117 in a 90

I've had my G2 for 5 days and got a ticket today for the above speed. If it matters, when I got the ticket it was pouring rain. I've checked the ticket and don't believe I'm one of the lucky ones with a fatal error. What should I do?

I'm looking at ticket combat and they list "speeding x km/hr in an x km/hr-zone" as a fatal error, this is what my ticket has on it. This is because it's an "unknown offence." So am i in the clear?

The "speeding x km/h in an x km/h zone" would refer to an error by the officer in writing the ticket, as in: "Speeding 60 km/h in a 86 km/h zone." Well, an 86 km/h zone means that you can drive up to 86 km/h before you're speeding, and if the person was doing 60, then they're not breaking the law. In my example, the officer would've meant to have written "speeding 86 km/h in a 60 km/h zone."

What that means for you is if your ticket says "speeding 117 km/h in a 90 km/h zone," there is no error. If the officer reversed it and accidentally wrote "speeding 90 km/h in a 117 km/h zone," then it IS a fatal error. Is that what happened?

BTW where did this occur?

golfer0012 wrote:

I'm looking at ticket combat and they list "speeding x km/hr in an x km/hr-zone" as a fatal error, this is what my ticket has on it. This is because it's an "unknown offence." So am i in the clear?

That should instead say: "speeding x km/hr in an y km/hr-zone, where x < y"

Okay I thought something seemed wrong with that being a fatal error anyway. It was on HWY 11, and the officer listed Severn Township, Simcoe County.

racer wrote:

That should instead say: "speeding x km/hr in an y km/hr-zone, where x < y"

Ah yes.

golfer0012 wrote:

Okay I thought something seemed wrong with that being a fatal error anyway. It was on HWY 11, and the officer listed Severn Township, Simcoe County.

There are a couple of ways of going about this. Speeding tickets usually do not have too many tricks or stunts we can pull that are sure to work, but right now one of our newest members is heading to court to see if he can set a precedent regarding proper testing of radar devices. If he is successful, that will give you lots of ammo, but nothing's done yet so standby on that one.

For the time being, if you wish to fight the ticket, there are a couple of options to look at. The first step would be sending in the ticket to plead not guilty and request a trial, the second would be to get disclosure of the Crown's evidence against you. In your disclosure request, ask for a copy of the speed-measuring device manual. When you get all of the information, you will get a clearer picture of how to proceed.

If it looks like they've got a solid case against you and they gave you proper disclosure, etc., then you can look at plea-bargain options and the like.

Thanks for your help.

I would suggest you fight the ticket anyways. You can plea-bargain to have it dropped to 15 over (no points). Paralegals (like X-Copper, which can be contacted by the form on the bottom of the page) might get rid of it altogether, and you don't have to take a day off work to go to court either.

I've had my G2 for 5 days and got a ticket today ?

And people wonder why young drivers have HIGH insurance rates and more likely to have a collision.

Inexperience with traffic situations AND inexperience with speed are a cause of those collisions, it is more then just speed.

And people wonder why young drivers have HIGH insurance rates and more likely to have a collision.

Actually, I'd like to know why 99% of accidents aren't caused by the "newbs"!!

I had my G1 for a week before my first ticket, 82 in a 50 reduced to 70.

I definitely see why young males especially, have huge insurance bills, I can't think of one guy I know, who has their G2, who hasn't gone ridiculous speeds on a road where they knew there wouldn't be a cop. For my ticket I was late for a lesson with my golf coach, and was going too fast in an effort to make it on time. Looking back I feel really stupid for going that much over, especially when it's raining and you have a tough time seeing/ seeing undercover cruisers hidden off on the side of the road. I will definitely be going to court for this, but apparently this justice system works because I'm now driving appropriate speeds, instead of what I was going before the ticket.

golfer0012 wrote:

I definitely see why young males especially, have huge insurance bills, I can't think of one guy I know, who has their G2, who hasn't gone ridiculous speeds on a road where they knew there wouldn't be a cop. For my ticket I was late for a lesson with my golf coach, and was going too fast in an effort to make it on time. Looking back I feel really stupid for going that much over, especially when it's raining and you have a tough time seeing/ seeing undercover cruisers hidden off on the side of the road. I will definitely be going to court for this, but apparently this justice system works because I'm now driving appropriate speeds, instead of what I was going before the ticket.

Unfortunately you just justified all the insurance industry claims! Live and learn....man does that sound DAD-like or what.

Having been a young male driver, I agree that I took unnecessary risks and that, as a whole, the group probably has more accidents than other demographics. BUT, why start with the assumption that all young drivers are bad? Why not start by charging normal rates -- then raise rates according to the driver's record?

reflections wrote:

Unfortunately you just justified all the insurance industry claims! Live and learn....man does that sound DAD-like or what.

You have no idea how much I wish that sounded like my dad. They have live ballistic missiles which will be safer to be around, then when he found out. I've told my mom and she is just disappointed that there's no way we can't tall him.

If all young male drivers started out with normal rates, there would be a lot of collisions with thousands being payed out after only having collected a couple hundred bucks from the insured.

Yes I do realize this ticket just further confirms the stereotype.

pch2004 wrote:

Why not start by charging normal rates -- then raise rates according to the driver's record?

Short answer: Because that would cost them $$$ in profits, as golfer0012 was saying.

The insurance companies try to predict how much money they'll have to pay out in claims per driver. They look at how much money, on average, driver "X" will cost them based on crash history, age, etc., and compare them to the statistical average, then they set the rate. In short, it's pre-emptively stocking up the cash in anticipation of a claim. I agree that it is unfair to responsible young drivers. Unfortunately, there are also enough irresponsible young drivers on the road.

Some insurance companies do a more in-depth analysis, which is why a handful of them will forgive minor traffic infractions like speeding 15 km/h over the limit, if it happens once every couple of years - said driver is not statistically more likely to crash than any other average driver. Others use any variation from "absolute law abiding driver" to raise the rates.