Speeding violation: Ticket says 82 km in an 80km. Fight it?

I was pulled over a couple days ago going down a steep incline on my way to Cobourg. In order to get up a hill in my vehicle, I have to go at least 90 or it gets stuck between gears and then when I was going down the hill I wasn't riding my brake or touching the gas, it just gained speed. When I saw the police car, I was attempting to slow down and at the bottom of the hill got down to 85 or so. I was speeding coming down the hill, at least 105 or 110. And I admit this. My car gains 20 km on hills like that.

The officer was nice enough to reduce the ticket to 82 km in an 80km zone. Otherwise, I would have had demerit points and a hefty ticket. I was also shaking like a leaf, I've never been pulled over ever before. I am wondering if I take this ticket to Early Resolution (set a court date), if I am able to explain to them how much it will cost me in insurance regardless of 2km or 10km or 20km. Insurance doesn't care, it will still cost me thousands in the long run and I made 13, 000 last year.

So although it would make sense to Plead Guilty, as it is only a 25.00 fine. I am thinking long term. I don't want to piss off the officer. But can the courts see that the ticket was reduced? If yes, then I should probably just pay it. It does not say anywhere on the electronic printout ticket what the actual true speed he clocked me at was.

Just a simple 'speeding 82km in an 80 km zone.'

So bottomline, a) if I pick Option 3, firstly do I get to talk to Early Resolution first before having to face the officer in a courtroom?

and b) Do they have a way of seeing it was a reduced ticket? Or can the officer show a track record of his radar thing in his car? Showing my specific vehicle?

I can't upload the ticket on this computer. But I will use another if I can. Please advise! I'm lost on what to do.

Britnee

Speeding is an absolute liability offence. What this means is that your explanation as to why you were speeding is irrelevant, you're still guilty of the offence by your own admission.

As for the reduction, no your actual speed is not recorded on the ticket, but the fact that it was reduced probably is. Near the bottom right hand side of the ticket is a little box that says "Code" in it. Typically on reduced tickets (not sure about electronic ones) there will be the letter "R" indicating it was reduced. Second, any good Crown will realise that no police officer would actually stop someone for only going 2 over the limit.

If you do seek a meeting with the Crown, they will request a copy of the officers notes. The Crown will then know how fast you were actually going before they make any kind of deal. To be honest, I can't believe the break you got at the side of the road. 15 over tickets are pretty common since they involve a relatively small fine and no demerit points, but 2 over is pretty unheard of.

The Crown won't be interested in how the ticket affects your insurance considering the break you already got and I can't see you getting any kind of reduction. Also, be aware that depending on the jurisdiction, at trial you could face the original speeding charge (30 over in your case) which would likely have much more serious consequences in terms of insurance.

Now that being said have you actually checked with your insurance company to see what a minor speeding ticket would do to your rates? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that most insurance companies will ignore one minor speeding infraction (15 or less).

At the end of the day, if you're really worried, you could hire a paralegal to represent you. It's possible that there could be some fatal error on the face of the ticket or something lacking in the officers notes that would require the charge to be withdrawn. In my humble opinion though, if you tried going to trial on a 2 over ticket, you'd probably garner very little sympathy from the Courts.

This is true, but I don't see a code. And no speeding ticket is better than having one at all

Yep. And a 2 over is much better then a 30 over.

So what are you asking? If you're determined you want to fight it, try getting a paralegal to represent you.

Regardless if the ticket is marked as reduced or not, the Crown will be aware of the fact when they get the officer's notes for a first appearance meeting. They're not simply going to drop the charge since you've already gotten such a good break. We don't have any kind of traffic school alternative here in Ontario like some US states. There is either going to need to be a fatal error on the ticket for it to be quashed, or go to trial and hope the Crown can't prove the offense (but you'll probably need representation for that).

Again though, if you go to trial in a jurisdiction where they can relay the charge to the original 30 over, that would be way too much of a gamble in my opinion unless you're sure the Crown can't prove the offense.

Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with everything Stanton has said. The officer gave you a big break. Personally, if I were ever so lucky as to get that kind of a break, I'd pay it ASAP. Since it happened in a rural part of Ontario, the odds are very good that the Prosecutor will seek to amend the ticket to the original speed if you choose to fight it. My insurance company will forgive one ticket for 15 or less over (and did) in a 3-year period. Some have zero tolerance. You'll have to see what your insurance company's policy is.

As for having an "R" code or not, it doesn't matter. It's "advisory information only."

Speeding tickets are not easy to fight. You have to either have some kind of technicality or hope the officer does not show up for trial. In rural Ontario, the officer will almost surely be there. Here's what the Prosecutor has to show to secure a conviction:

1. Officer was trained and qualiifed in the use of the speed-measuring device (their testimony saying exactly that is sufficient)

2. Officer tested the device before and after the stop (must be in the officer's notes)

3. Officer visually observed your vehicle speeding

4. After the visual observation, backed it up with a measurement from the speed-measuring device

5. Stopped your vehicle without losing sight of it (momentary loss of sight while turning around, etc, is okay)

6. Identified you as the driver

The officer will likely testify to that. Unless you can prove otherwise, they'll accept that and convict you. The only defence then is "defence of necessity," which means that you were in a life-threatening emergency and had to speed. Your vehicle's tendency to gain speed on hills is not "defence of necessity." They may or may not offer early resolution ("First Attendance"), it all depends on the Prosecutor's office. You could very well have to face the officer at trial with no chance of an early resolution. As for track record, etc., from the radar, the answer is no, it doesn't exist. However, it is not required. The courts will accept the officer's testimony that he got your speed off the radar. Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is not required, particularly with minor regulatory offences like speeding.