57 or 58km/hr in 40 zone & Insurance Card Tickets

milkdewsalesdh
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:28 pm

57 or 58km/hr in 40 zone & Insurance Card Tickets

by: milkdewsalesdh on
Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:34 pm

First time being issued a ticket, but unfortunately got two. Would really appreciate some thoughts:

1. Speeding 58km/hr in 40 zone - Set fine $45 -> Total Payable $60
Officer used a laser/radar and caught me coming down a hill just as it transitioned from 50 to 40. He mentioned our interaction was being recorded, BUT said he stopped me because he clocked me at 57 km/hr, however the ticket says 58 km/hr.

2. Failure to Surrender Insurance Card - $65
My insurance card was not received upon renewal, but when inquired about, was sent an electronic copy and told it would suffice. Evidently it wasn't sufficient because the officer said it was not acceptable.
I have since received an original insurance card indicating coverage for the ticket period. The officer did suggest that I show this to the prosecutor.

Questions:

For ticket 1 - If I ask for disclosure and the officer's notes or audio recording state 57 km/hr as per what he told me, is that dismissable grounds? How is the fine calculated? He cites HTA 128, but it says $3/km over. 18x$3 = $54; is his math off? Should I do nothing about this ticket and treat it as an incorrect fine and not tip off the prosecutor?

For ticket 2 - Do I Mark "Early Resolution - Meet with Prosecutor" now that I have the original insurance card, or go for a trial? Will it complicate matters that I have another ticket (a speeding one) that I intend to take to trial (unless you guys suggest I do nothing about it)?


User avatar
highwaystar
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:46 pm

Posting Awards

by: highwaystar on
Fri Apr 03, 2015 10:11 pm

The speeding fine amount is correct. The cost is actually $2.50/km as per the 'set fine' amounts; not the statutory rate you are referring to. So, the fine should be; 18x$2.50 =$45 plus $5 court cost plus $10 victim fine surcharge for a total of $60.

You can choose option B for both tickets to meet with a prosecutor. They will likey drop the speeding to 15 over so there are no demerit points and will drop the fine amount on the insurance slip charge. Very few jurisdictions now actually drop the insurance slip charge---rather they just offer you a reduced fine. After all, its a very easy case for them to win--very black or white so there's little reason to withdraw it. They know you really have no defence. Every little bit of cash for the public coffers help!

Don't pay either ticket---you always fight traffic tickets as a package. That way, the prosecutor may be more willing to drop the insurance slip charge if you agree to plea on the speeding charge. No guarantee but it at least provides you with some bargainning leverage.


ynotp
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:08 pm
Location: Ontario

Posting Awards

by: ynotp on
Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:57 am

If it was a speeding ticket own it's possible you could attack the officers credibility with regards to speeding if the notes and audio showed inconsistency with the actual charge on the ticket. But even if this is true and the JP finds in your favour (you would have to have a really good cross examination and a VERY sympathetic JP) this still leaves you with an insurance card ticket.

As Highwaystar has pointed out that in all likelihood your best outcome is going to getting once charged dropped and the other reduced.

As it is your right, I would review disclosure before committing to any guilty plea.


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on
Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:27 am

milkdewsalesdh wrote:He mentioned our interaction was being recorded, BUT said he stopped me because he clocked me at 57 km/hr, however the ticket says 58 km/hr.
I'm not sure what the story is here, but with that said, speeding is an absolute liability offense. You were either speeding or you weren't. I don't know if I'd go down the 57km or 58km route. You'd still have to convince you weren't speeding at all. You'd probably be better off accepting a deal if that's the case. That's just my 2 cents.


daggx
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 394
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:21 am

Posting Awards

by: daggx on
Sat Apr 04, 2015 3:54 pm

For those in the know, I am wondering why the electronic copy of the insurance card that the OP presented to the officer was considered inadequate? Is there a regulation somewhere that says insurance cards can't be sent electronically and then printed at home?


Stanton
High Authority
High Authority
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:49 pm
Location: Ontario

by: Stanton on
Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:21 pm

daggx wrote:For those in the know, I am wondering why the electronic copy of the insurance card that the OP presented to the officer was considered inadequate? Is there a regulation somewhere that says insurance cards can't be sent electronically and then printed at home?
The way the section reads I would say originals are still required.

The act states you're required to have one of the following:
1) a Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance Card in the form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services
2) a policy of automobile insurance or a certificate of a policy in the form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services
3) a document in a form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services

The key wording in all three would be "form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services"

It's been awhile since I reviewed the latest FSCO bulletins, but I seem to recall they were pretty specific about the requirements of the form; right down to the size, background pattern and colour (pink).


milkdewsalesdh
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:28 pm

by: milkdewsalesdh on
Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:14 pm

Thanks a lot folks, I appreciate the input.

In regards to the speeding, the officer was standing about 25m down (i think) from the sign that marks the beginning of the 40km/hr zone from a 50km/hr zone, and was waiving at me before I even reached the sign (I know this because I noticed the sign, and then noticed him waving, so I was still in front of the sign at the time). Does this help in any argument in that he likely radar/lidared me while I was up the street (since clear line of sight) in a 50 zone, and yet he waved me down before I entered the 40 zone (note that there was a "warning" of 40 ahead" about 30 m before that)? From an absolute liability standpoint, I'd still have been speeding in the 50 zone going 57, but his ticket would've been incorrect because I wasn't in a 40 zone.


bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1182
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on
Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:14 pm

milkdewsalesdh wrote:the officer was standing about 25m down (i think) from the sign that marks the beginning of the 40km/hr zone from a 50km/hr zone, and was waiving at me before I even reached the sign (I know this because I noticed the sign, and then noticed him waving, so I was still in front of the sign at the time). Does this help in any argument in that he likely radar/lidared me while I was up the street (since clear line of sight) in a 50 zone, and yet he waved me down before I entered the 40 zone (note that there was a "warning" of 40 ahead" about 30 m before that)?
These are one of those things that is nearly impossible to prove. They are just going to rely on the officers version in that case.

That being said, usually with these radar enforcements the officer will make note of the sign distance. He'll also have the distance of your vehicle when your speed was calculated. If he's written these down, you can start there.








Post Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 16 to 29 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests