Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

Penalty

(14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,

(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;

(b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;

(c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and

(d) is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit, to a fine of $9.75 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit. 2005, c. 26, Sched. A, s. 17 (7).

Fastamber wrote:

Penalty

(14) Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven,

(a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit;

Can anybody explain why, in Ottawa for example, someone driving 15km over is not charged at $3 per km (as the above quote states) but rather at $2.50; 15km/h over becomes $37.50 (or $52.50 after the Court costs).

D.A.

The reason its not 3 dollars per kilometer is because, the "out of court" speeding ticket fine is set by the Chief Justice of Ontario. This is the fine put on the ticket by the police officer that you would pay if you agreed that you were guilty and agreed to the penalty.

If you take the ticket to court, THEN the Justice of the Peace would follow the fine structure listed in the Highway Traffic Act.

SO if you get a ticket for 25 over, that would equate to a set fine of $112.50 (25X4.50)

My ticket says $93.75 with a total payable of $118.75

So there are lists that can override the HTA ?

Seems like they are trying to encourage people to be submissive and take the deal as opposed to exercising their right to trial.

I was under the impression that if the set fine was not as set out in the HTA then it would be a fatal error.

If this is the case then what are the fatal errors we keep hearing about ?

What evidence would the crown normally provide in a speeding trial - is it just the officer being a witness or they normally have a photograph from the radar device that shows the car with licence plate visible and the speed?

The officer's sworn testimony as to the speed is all that is required for the Crown to win a conviction. If it comes down to your word against his, he will likely win.

Bookm wrote:

If it comes down to your word against his, he will likely win.

In many countries that is not enough, phisical evidince are required, which is why they use a radar with the camera to avoid the confusion about who was travelling with the speed that officer saw on the measuring device.

And that's the way it should be. But this is Ontario where the courts hold the police to a very high standard. Is there potential for abuse? Hell ya. I proposed the use of cameras (as you have described) to Sgt. Cam Woolley. He just shrugged it off.

Bookm wrote:

And that's the way it should be. But this is Ontario where the courts hold the police to a very high standard. Is there potential for abuse? Hell ya. I proposed the use of cameras (as you have described) to Sgt. Cam Woolley. He just shrugged it off.

Me thinks they would find too many inconsistantcies with application of law.

Howdy, Book.

I know different avatar.

Are those "gum-drop buttons" I see? LOL. It's a tad less hostile here, hehe.

... I know one officer who despises camera systems because he felt it prevented him from using his kinder, gentler method of leaving an impression on stopped motorists. He felt he had to ticket "by the book" because he was being videotaped, rather than let someone go, following a heartfelt warning.

Maybe they should make it so only nasty cops have video systems!!

Noone ever let me go without a ticket.The best they can do is lower the speed that they caught you with. Once they stopped me, gave me the ticket and to a person who was travelling beside me even though the officer told me he only measured my speed. I mean what proof is there that the car beside me had the same speed??? It just assumed it. No physical proof whatsoever... If there were cameras in play would be harder to prove inocense on one hand, on the other it would be harder to get that clear picture of your license plate. These radar that they do not have a visible ray of light or anything that could help them see what are they aiming at. And anyone who has ever shot a pistol should know how hard it is to hit the target....now imagine a moving target))

shmeli wrote:

Noone ever let me go without a ticket.The best they can do is lower the speed that they caught you with. Once they stopped me, gave me the ticket and to a person who was travelling beside me even though the officer told me he only measured my speed. I mean what proof is there that the car beside me had the same speed??? It just assumed it. No physical proof whatsoever... If there were cameras in play would be harder to prove inocense on one hand, on the other it would be harder to get that clear picture of your license plate. These radar that they do not have a visible ray of light or anything that could help them see what are they aiming at. And anyone who has ever shot a pistol should know how hard it is to hit the target....now imagine a moving target))

I do say fight your tickets, but you can't just go in and say "Officer O'Rourke is wrong..." What you need to do is fight the ticket on their terms. Any speeding ticket has key components. Were you in a vehicle, were you driving on a road, did the officer think you were speeding, and did the officer confirm it with a mechanical device. Since you have no rebutle against the first three it always comes down to the radar/lidar/stopwatch. Do humans make mistakes, yes. So learn what you need to prove and prove what you think. Simple short explanations to the judge, long winded souds to exagerated, will often gain you points.

Ultimately the judge is who decides guilt. It is hard for the average joe to fight the "system", of which the police, crown and judge all belong to. Remember that the crown does not want to be in traffic court listening to the same canned testimony all the time, neither does the judge. Don't insult anyone by walking into their "office" and tell them how it should be. If your side of the story has merit it will come out. Get the knowledge you need before you make an A$$ of yourself.

Bookm wrote:

Are those "gum-drop buttons" I see? LOL. It's a tad less hostile here, hehe.

... I know one officer who despises camera systems because he felt it prevented him from using his kinder, gentler method of leaving an impression on stopped motorists. He felt he had to ticket "by the book" because he was being videotaped, rather than let someone go, following a heartfelt warning.

Maybe they should make it so only nasty cops have video systems!!

"Not my gumdrop buttons...."

Hope you don't mind but I asked HWYBEAR if he would join us over hear. He isn't focused on right and wrong and I think could shed some light on the "other" perspective, for those who want to know. I've seen his posts on the RD site, and agree with some of the things he brings up.

I understand your point about the video systems. ***edit by user***. I'm fighting that one just on her attitude alone. Put that video on in court, whoops lost the tape. I'm almost thinking about a camera for the car just for fun times like that. The system they have over in England is notorious for "losing" footage.

Oh, and the arguement on the "other" site is not against what they are trying to do, it's the way they are doing it. This will be a law struck down due to collateral damage and nothing more. I spoke with an officer and he specifically told me the law was designed to target "racers". OK, then get the racers, but show us this. City news reported on one of the guys on the 400, where the trucker was killed. In that report they said 41 death's were due to "racing" since 1999. In that time how many people died from not wearing a seat belt, drunk driving...etc. This law was brought in by the police (Fantino) for the police. Not the way the system is supposed to work.

Damn, I am long winded.

Reflections wrote:

Remember that the crown does not want to be in traffic court listening to the same canned testimony all the time, neither does the judge. .

Nor do police ,we would rather be back on the road, stopping someone else

shmeli wrote:

No physical proof whatsoever... .

need a paint gun to imprint the speed on your windshield when tracked?

shmeli wrote:

These radar that they do not have a visible ray of light or anything that could help them see what are they aiming at. And anyone who has ever shot a pistol should know how hard it is to hit the target....now imagine a moving target))

Great comparison there. I know how to shoot a pistol, it is very easy to hit the target, even moving! All because of training! Once you USE and understand radar, you know what the radar is tracking and why. To give a statement like that is like me trying to change an engine, looks easy, but without the knowledge or training, would not know where to start, or what parts go where, or what importance that part plays in the engine.

Continue with your pistol analogy here...you can not use radar on vehicles going x-ways, unlike pistol training where some targets move sideways. MV are either coming towards the radar or going away, 99% approaching the cruiser. When pistol shooting it is very challenging to shoot at 25m, but move up to 15m it it easier and then 5m it is easy.....closer is more accurate.....kinda of like a MV coming towards a cruiser!

Actually LIDAR does have a scope and cross hairs!

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

Remember that the crown does not want to be in traffic court listening to the same canned testimony all the time, neither does the judge. .

Nor do police ,we would rather be back on the road, stopping someone else

You know, you are much more threatening with your Appatchie[sp.] avatar.

hwybear wrote:

Reflections wrote:

Remember that the crown does not want to be in traffic court listening to the same canned testimony all the time, neither does the judge. .

Nor do police ,we would rather be back on the road, stopping someone else

So it's agreed... We all want to avoid court. So stop writing tickets and the problem is solved!

I'm heading down to "Fantino-country" on Friday. I'll feel like I'm swimming in shark-infested waters, hehe. I have assigned each kid a job: one watches for cruisers parked on the side of the road; one watches the sky for airplanes; and one watches out the back for pacing cruisers! See, if you have enough kids, you don't need a radar detector, LOL!

If all that fails, I'll have to try name-dropping; "Gee officer... you don't happen to know a good friend of mine do you... goes by the handle "Hywbear"? LMAO

hwybear wrote:

...MV are either coming towards the radar or going away, 99% approaching the cruiser.

This has always puzzled me. I thought (for a charge to stick) the officer had to testify that he visually estimated the defendants speed. This speed was then backed by readings from a mechanical device (radar/lidar/speedo, etc). But surely it would be much more difficult to visually estimate a vehicle approaching virtually head-on, rather than at a large viewing angle which would be inadequate for speed-detecting devices.

Also, is it really possible to perform accurate visual estimates while looking through a Lidar gun. Most of the Youtube clips I see show the officer picking cars off one after another solely by targeting them with the Lidar gun... hmmm.

I was actually FOR the racing legislation when I thought it's sole focus was on this type of stuff (heart patients should avoid viewing, hehe): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHNy4xfBaPs

Boy, was I duped

Bookm wrote:

So it's agreed... We all want to avoid court. So stop writing tickets and the problem is solved!

Bookm wrote:

But surely it would be much more difficult to visually estimate a vehicle approaching virtually head-on, rather than at a large viewing angle which would be inadequate for speed-detecting devices.

Vehicles going across the plain of view are extremely hard to estimate, and appear way faster than they really are. Directly approaching is easy to estimate, the vehicles size is actually growing as it approaches and your eyes can tell that. On a vehicle travelling across your plain of view, your eyes have no comparison to be able to tell your brain to estimate, unless there are hydro poles at a set distance.

Bookm wrote:

Also, is it really possible to perform accurate visual estimates while looking through a Lidar gun.

Yes....the youtube stuff on lidar on each vehicle. I do not know why an officer would target every single vehicle. If I see and target a violator, I will also target others in the area, then return to the target vehicle. This gives me further evidence to support my visualization. (eg... target MV is 124km, passing a T/T at 103, and a pickup in front of the T/T at 111km/hr.....this gives me confirmation of visualization, also further clarifies the speed of other traffic further confirming my observation, PLUS eliminates target MV driver from stating "you got the wrong car", plus retargeting the target MV gives a 2nd speed, thus confirming 1st reading! All very easy.

Whether it be radar or lidar, I estimate well over 500 vehicles a day, so one becomes very proficient and good at estimations.

hwybear wrote:

If I see and target a violator, I will also target others in the area, then return to the target vehicle. This gives me further evidence to support my visualization. (eg... target MV is 124km, passing a T/T at 103, and a pickup in front of the T/T at 111km/hr.....this gives me confirmation of visualization, also further clarifies the speed of other traffic further confirming my observation, PLUS eliminates target MV driver from stating "you got the wrong car", plus retargeting the target MV gives a 2nd speed, thus confirming 1st reading! All very easy.

Whether it be radar or lidar, I estimate well over 500 vehicles a day, so one becomes very proficient and good at estimations.

Well, what can I say, if everyone does it this way - great.

Out of these 500 a day would you say that there's a possibility of 1 mistake?

Also, would you stop that poor guy at 124 on a hwy and write him a ticket??

Just an example - the 401 is mostly a straight hwy, no turns, no hills. When I go 150 behind someone (try not to go over 130 when no traffic around) I still fill like I am standing. The speed limit is just ridiculous and officers should understand that also and give us all a break.

shmeli wrote:

Well, what can I say, if everyone does it this way - great.

Out of these 500 a day would you say that there's a possibility of 1 mistake?

Also, would you stop that poor guy at 124 on a hwy and write him a ticket??

My eyeball perception on speed....yes, once in awhile I'll have a brain fart.....but if you yourself just sit on the side of the road watch traffic.....you will see the average vehicles, then all of a sudden....that one there is a lot faster

I have absolute confidence in our equipment we use to obtain the speed readings.

Oh, yes...ticket for 124km/hr!

shmeli wrote:

The speed limit is just ridiculous and officers should understand that also and give us all a break.

The cars technology has improved and so has the hwys. Until there is driver training in accordance with that....no mercy! There is also an article (still searching) taught in our training, that likelyhood of survival over 130km is next to nil. This is b/c cars safety devices are not designed for those impacts, but more realistic at city speeds of 50km/hr.

Also remember, that it is not the speed you can handle it is the speed everyone around you expects you to be going.

I think we could have variable speed limits like down in the states.

If the 401 is next to empty, 130 is good for example.

But trying to address all situations with laws is tricky and so here we will sit at 100. Although most of the time I'm on the 4-series roads 125 won't get you pulled over and the officers on the side of the highway don't even look up from their donut.....I mean paper work.

The laws are not enforced black and white and we all know it.

Observations from last weeks' trip to Toronto/Hamilton:

This was my first drive to "impound-country" since its inception. During the day, the 403 seemed to be moving at a slower rate than "pre-203". But leaving Toronto around 11:00pm, there was no doubt that speeds have not changed very much. The left (passing) lane typically averaged around 130/135kph with overtaking traffic in the 140's. I have no doubt several were still over 150 (based on the rate I was being passed at).

The "ricer's" are still out there. I had 2 separate incidents of young kids in their coffee-canned Civics carve a path across my nose. Really dumb considering my Lincoln would make mince meat of their little import if they were to cause a wreck.

Conclusion: I was very much surprised to see the lack of noticeable change from last year.

P.S. There IS a God! I received my first ever "warning" at a traffic stop tonight ($10.00 fix-it ticket instead). Somehow I forgot to get a sticker for my plate last month. I was polite and asked if he would consider a warning this time, based on the fact that I am really trying to keep my record clean. Very nice fellow.

hwybear wrote:

...if you yourself just sit on the side of the road watch traffic.....you will see the average vehicles, then all of a sudden....that one there is a lot faster

124 IS AVERAGE and for the left lane it's far below average, I don't believe you can say who goes 110 and who goes 125 just because one goes 40cm/sec faster then the other.

It is almost not worth driving these days.

By the way on the experience of other countries setting fines and penalties that high actually endangers everyone even more for one simple reason, if one goes over 150 and notices a trooper pulling out behind him all he is thinking I got nothing to lose - minimum 2000 fine plus licence suspension and what he does next is normal for a human being - he tries to run away, what may happen next we all know.

A friend of mine caught at 170 started runnig away and almost crashed trying to pass a truck on a sharp curve on the sholder under the overpass. He told me he had closed his eyes when passing that truck, got off at the first exit, parked at the plaza and took off. Will he do it next time - sure. Why? Because the fines are as ridiculous as the speed limits.

No chase policy in some states and cities down south makes sense to me by the way.

shmeli wrote:

124 IS AVERAGE and for the left lane it's far below average

That is not the average in my area at all...not even close. Maybe b/c we run with 6 officers per shift and visibility is high. Plus throw in the amount of traffic stops we do.

Last night shift I drove 54km exactly and had only one vehicle travelling over 115km/hr....and that was at 123km/hr going the opposite way. Luckily for that driver I was no where near a uturn! No one even caught up to me...I was at 98-103km/hr. (hard to keep it steady without cruise on a cruiser, but I watch my speed and set the example)

hwybear wrote:

That is not the average in my area at all...not even close.

What area is it in?

How are you evaluating the speed of the oncoming traffic when travelling in the opposite direction and then have time to shoot him with the radar?

I just wonder how it works, do u just get the oncoming left lane or all the lanes?

I patrol from London to Windsor.

I am monitoring vehicles in the opposite direction by actually watching the traffic, when I see a vehicle I estimate to be travelling at "x" rate of speed, I then have to confirm my visual observations with a radar, which is simply pressing a button on a hand remote. I do not have to look down to see the remote, I just watch the display mounted on top of the dash, which is pretty much eye level. Radar confirms my visual observation and gives a speed reading from the target vehicle.

I'm a little confused on this charge. The officer that pulled me over gave me a ticket for $52 including the set fine. But according to the ticket, she wrote "speeding 75km/h in a 50km/h zone". The fine I can live with but according to the fine structure - as mentioned in a different post, the fine should have been 112.50. And at the same time she mentioned there would be no points involved but the offence is already stated. I think I'm more worried about the points and what it would do with my insurance.

When this is reported, do the courts report the charge or do they go by the formula of the fine.

15over the speed limit = $37.50, with a total fine of $52.50

I would give the local court a call and ask....I do not know the answer how it would be entered as a conviction.

The other option is to ask for a trial and speak to the prosecutor before hand, the prosecutor can then ask the JP to have the ticket withdrawn OR amended the fine to the corresponding fine for 25 over OR amend the speed to equal the fine.

hwybear wrote:

15over the speed limit = $37.50, with a total fine of $52.50

I would give the local court a call and ask....I do not know the answer how it would be entered as a conviction.

The other option is to ask for a trial and speak to the prosecutor before hand, the prosecutor can then ask the JP to have the ticket withdrawn OR amended the fine to the corresponding fine for 25 over OR amend the speed to equal the fine.

The ticket can be thrown out due to a discrepency in the fine amount, it comes under consitutional rules. However, IMHO the JP would probably make you pay the set fine and adjust the ticket to 15 over. It is a difference between a minor infraction and a major one when your insurance company looks at your record for renewal.

Reflections wrote:

The ticket can be thrown out due to a discrepency in the fine amount, it comes under consitutional rules.

Where is a list of the "constitutional rules"? I would like to see them to educate myself. thanks