of the public from the exercise of those privileges is less than the risk of harm to members of the public should those privileges not be exercised, and
(2) Having determined that there are reasonable grounds referred to in subsection (1) (a), the peace officer referred to in subsection (1) may, in the following circumstances, exercise any of the privileges granted by section 122 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act without operating an emergency light and siren or by operating an emergency light alone:
So it is legal for an officer to drive at above the speed limit if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the risk to public safety is greater if they do not stop the offence. So, What is the logic that allows an officer to speed to catch a speeder? What I mean is, If an LEO says its dangerous to speed, but then they speed to catch you, thats hipocritical, which would then be illegal\non justifiable?
(6) Factors which will increase the risk of harm to members of the public for purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (5) include
(a) attempting to close the distance between a peace officer's vehicle and another vehicle,
Does this statement not make it illegal for an officer to drive above the speed limit for the purposes of "traffic duty"?