Hi, I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two hundred meters, missed the turn, and totalled the vehicle. It doesn't seem reasonable to be charged with this serious charge for what seems to me to be a no-fault accident. Anyway, the police said "they had to" give me the ticket and told me to fight it (?!). Anyway, how should I plead my case? Can I get it dismissed? Should I go and get pictures of the scene, skid marks, etc.? Thanks for your help. I'm glad to have gotten away unharmed. Good luck to anyone else in a similar situation.
Hi,
I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two hundred meters, missed the turn, and totalled the vehicle. It doesn't seem reasonable to be charged with this serious charge for what seems to me to be a no-fault accident. Anyway, the police said "they had to" give me the ticket and told me to fight it (?!). Anyway, how should I plead my case? Can I get it dismissed? Should I go and get pictures of the scene, skid marks, etc.?
Thanks for your help. I'm glad to have gotten away unharmed. Good luck to anyone else in a similar situation.
They didn't HAVE to give you a ticket, they felt it was warranted in the situation and issued it. Read this: http://simonborys.wordpress.com/2011/02 ... -a-ticket/ That being said, this is a good scenario to hiring someone to assist you at a trial because there are some good questions to be asked about how they can prove that you were driving carelessly at the time of the collision without any witnesses. There is case law which says that mere fact of a collision is not prima facia evidence of careless driving.
That being said, this is a good scenario to hiring someone to assist you at a trial because there are some good questions to be asked about how they can prove that you were driving carelessly at the time of the collision without any witnesses. There is case law which says that mere fact of a collision is not prima facia evidence of careless driving.
Thanks for your response. OK, I understand why the police officers said that. About what to do now: I will go to the court house on Monday to arrange a trial date, and the yellow ticket says that I can meet a prosecutor in advance of the trial. Does that happen on Monday? I believe there are a number of mitigating circumstances: the poor signage, extremely sharp turn, layer of gravel/dirt on the paved road, hill, no ABS, and skid marks showing that I anticipated the turn hundreds of metres in advance. Should I get pictures of these facts and bring them with me on Monday or when I meet the prosecutor? Thanks, I appreciate the help.
Thanks for your response. OK, I understand why the police officers said that. About what to do now: I will go to the court house on Monday to arrange a trial date, and the yellow ticket says that I can meet a prosecutor in advance of the trial. Does that happen on Monday? I believe there are a number of mitigating circumstances: the poor signage, extremely sharp turn, layer of gravel/dirt on the paved road, hill, no ABS, and skid marks showing that I anticipated the turn hundreds of metres in advance. Should I get pictures of these facts and bring them with me on Monday or when I meet the prosecutor?
Also, I read on this site: http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html ##################################### More than a momentary lapse Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving: * The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do. * A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving. ... * Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven. ###################################### Would I be wrong to argue that seeing a turn a fraction too late (especially under the circumstances) is not more than a momentary lapse?
Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:
* The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.
* A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.
...
* Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.
######################################
Would I be wrong to argue that seeing a turn a fraction too late (especially under the circumstances) is not more than a momentary lapse?
To be honest many of the items you list as mitigating factors actually sound like evidence to support the careless charge. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but let me give you an idea of how a good Crown prosecutor would interpret your evidence. You admit you were driving on a road that you were unfamiliar with at night. The road was rural and the speed limit was 80 km/hr. The limit is the maximum speed under optimal conditions, not a minimum or recommended speed. Did you slow down at all due to your unfamiliarity with the road and time of day? You say there was gravel on the road surface. Is this uncommon in rural areas? You say you have no ABS. Were you not aware of this before the crash? Would this not be a reason to drive even slower under the circumstances if your vehicle is prone to skidding? You say you only observed the sign as you crested the hill. Could you see over crest of the hill as you approached it? Regardless of the sign, if you couldn't see over the hill on an unfamiliar road, why didn't you slow down as your crested the hill? How many other vehicles did you observe leaving the roadway due to the road conditions/signage? Careless is a hard charge to prove, so that is something in your favour. But based on what you've said, I think the Crown does have a reasonable prospect of conviction. The 100-200 meter skid is particularly significant in my opinion. That means even at the speed limit, assuming a constant speed of 80 km/hr, you were skidding for 5-10 seconds straight! I agree with Simon that you should probably get representation unless the Crown is willing to offer you a plea to a less serious offence. I'd strongly disagree it's a no fault accident (and your insurance company will as well). To say no fault implies there was nothing you could do to avoid it.
gwt wrote:
I believe there are a number of mitigating circumstances: the poor signage, extremely sharp turn, layer of gravel/dirt on the paved road, hill, no ABS, and skid marks showing that I anticipated the turn hundreds of metres in advance. Should I get pictures of these facts and bring them with me on Monday or when I meet the prosecutor?
To be honest many of the items you list as mitigating factors actually sound like evidence to support the careless charge. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but let me give you an idea of how a good Crown prosecutor would interpret your evidence.
You admit you were driving on a road that you were unfamiliar with at night. The road was rural and the speed limit was 80 km/hr. The limit is the maximum speed under optimal conditions, not a minimum or recommended speed. Did you slow down at all due to your unfamiliarity with the road and time of day? You say there was gravel on the road surface. Is this uncommon in rural areas? You say you have no ABS. Were you not aware of this before the crash? Would this not be a reason to drive even slower under the circumstances if your vehicle is prone to skidding? You say you only observed the sign as you crested the hill. Could you see over crest of the hill as you approached it? Regardless of the sign, if you couldn't see over the hill on an unfamiliar road, why didn't you slow down as your crested the hill? How many other vehicles did you observe leaving the roadway due to the road conditions/signage?
Careless is a hard charge to prove, so that is something in your favour. But based on what you've said, I think the Crown does have a reasonable prospect of conviction. The 100-200 meter skid is particularly significant in my opinion. That means even at the speed limit, assuming a constant speed of 80 km/hr, you were skidding for 5-10 seconds straight!
I agree with Simon that you should probably get representation unless the Crown is willing to offer you a plea to a less serious offence.
gwt wrote:
It doesn't seem reasonable to be charged with this serious charge for what seems to me to be a no-fault accident
I'd strongly disagree it's a no fault accident (and your insurance company will as well). To say no fault implies there was nothing you could do to avoid it.
Agree with Stanton - on everything. Get a traffic lawyer or paralegal.
Agree with Stanton - on everything.
Get a traffic lawyer or paralegal.
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Yes, I agree. Those facts don't help you. What you will likely need to do at trial, if it goes that far, is have a good agent who can force the crown to prove the offence without any witnesses, without introducing any of your own evidence, because as we've just seen, it may not be of any assistance to you. Also, a meeting with the prosecutor won't happen when you file to fight your ticket. You can arrange a date for that later.
Yes, I agree. Those facts don't help you. What you will likely need to do at trial, if it goes that far, is have a good agent who can force the crown to prove the offence without any witnesses, without introducing any of your own evidence, because as we've just seen, it may not be of any assistance to you.
Also, a meeting with the prosecutor won't happen when you file to fight your ticket. You can arrange a date for that later.
From what you said I would say you are guilty. Did you need to go to hospital? Did you give this story to the cop? My guess is if you got bumped on the head anything you said may not be used? Get a lot of pictures and any doctor notes. Cheers Viper1
gwt wrote:
Hi,
I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two hundred meters, missed the turn, and totalled the vehicle. It doesn't seem reasonable to be charged with this serious charge for what seems to me to be a no-fault accident. Anyway, the police said "they had to" give me the ticket and told me to fight it (?!). Anyway, how should I plead my case? Can I get it dismissed? Should I go and get pictures of the scene, skid marks, etc.?
Thanks for your help. I'm glad to have gotten away unharmed. Good luck to anyone else in a similar situation.
From what you said I would say you are guilty.
Did you need to go to hospital?
Did you give this story to the cop?
My guess is if you got bumped on the head anything you said may not be used?
Get a lot of pictures and any doctor notes.
Cheers
Viper1
"hang onto your chair when reading my posts
use at your own risk"
Thanks very much for your responses, certainly no offence taken. I listed these circumstances, because I thought they are things that are out of my control (with the exception of ABS and darkness, which I have foreknowledge of). And I'm familiar with the road, which probably led to complacency (I thought I knew what was coming). I shouldn't mention that either, I guess. But if the signage is poor, or if snow-clearing or construction trucks leave excessive gravel on the road, those are things not in my control and are mitigating factors, are they not? To put it differently: if a sign points left when the road goes right, and the driver gets confused and loses control, is that not a mitigating circumstance? If the sign at the top of the hill gives me less time to react, because the slope after the sign makes it more difficult to stop, is that a mitigating circumstance? It was at night, I saw the sign maybe half a second too late, slowed the car down somewhat, crested the hill, and then the momentum, gravel and slope caused me to slide (no rubber) down the hill going maybe 30 km/h through the turn and ditch. Sorry if I'm belabouring a point here; I understand that especially from the insurance conpany's point of view I am at fault. After I file, when I meet the prosecutor, should I just tell him I've never been in an accident in 20-odd years of driving and shut up about "mitigating circumstances" unless he asks? If it doesn't get dropped to "leaving the highway" or whatever the lesser charge is, then I can always go on to trial and hire a paralegal if necessary? No one addressed the "principles" listed on the website above: that "a momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment," or "mere inadvertent negligence" is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving; that "more than a bare act of negligence must be proven." I'm assuming I'd want to find specific cases where this is cited if it gets that far. No bumps on the head, physical examination by medics refused (I was fine). Missed a couple of trees and a pile of rocks on the way in, landed in a field (yes, very, very fortunate). I gave the police a short version, "didn't see the sign in time." Not counting on anything from insurance, since I don't have collision. Again, thanks for your comments. Really appreciated.
Thanks very much for your responses, certainly no offence taken. I listed these circumstances, because I thought they are things that are out of my control (with the exception of ABS and darkness, which I have foreknowledge of). And I'm familiar with the road, which probably led to complacency (I thought I knew what was coming). I shouldn't mention that either, I guess.
But if the signage is poor, or if snow-clearing or construction trucks leave excessive gravel on the road, those are things not in my control and are mitigating factors, are they not? To put it differently: if a sign points left when the road goes right, and the driver gets confused and loses control, is that not a mitigating circumstance? If the sign at the top of the hill gives me less time to react, because the slope after the sign makes it more difficult to stop, is that a mitigating circumstance?
It was at night, I saw the sign maybe half a second too late, slowed the car down somewhat, crested the hill, and then the momentum, gravel and slope caused me to slide (no rubber) down the hill going maybe 30 km/h through the turn and ditch.
Sorry if I'm belabouring a point here; I understand that especially from the insurance conpany's point of view I am at fault.
After I file, when I meet the prosecutor, should I just tell him I've never been in an accident in 20-odd years of driving and shut up about "mitigating circumstances" unless he asks? If it doesn't get dropped to "leaving the highway" or whatever the lesser charge is, then I can always go on to trial and hire a paralegal if necessary?
No one addressed the "principles" listed on the website above: that "a momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment," or "mere inadvertent negligence" is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving; that "more than a bare act of negligence must be proven." I'm assuming I'd want to find specific cases where this is cited if it gets that far.
No bumps on the head, physical examination by medics refused (I was fine). Missed a couple of trees and a pile of rocks on the way in, landed in a field (yes, very, very fortunate). I gave the police a short version, "didn't see the sign in time." Not counting on anything from insurance, since I don't have collision.
Again, thanks for your comments. Really appreciated.
With everything above spoke of above it is more than just a momentary lapse or simple error. It appears to be mulitple simple errors in judgement compounded. I lived on a gravel road for over 10 years. If it is fresh gravel (just put on road and graded) it is very recognizable by colour, feel of vehicle and sound (tires on it). Gravel roads on less predictable than paved, a pot hole can form during a day, the surface can change (all need is someone to spin a groove in road, ATV to do donuts, farm tractor to make a turn with heavy load, bulldozer to turn etc..). Hence need to "respect" the road at all times (day/night/rain/snow etc).
With everything above spoke of above it is more than just a momentary lapse or simple error. It appears to be mulitple simple errors in judgement compounded.
I lived on a gravel road for over 10 years. If it is fresh gravel (just put on road and graded) it is very recognizable by colour, feel of vehicle and sound (tires on it). Gravel roads on less predictable than paved, a pot hole can form during a day, the surface can change (all need is someone to spin a groove in road, ATV to do donuts, farm tractor to make a turn with heavy load, bulldozer to turn etc..). Hence need to "respect" the road at all times (day/night/rain/snow etc).
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
Just re-read start of post and doesn't make sense > rural road ..up a hill...with 90 degree turn at top....and road goes downhill? Can you give us all the road name and municipality so we can google image this to see what you are talking about. thank you
gwt wrote:
I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, .
Just re-read start of post and doesn't make sense > rural road ..up a hill...with 90 degree turn at top....and road goes downhill?
Can you give us all the road name and municipality so we can google image this to see what you are talking about. thank you
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
There are cases which stand for those propositions, but putting them into play at a trail is a skill, which is why you may want to hire a paralegal or lawyer. You can't just stand up and say, "R v Johnson!" and sit down and expect that they'll acquit you. You have to explain what the case stands for and how it applies to the facts of your case. That's the skill lawyer's learn in law school (and I assume paralegals learn as well).
gwt wrote:
No one addressed the "principles" listed on the website above: that "a momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment," or "mere inadvertent negligence" is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving; that "more than a bare act of negligence must be proven." I'm assuming I'd want to find specific cases where this is cited if it gets that far.
There are cases which stand for those propositions, but putting them into play at a trail is a skill, which is why you may want to hire a paralegal or lawyer. You can't just stand up and say, "R v Johnson!" and sit down and expect that they'll acquit you. You have to explain what the case stands for and how it applies to the facts of your case. That's the skill lawyer's learn in law school (and I assume paralegals learn as well).
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to give particulars until after it's settled. I went back to take pictures: you can't see the turn or yellow/black checkerboard sign until you crest the hill, then it's a fairly steep grade and about 80m until the turn. I could see some rubber from one tire; the other one was in the sand in the middle of the road. It's marked 60 km/h from the other direction (the road winds up/down the hill), but not from the direction I was travelling (80 km/h road). There should be a stop sign warning or 20 km/h sign there imo. Anyway, I'll report back once it's settled. Yes, if it goes to trial, I will need some help for sure. It's good to hear some scepticism here since that will be the prosecutor's or justice's perspective too. Thanks!
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to give particulars until after it's settled. I went back to take pictures: you can't see the turn or yellow/black checkerboard sign until you crest the hill, then it's a fairly steep grade and about 80m until the turn. I could see some rubber from one tire; the other one was in the sand in the middle of the road. It's marked 60 km/h from the other direction (the road winds up/down the hill), but not from the direction I was travelling (80 km/h road). There should be a stop sign warning or 20 km/h sign there imo. Anyway, I'll report back once it's settled.
Yes, if it goes to trial, I will need some help for sure. It's good to hear some scepticism here since that will be the prosecutor's or justice's perspective too. Thanks!
Hi, just wanted to post a follow-up to this. I went to talk to the prosecutor, and he was ready to drop the charge to a lesser one almost immediately, but having prepared myself with photos, etc. I still wanted to explain the situation. :) He got a little defensive and basically used some of the reasoning others posted here (familiarity with road, speed limit being maximum, etc.). He did seem to take the arguments of poor signage and sand/gravel on the road as reasonable, and I found out that the police had gotten the posted speeds wrong in their report (60 km/h instead of 80 km/h). Anyway, he offered the 2-point leaving the highway charge and I accepted. Seems like talking to these guys is usually a good idea. Thanks again to all; good luck with your tickets!
Hi, just wanted to post a follow-up to this. I went to talk to the prosecutor, and he was ready to drop the charge to a lesser one almost immediately, but having prepared myself with photos, etc. I still wanted to explain the situation. He got a little defensive and basically used some of the reasoning others posted here (familiarity with road, speed limit being maximum, etc.). He did seem to take the arguments of poor signage and sand/gravel on the road as reasonable, and I found out that the police had gotten the posted speeds wrong in their report (60 km/h instead of 80 km/h). Anyway, he offered the 2-point leaving the highway charge and I accepted. Seems like talking to these guys is usually a good idea. Thanks again to all; good luck with your tickets!
I got ticket for failing to stop at stop sign in Toronto. i heard that the police officer must see the stop line, if there is one, from where he was sitting. That is exactly my case, Is it a strong case? If so do i need a picture to show that there is a stop line and a picture to show that he could not see the stop line from where he was sitting?
I got a ticket, Disobey stop sign, sec 136.1.a on dec 6th
I made a left in an intersection and was pulled over by a police officer in an unmarked car who had been sitting down the road. A classic fishing hole situation. I was genuinely surprised when he stopped me and told me I went through a stop sign without even slowing down. I know to shut up and be polite and take the ticket. I…
Yesterday morning, I rear-ended someone. I was going the speed limit. The sun was directly in front of me and it blinded my windshield and my eyes. At the same time, the person in front of me stopped/slowed down (also due to the sun). I started to slow down but didn't stop and I hit them since I couldn't see anything. I was not driving too close initially. I…
I was driving in the county at night and hit a limousine stretched out side ways across the road. The limo had its lights on and had side lighting as well. The police officer charged me with careless driving because it was "fully lit up".
It took me to the next day to figure out what had happened - what I remember made no sense. What I had run across was a "false visual reference" illusion.
I was on hwy 37 trying to make my girlfriends ganadmas mass and I live an hour away and I had an hour to get there so I was going fast but not 50 over untill some idiot got on my tail soo close that I was to concentrated on him that I kept going faster untill I got pulled over at 147 on an 80 km hwy.
I alreaddy lost 3 points and this time was just the…
Hello, got stopped today for rolling a stop sign. Ticket says failure to stop, but quotes hta 1361b.
Doesn't 1361b mean failure to yield?
Is this a fatal error? Or could it be amended at trial. How can I prepare a defence if I don't know if I'm defending the failure to stop or the failure to yield?
After he was providing me with a ticket for failure to obey to the stop sign (I am pretty sure I stopped but less than 3 seconds recommended by my driver ed. instructor), I know everybody say that..as an excuse.
Then he stopped me again to return the documents.
Any advice and feed back would be really appreciated.
Can you get evidence for whether someone had an advanced green at an intersection? My dad was making a right turn on a red (after stopping) into a plaza parking lot. He got hit by someone making a left turn from the opposite lane. The driver told the officer called to the collision that he had an advance green. My dad said he came out of nowhere which makes me…
So i was driving on Eglinton Avenue East near Rosemount Ave.
The school bus was on the the curb on the opposite side of the road while i was travelling on the middle lane of the three-laned Eglinton Avenue East (five lanes apart plus a raised median island seperating the traffic)
I could not see the school bus as my view of the bus was being obstructed by the cars in front of me and on my left hand…
Lots of good information on getting disclosure from the Crown here.
Now, I am just wondering if I will be relying upon evidence of my own at trial... do I have to voluntarily send this material to the Crown in a reasonable time before the trial, or only if they request disclosure from me?
This morning I had an exam for university. I was studying the entire night and i wanted to catch like maybe 1-2 hours of sleep before the exam so i went to sleep. I woke up like 5 hrs after and realize that I was about to miss my exam. I still could have made it so I asked my dad for his car since I was in a huge rush and he gave it to me.
I went on the highway and I was going at 135 km/h but…
the police officer was in in the opesite oncumming lane he was fallowing another car so close that i was not even able to see his cruser till he was buy he said that i was going 111 in a 80 he said he hade me on radar he only asked for me drivers licencs and never asked for my insurence so on the ticket there no insurence dose enyone think i can beat this i wana take it to cort becuse he was…
Hi I have a couple questions so I'll explain my situation and any advice would be appreciated.
Can't remember exact date so lets call it some time in 2008 I got a fine for $5000.00 for driving without in insurance. I never paid the fine and in 2012 I was pulled over and the officer asked to see my license. Although I had it on me I figured it would be under suspension for the unpaid fine from…
Alright, so I did something really stupid the other day, I was driving down a country road and wanted to hit the curves so I passed 3 cars at once, inadvertently making it up to very much past 50 over (80 limit)... Much to my chagrin there was a cop coming in the opposite direction who immediately skidded on the gravel shoulder and who I thought was 100% going to turn around and pull me over,…
Anyone know how backed this courthouse is? I submitted my ticket for trial at the end of August, and still no letter. Im scared it got lost in the mail, can i call the courthouse and find out my courtdate? Or would i have to go in personally?
I recently received a ticket for failure to use low beams - while following - Ticket was issued Sec 168 (
- it was on the 401 and no one was within 500 meters of me, I was warning a oncoming vehicle that there was an officer hiding (which is not illegal or I could not find a law against it) it was a police vehicle travelling at very high rate of speed in the opposite direction with no lights on…
I received a warning letter from MTO for a 2pts ticket.What happened is that the police officer issued a "unsafe left turn" and then changed the ticket to "failed to signal" at the scene, but she submitted both tickets!!! And I !!!ONLY!!! received the latter ticket from her(I requested trial for "failed to signal"). I recently received notice from MTO that I'm convicted for "unsafe left turn".
Hello everyone! I was given a ticket for using a hand-held communication device while driving. It was 3 am, I was at a stop light and the cop saw me with the my phone in my hand. I told him i was just checking the time on it. I received the notes a few weeks ago ill copy them down below. Any help is appreciated although i believe there's no hope for me. The cop recorded me saying what phone i…
I got pulled over about 15 or so days ago the court till this date has not received the summons what is the legal time period that the court has to follow to accept the summons from the office court says its 15 days is the legal timeframe the officer has to serve it on the court
I requested for disclosure of information two months ago.
I received the radar manual after one month, but not others (including maintenance/calibration record of the radar, certificate of police training). On further pursuit, the prosecutor told me that he did not have them and he did not see why I needed these documents. He said he did not know where to get them when I asked.
Last Friday I was pulled over by an OPP motorcycle cop who informed me I was going 134. I was on the SB 404, I did see him parked under a bridge and when I passed him he was not on his bike.
I'm hoping to get some insight for a defense in this case.
I was in lane 1 and I had a car in front of me, and a car behind me, also there was a car speeding down Lane 3 passing everyone and moved quickly into…
He got a little defensive and basically used some of the reasoning others posted here (familiarity with road, speed limit being maximum, etc.). He did seem to take the arguments of poor signage and sand/gravel on the road as reasonable, and I found out that the police had gotten the posted speeds wrong in their report (60 km/h instead of 80 km/h). Anyway, he offered the 2-point leaving the highway charge and I accepted. Seems like talking to these guys is usually a good idea. Thanks again to all; good luck with your tickets!
