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!