I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering. 1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out? 2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant? 3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get? 4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down. The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP. Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie
I was recently ticketed in Barrie in a pemanently-posted 40 kph zone. It is possibly the only permanently-posted 40 kph zone in the entire jurisdiction (the rest being time-of-day enforced around schools etc) so, not surprisingly, its also a posted CSZ. The reading was taken with a LIDAR measurement device and I was shown the device display 1st thing upon stopping road-side. Upon running my numbers, the officer would have seen that my 30+ year-old driving record is very good and DEFINITELY not-indicative of habitual speeding and/or reckless driving. He none the less issued a ticket, seemingly for the maximum permissible fine. I've lived nearby for 10+ years and am not opposed to the existence of the zone I was stopped in nor its close supervision, as I have two younger children who will soon begin traveling on their own around the neighborhood etc. Although the issuing officer identified himself as a full-time traffic cop (and thus will likely show in-court if-needed) I plan on choosing option 3 and fighting the ticket as I like many others am concerned about the black eye on my otherwise-good record , insurance rates etc. As I tick off the "Option 3" box on my ticket, and prepare to mail it to court (is that a good idea?) was hoping someone could answer a couple of questions regarding the ticket itself and possible arguments/defences I am considering.
1. Although my ticket doesn't seem to indicate such and, since the issuing officer said nothing about, it appears I may be on the hook for Demerits, if the fine sticks. How can I find out?
2. Does the HTA rule on the requirements for, and deployment of. roadside traffic signs? Is it a requirement that all Reduced Speed Zones (RSZ's) be additionally-signed with "Reduced Speed Ahead" (RSA) warning signs on the approaches? Although I can imagine it would be fiscally-beneficial for municipalities to not warn drivers of RSZ's, based on the ensuing increase in speed fines that would likely be handed out, I would think the safety issue alone (i,.e. drivers hammering on brakes as they frantically try to slow down upon entering an RSZ they were not warned about) would be sufficient cause for making RSA signs mandatory. Based on what I've seen elsewhere around Barrie and, as nice as the folks up here might be, I doubt the City would waste taxpayer's money installing RSA signs on the approaches of virtually all their other RSZ's, unless they were required to (as indeed it appears they have). Likely outcome if I'm successful in arguing the RSZ I was ticketed in, is non-compliant?
3. Using info from Google Streetview I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the issuing officer had line-of-sight to my vehicle while I was still in a 50 kph posted speed zone, well before I entered the CSZ and the 40 kph speed zone. Coupling that with info I obtained from the City of Barrie official website, I'm able to establish that the advance line-of-sight distance was at-least 100m and that 10 secs or more would likely have elapsed before I in-fact entered the area where I purpotedly sped. Do I have a snowball's chance of arguing that the issuing officer could have acquired/recorded my speed outside the 40 kph zone and the CSZ? Other than verbal rebuttal (his word against mine) would the officer likely have indisputable evidence he could produce, to definitively argue away that possibility? If not, is the possibility alone, enough to justify reasonable doubt? If the judge/JP buys it, do I risk getting fined instead for 66 in a 50 zone, and no CSZ? And what about the Demerits I possibly stood to get?
4. It turns out that, just before being pulled over, I had stopped at a business approx 150 m from the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone and, moments before I alegedly sped, I had in-fact just entered the roadway from that business's parking lot (i.e. standing start). I drive a 100 hp 4-cylinder compact car with 200k milleage, so it doesn't take an expert to understand that I would litterally have to stand on the accelerator for the whole 150m run-up to the beginning of the CSZ/40 zone, in order just to get to 66 kph (and yes I did go back and test/confirm this theory when the cops weren't watching). Shortly after checking my speed (my car jumps into 3rd at almost exactly 50 kph and I instinctively lay off the accelerator when I'm on city streets) I distinctly remember seeing up in the distance, the issuing officer walking into the street in my path (presumably preparing to flag me down). Indeed I can't be sure if I had even yet entered the 40 kph zone which. I suppose, plays into the officer having captured my speed "prematurely" as in point (3) above, and that much time, possibly 15 to 20 secs, elapsed before I finally arrived where the officer stood. In-fact at the moment the issuing officer walked out into the roadway, I was still so far away that I had no idea who he was (using an unmarked cruiser and wearing a non-descript safety vest over his jacket); Because he didn't have his hat on (no reasons I could find why so) it wasn't until I was practically at roadside that I could tell. He did not put his hat on nor did he make any attempt to further identify himself as a police officer prior to or after flagging me down.
The business I stopped at is very low-key and although I did make a purchcase, I did not receive a receipt or anything with a time-stamp. The best I could come up with is a letter signed by the shop owner, claiming that he had served me at approx 9:30 that morning. The speeding ticket shows about 10 mins later however with the time it took officer to flag me down & process me etc, I'm hoping it would stll look legit. I had considered using a closer time in the letter however that would likely make mine and the shopkeeper's stories look less and less believable to the judge/JP.
Sorry for being so long-winded but wanted to be clear on what happened and hopefully get good advice on which defence I should use. As I am a newbie and have never fought a ticket (always a 1st time for everything I suppose) any advice on how to handle the big event would be appreciated (including whether I should even fight it or not). Cheers- rayin Barrie
1) Demerit points aren't listed on tickets. For 26 over you'd receive 3 points. You'd need to get it reduced to 15 or less for no points. 2) I don't believe there's any requirement for advanced notice, but can't remember for certain. That would probably be covered by the HTA regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html 3) A lidar device will record the distance at which the reading was obtained. Request disclosure and review the officer's notes. Hopefully he'll have recorded the distance and where he obtained the reading from. That should be able to confirm if you were in the 40 km/hr zone or not. Do NOT rely on Google Streetview imagery, you won't be able to use that as evidence in Court. 4) I don't see how stopping at the store is relevant to your defence. You admit your vehicle is capable of obtaining that speed, just that you're not in the habit of driving that fast.
1) Demerit points aren't listed on tickets. For 26 over you'd receive 3 points. You'd need to get it reduced to 15 or less for no points.
2) I don't believe there's any requirement for advanced notice, but can't remember for certain. That would probably be covered by the HTA regulation dealing with signs: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/r ... g-615.html
3) A lidar device will record the distance at which the reading was obtained. Request disclosure and review the officer's notes. Hopefully he'll have recorded the distance and where he obtained the reading from. That should be able to confirm if you were in the 40 km/hr zone or not. Do NOT rely on Google Streetview imagery, you won't be able to use that as evidence in Court.
4) I don't see how stopping at the store is relevant to your defence. You admit your vehicle is capable of obtaining that speed, just that you're not in the habit of driving that fast.
Thanks Stanton, How do I request disclosure? Will this info be available to me before I go to Traffic Court? If the issuing officer did not record the Lidar distance stamp in his notes, are my chances any better of raising sufficient reasonable doubt regarding whether he acquired my speed inside the 40 zone? If I can't use Streetview imagery to prove line of sight beyond the boundaries of the 40 zone, would the City of Barrie interactive map info (which has a distance measurement tool) likely be disallowed as-well? I have to say I'm also a bit sceptical of how the officer new exactly how far the 40 kph sign was from his cruiser's location, and thus how "close" he had to allow me to get before locking in my reading. Sounds like the missing Reduced Speed Ahead sign is not a strong argument, but I'll have a look at the HTA section you sent me the link to, thanks for the tip. Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
Thanks Stanton,
How do I request disclosure? Will this info be available to me before I go to Traffic Court? If the issuing officer did not record the Lidar distance stamp in his notes, are my chances any better of raising sufficient reasonable doubt regarding whether he acquired my speed inside the 40 zone? If I can't use Streetview imagery to prove line of sight beyond the boundaries of the 40 zone, would the City of Barrie interactive map info (which has a distance measurement tool) likely be disallowed as-well? I have to say I'm also a bit sceptical of how the officer new exactly how far the 40 kph sign was from his cruiser's location, and thus how "close" he had to allow me to get before locking in my reading.
Sounds like the missing Reduced Speed Ahead sign is not a strong argument, but I'll have a look at the HTA section you sent me the link to, thanks for the tip.
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)". You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation. Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive. As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks Stanton,
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".
You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.
Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.
As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)". You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation. Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive. As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays. Thanks "Passing Through" Just wanted to say 1st that I'm very grateful for the info I receive in this forum. I just realized that I haven't said much in-way of appreciation until now and wanted to avoid coming off like some conceited a$$ just out to save his own skin. OK so the "my car won't go that fast" argument likely won't get me anywhere- check. By the way Phil Edmunston once described my car model's factory-spec acceleration as being "glacial", so while its perhaps not that bad as you claim, its evidently not that great either. Funny you should mention 400 series hwy on-ramps, since that's by-far where I get flipped the bird most-often. Re the absence of a Reduced Speed Zone Ahead sign on the approach to the 40 kph zone I was ticketed in, I admit to not having had much luck finding a smoking gun in the HTA. Why then, as I have lamented before, would a municipality spend taxpayer's money equipping all their other Reduced Speed Zones with such signs, if they were not obligated to? Just because they're being nice guys? Seems to be something I'm not getting, here. Based on my ever-decreasing chances of a successful acquital if going to trial, I am now considering choosing Option 2 on my ticket ("Pleading Guilty WIth Explanation") and taking my chances with obtaining a plea-bargain down to 1-15 over, no points, and double the money due to the CSZ (and frankly who CARES about the money if I avoid the points!). Apparently the issuing officer will not attend such a hearing (is it open-court setting or something more discreet?) so I like my chances better that way. I take it that a Court appearance still has to occur, and that the plea-bargain has to be vetted by the officiant before its a done deal. If, in the mean time, I find huge holes in the officer's notes (via disclosure) or if he doesn't show on my Court date, do I have the option of killing my own deal and trying for an acquittal, if I think my chances are better that-way? Is it possible the judge/JP may forget a plea-bargain was ever agreed-to and reinstate my original violation? I just want to be very careful about bite-back if I get too greedy. Oh, and, thanks for the comment about my being an above-average defensive driver (15-20 sec eye-lead). I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead. Unfortunately it may have even worked against me in this case, as I sensed that, once I arrived at his location, the police officer seemed frustrated/fed-up/bored of having been made to wait that long. Perhaps he thought I had begun slowing down prematurely out of guilt, and that I was delaying/puting off the innevitable. In-fact I had no idea until I was almost upon him that he was a police officer, not that it would have made any dif (I'm just not in the habit of mowing pedestrians down with my front bumper). Cheers, rayinbarrie
Passing Thru wrote:
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks Stanton,
Ok so my car might achieve 66 kph in 150m from a near-standing start, if I absolutely burry the throttle. If the judge/JP buys my claim that I was coming from the store's parking lot en-route to receiving my ticket, and even though he/she knows its unlikely I was hard-accelerating all the way to the beginning of the 40 kph zone, how can I convince him/her of that?
This argument comes up all the time, "I drive "X" car and therefore can can't be speeding", or "My car can't accelerate that fast be cause it is a (fill in the blank)".
You say you were at a "Near" standing start which means you were already moving, albeit slow. If we now assume you were completely stopped (adjusting in your favour) then to accelerate to 66 km/h within 150m (assuming constant acceleration) would have taken you about 16.5 seconds..... doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.... in fact it seems rather slow even with the description of your car. This is also assuming that the officer got his reading on your car the exact moment you got to the 40 km/h zone (unlikely), and your guess of 150m is relatively accurate. It is more likely that you were caught after entering the zone and had even more time and distance to accelerate. If you really did take that long to get to the speed of 66 km/h, I certainly hope you don't take your car on any 400 series highways, I would probably consider you a hazard trying to merge with traffic since you likely wouldn't even make it to highway speed before the end of the merge lane by your estimation.
Also I commend you on having a 15-20 second eye lead while driving (having seen the officer step out onto the road 15-20 seconds before you arrived at him). That isn't normal for most people on the road. I would be surprised if they were between 3 and 5 seconds the way most drive.
As for disclosure, you need to contact the prosecutors office at the court house listed on the back of your ticket. Make sure you do it right away it can take some time to receive if the request has to be sent to the Officer. Not sure about Barrie but here in Toronto the time set by the court is a 6 - 8 week turn around. There is a good chance it will be ready before this but they set that length due to Officer schedule and holidays.
Thanks "Passing Through"
Just wanted to say 1st that I'm very grateful for the info I receive in this forum. I just realized that I haven't said much in-way of appreciation until now and wanted to avoid coming off like some conceited a$$ just out to save his own skin.
OK so the "my car won't go that fast" argument likely won't get me anywhere- check. By the way Phil Edmunston once described my car model's factory-spec acceleration as being "glacial", so while its perhaps not that bad as you claim, its evidently not that great either. Funny you should mention 400 series hwy on-ramps, since that's by-far where I get flipped the bird most-often.
Re the absence of a Reduced Speed Zone Ahead sign on the approach to the 40 kph zone I was ticketed in, I admit to not having had much luck finding a smoking gun in the HTA. Why then, as I have lamented before, would a municipality spend taxpayer's money equipping all their other Reduced Speed Zones with such signs, if they were not obligated to? Just because they're being nice guys? Seems to be something I'm not getting, here.
Based on my ever-decreasing chances of a successful acquital if going to trial, I am now considering choosing Option 2 on my ticket ("Pleading Guilty WIth Explanation") and taking my chances with obtaining a plea-bargain down to 1-15 over, no points, and double the money due to the CSZ (and frankly who CARES about the money if I avoid the points!). Apparently the issuing officer will not attend such a hearing (is it open-court setting or something more discreet?) so I like my chances better that way. I take it that a Court appearance still has to occur, and that the plea-bargain has to be vetted by the officiant before its a done deal. If, in the mean time, I find huge holes in the officer's notes (via disclosure) or if he doesn't show on my Court date, do I have the option of killing my own deal and trying for an acquittal, if I think my chances are better that-way? Is it possible the judge/JP may forget a plea-bargain was ever agreed-to and reinstate my original violation? I just want to be very careful about bite-back if I get too greedy.
Oh, and, thanks for the comment about my being an above-average defensive driver (15-20 sec eye-lead). I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead. Unfortunately it may have even worked against me in this case, as I sensed that, once I arrived at his location, the police officer seemed frustrated/fed-up/bored of having been made to wait that long. Perhaps he thought I had begun slowing down prematurely out of guilt, and that I was delaying/puting off the innevitable. In-fact I had no idea until I was almost upon him that he was a police officer, not that it would have made any dif (I'm just not in the habit of mowing pedestrians down with my front bumper).
Actually, this IS a forum where driving habits can be discussed (see the "General" section). Anyway... I'd still recommend choosing option 3. If you choose "guilty with an explanation," you are pleading guilty to the original speed and charge. If you choose option 3, this is where you can try to plea bargain with the Prosecutor for a lower speed/fine.
rayinbarrie wrote:
I realize this is not a forum to discuss driving habits, however I can't believe most wouldn't start noticing people walking out on the road in front of their cars, even that far ahead.
Actually, this IS a forum where driving habits can be discussed (see the "General" section).
Anyway... I'd still recommend choosing option 3. If you choose "guilty with an explanation," you are pleading guilty to the original speed and charge. If you choose option 3, this is where you can try to plea bargain with the Prosecutor for a lower speed/fine.
* 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
You might find the sample disclosure form mentioned here http://www.ticketcombat.com/sitesearch.php listed under sample forms. In fact the entire site is excellent and worthwhile going through in its entirety. If you decide to do that, make sure you follow the forward arrows at the bottom of each page not just the tabs on top. Option 3 is the way to go. At worst you can negotiate a deal with the prosecution when you go to trial (they always offered a deal during the times I wen to observe court which I strongly suggest you do as well as it is a great way to prepare for your own case) and at best the officer won't show and your charge will be dismissed. Re demerit points. Your insurance likely won't care about demerit points but they will count each traffic violation. Demerit points stay on your record for 2 years http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads ... rit-points but traffic ticket with your insurance longer, I believe 3 and police can access it for years. Many people are concerned about demerits but unless you're notorious for traffic violations they're not as critical as people think.
You might find the sample disclosure form mentioned here http://www.ticketcombat.com/sitesearch.php listed under sample forms. In fact the entire site is excellent and worthwhile going through in its entirety. If you decide to do that, make sure you follow the forward arrows at the bottom of each page not just the tabs on top.
Option 3 is the way to go. At worst you can negotiate a deal with the prosecution when you go to trial (they always offered a deal during the times I wen to observe court which I strongly suggest you do as well as it is a great way to prepare for your own case) and at best the officer won't show and your charge will be dismissed.
Re demerit points. Your insurance likely won't care about demerit points but they will count each traffic violation. Demerit points stay on your record for 2 years http://www.ontario.ca/driving-and-roads ... rit-points but traffic ticket with your insurance longer, I believe 3 and police can access it for years. Many people are concerned about demerits but unless you're notorious for traffic violations they're not as critical as people think.
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ? Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)? Cheers, rayinbarrie
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi
Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?
Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?
Dear helpful posters, I realize now that I can only request disclosure after initially choosing Option 3 and subsequently receiving a court appearance date. Questions: 1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)? 2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was? 2. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
Dear helpful posters,
I realize now that I can only request disclosure after initially choosing Option 3 and subsequently receiving a court appearance date.
Questions:
1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?
2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?
2. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
No. An offence that you are not convicted (or plead guilty to) of does not go on your driving record or driver abstract. The officer's notes will, and the Prosecutor will have reviewed them and talked to the officer before the court date. Sometimes, the officer can put "R" in the code box on the ticket, but they don't have to. Try calling MTO. Your driver abstract will only show the last 3 years of driving history, but they've got access to the whole database.
rayinbarrie wrote:
1. Does a violation that is eventually withdrawn by the prosecution (i.e. issuing officer doesn't show etc) stay on the offender's driving record, for any definite period of time (that-is-to-say, the record which a then-prosecutor would see if such offender were to end up back in traffic court weeks/months/years later)?
No. An offence that you are not convicted (or plead guilty to) of does not go on your driving record or driver abstract.
rayinbarrie wrote:
2. On a roadside-reduced speeding ticket, will my record still show (i.e. will a prosecutor see) what the initial speed violation was?
The officer's notes will, and the Prosecutor will have reviewed them and talked to the officer before the court date. Sometimes, the officer can put "R" in the code box on the ticket, but they don't have to.
rayinbarrie wrote:
3. I had a prior minor in 2005 which I settled by choosing then-available "Option 4", where an offender, after paying a higher fine than that carried by the infraction (but less than a paralegal) and being made to sit through "traffic school", seemingly had his or her ticket thrown out. I am learning via this forum that tickets cannot necessarilly diappear so easilly. Does anyone out there know how that option actually worked, and if in-fact the infraction probably remains on my record?
Try calling MTO. Your driver abstract will only show the last 3 years of driving history, but they've got access to the whole database.
* 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
Thanks R.I. Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend). 2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury. After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
Thanks R.I.
Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).
2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.
After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
That is odd, usually if you have been convicted they would keep your money or if there was something wrong with your payment they would send you a notice demanding that you correct the problem. It might be worth ordering a copy of your drivers abstract from MTO just to see what is on it, there is a service fee but then you would know for sure what was on there.
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks R.I.
Hopefully you &/or your collegues can help solve another mystery of mine as it involves a prior minor traffic offense I was charged with in 2010, and which will, because of its "recentness", likely get cited by the prosecutor who will be rebutting my "previously good driving record" defence (hoping to prove to JP of low risk to re-offend).
2 Days before Christmas 2010 (talk about timing) I was rear-vehicle in a low-speed rear-ender on the QEW. Based on such little damage to the other driver's vehicle, I initially offered to pay out of pocket however, when he began complaining of a stiff neck (he had initially said he was unhurt) I began figuring whatever extra insurance costs I might avoid would not be worth the risk of having to dish out additional and substantial compensation for a suspicious soft-tissue injury.
After reporting to the appropriate Collision Reporting Centre, I was charged/ticketed for following too close, and told that this was as good as it would likely get since the typical up-front charge is the much-more serious Careless Driving. Being a newbie and unaware of my rights and other options, I chose to join the 97% of charged drivers who just plead guilty and pay. Several months later I received my fine payment back from the municipality I had paid it to, with no explanation. My Insurance company later reported knowing of the incident, for which I was found at-fault. This would indicate a conviction which I gather, having been less than 3 years ago, would show up on an MTO abstract. However if indeed there was, why did I get my money back? Thanks for any help.
That is odd, usually if you have been convicted they would keep your money or if there was something wrong with your payment they would send you a notice demanding that you correct the problem. It might be worth ordering a copy of your drivers abstract from MTO just to see what is on it, there is a service fee but then you would know for sure what was on there.
Might have been an error on the ticket or maybe it wasn't submitted. The insurance company could have simply found you at fault based on the accident report (which you would be in a rear ender). As stated above though, might be good to check and see what happened just to be sure.
Might have been an error on the ticket or maybe it wasn't submitted. The insurance company could have simply found you at fault based on the accident report (which you would be in a rear ender). As stated above though, might be good to check and see what happened just to be sure.
Rayinbarrie, In Peel court anyone can observe proceedings and I believe these rules apply for the province. If in doubt, just call the number on the ticket and ask. You are correct that time is the main reason people don't do this but I found it worth the time even if it means wasting a vacation day. A couple of things to help keep time spent there to a minimum, again based on my experience in Peel court: 1. There are 2 sessions each day, 9 (or maybe 9:30am) and 1:30pm. Traffic cases are usually handled in the afternoon. 2. At the beginning of the session all the victims, I mean, offenders, lineup to see the prosecutor. That's when they are offered a deal. 3. Once everyone is processed the prosecution first handles the cases where the deal with guilty plea was accepted. This goes fairly fast. 4. Last to be called are the ones who refused the deal and opted for a trial. I went to court 5 times or so to observe and only once was there a case that was actually tried. Most people accept the deal. Based on the above I would suggest you call the court to find out what time most traffic cases are tried and confirm that you can observe. Also make sure court will be working on the day you plan on going, I went one day to observe just to find out the entire court staff was on some sort of a retreat for the whole week. Re reduced charge on the ticket, if you decide to go to trial ( I don't mean choosing option 3 on the ticket, even if you do that you can still chose to plead guilty later, I'm talking about stating you want a trial when your case comes to court) your reduced charge might be upped to the original. I wouldn't worry about it at this point however, the key is to chose option 3, bring the ticket to the court office and have them stamp it as filed. When you get the court date ask for disclosure and based on what you see decide whether or not you're willing to accept a deal when in court. When asking for disclosure make sure you ask at the minimum what ticketcombat suggests. Courts have their own forms that give you practically nothing so don't use those. Good luck!
rayinbarrie wrote:
Thanks R.I. and Pepsi
Being 7 days away from my 15-days-to-respond deadline, do you recommend I now forget mailing in and just go in-person to the Prov Off Court offices listed on my ticket? Will I be able to fill out any forms ahead of time (i.e. Disclosure form Pepsi pointed me to) to avoid having to re-queue when I'm there etc or do I just have to spend the time it takes filling everything in-situ?
Thanks Pepsi for the tip on attending Traffic Court as a bystander, to get insight. Most people wouldn't bother and, even if they wanted to, many more wouldn't have the luxury of time (fortunately I can likely swing it). Will I need to provide/show anything to be allowed in (i.e. a copy of my ticket)?
Cheers, rayinbarrie
Rayinbarrie,
In Peel court anyone can observe proceedings and I believe these rules apply for the province. If in doubt, just call the number on the ticket and ask. You are correct that time is the main reason people don't do this but I found it worth the time even if it means wasting a vacation day. A couple of things to help keep time spent there to a minimum, again based on my experience in Peel court:
1. There are 2 sessions each day, 9 (or maybe 9:30am) and 1:30pm. Traffic cases are usually handled in the afternoon.
2. At the beginning of the session all the victims, I mean, offenders, lineup to see the prosecutor. That's when they are offered a deal.
3. Once everyone is processed the prosecution first handles the cases where the deal with guilty plea was accepted. This goes fairly fast.
4. Last to be called are the ones who refused the deal and opted for a trial. I went to court 5 times or so to observe and only once was there a case that was actually tried. Most people accept the deal.
Based on the above I would suggest you call the court to find out what time most traffic cases are tried and confirm that you can observe. Also make sure court will be working on the day you plan on going, I went one day to observe just to find out the entire court staff was on some sort of a retreat for the whole week.
Re reduced charge on the ticket, if you decide to go to trial ( I don't mean choosing option 3 on the ticket, even if you do that you can still chose to plead guilty later, I'm talking about stating you want a trial when your case comes to court) your reduced charge might be upped to the original. I wouldn't worry about it at this point however, the key is to chose option 3, bring the ticket to the court office and have them stamp it as filed. When you get the court date ask for disclosure and based on what you see decide whether or not you're willing to accept a deal when in court. When asking for disclosure make sure you ask at the minimum what ticketcombat suggests. Courts have their own forms that give you practically nothing so don't use those.
Thanks Pepsi and previous helpful Posters, BTW and though I haven't ordered an MTO Abstract yet, it seems my Insurance probably counted my 2010 minor prior (which seemingly got thrown out as I got my entire paid fine refunded) simply because I made a claim through them for the repairs to my vehicle. Besides, as daggx advised, they (Insurance) may have have counted the matter by-default (rear car in rear-ender generally = guilty) despite the case seemingly being thrown out. Based on the unexpected ticket throw-out and the subsequent possible avoidance of being counted by my Insurance, I will, in the future, strongly consider paying out of pocket for any repair that I can somehow manage. Thanks Pepsi for the insight into the Traffic Court process. A friend who went to TC for a similar ticket to mine about 6 months ago, pretty much echoed your observations (and to some degree your advice, though she was far more pro-plea-bargain after having watched a few trials from the previous session that-day which, presumably, all went in-favor of the Crown). Indeed I will be requesting disclosure as its likely any evidence I can hope to hang an aquittal on, will be in the officer's notes. I admit that the issuing officer & I also had a roadside "chat" (the appropriateness of the zone in its current location and, perhaps more so, a police enforcement net which has been cast, perhaps, just a little too widely, have been bones of contention as of-late in local media). So I will also be interested in knowing whether the officer labelled me as a trouble-maker, as that will surely also come back to bite me in Court, no-doubt at the most inoportune time. Question: Will the fact my infraction occured in a CSZ somehow influence the "degree" of the lesser-charge that the Crown likely offers me pre-trial? I did not see on this site where the CSZ infraction would bring Demerits but, if it does, I'm concerned that the Crown might subsequently be compelled to offer me less of a deal. Thanks again for the great advice.
Thanks Pepsi and previous helpful Posters,
BTW and though I haven't ordered an MTO Abstract yet, it seems my Insurance probably counted my 2010 minor prior (which seemingly got thrown out as I got my entire paid fine refunded) simply because I made a claim through them for the repairs to my vehicle. Besides, as daggx advised, they (Insurance) may have have counted the matter by-default (rear car in rear-ender generally = guilty) despite the case seemingly being thrown out. Based on the unexpected ticket throw-out and the subsequent possible avoidance of being counted by my Insurance, I will, in the future, strongly consider paying out of pocket for any repair that I can somehow manage.
Thanks Pepsi for the insight into the Traffic Court process. A friend who went to TC for a similar ticket to mine about 6 months ago, pretty much echoed your observations (and to some degree your advice, though she was far more pro-plea-bargain after having watched a few trials from the previous session that-day which, presumably, all went in-favor of the Crown).
Indeed I will be requesting disclosure as its likely any evidence I can hope to hang an aquittal on, will be in the officer's notes. I admit that the issuing officer & I also had a roadside "chat" (the appropriateness of the zone in its current location and, perhaps more so, a police enforcement net which has been cast, perhaps, just a little too widely, have been bones of contention as of-late in local media). So I will also be interested in knowing whether the officer labelled me as a trouble-maker, as that will surely also come back to bite me in Court, no-doubt at the most inoportune time.
Question: Will the fact my infraction occured in a CSZ somehow influence the "degree" of the lesser-charge that the Crown likely offers me pre-trial? I did not see on this site where the CSZ infraction would bring Demerits but, if it does, I'm concerned that the Crown might subsequently be compelled to offer me less of a deal. Thanks again for the great advice.
The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.
The only trial I've seen was a disaster for the defendant but she had completely no clue what she was doing and instead of cross examining the officer she kept on repeating she wasn't going 'that fast'. It was a short trial. I was prepared but the officer didn't show so I didn't have a chance to test my defence strategy. Hopefully if you decide to go to trial you will be prepared. Ticketcombat has a mention of community safety zone here http://www.ticketcombat.com/step3/findact.php and mentions municipal by-laws. Is it possible the rsz is mentioned there? Also, maybe you can find something here http://canlii.ca/en/on/laws/stat/rso-19 ... -c-h8.html . Just scroll down to Community safety zones.
Thanks Pepsi, Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time! The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance. Cheers rayinbarrie
Thanks Pepsi,
Seems your colleague at TicketCombat was right about nothing to lose and everything to gain by requesting a trial, regardless of one's final intentions. I checked option 3 but, instead of receiving a trial date, got a form letter from the court stating that the ticket was being dismissed because the police did not file in-time!
The last sentence however was somewhat of a kill-joy: "The officer has the option to relay this charge". What exactly does this mean and can it affect me? Thanks again to you & other helpful posters for the insight & guidance.
rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.
rayinbarrie, I don't know what the relay note means but my guess would be that the officer might go back to the court/judge and request that the ticket not be dismissed. Ticketcombat says ' A police officer has seven days to file all the traffic tickets he wrote.' Maybe the officer was sick or had some other issue that prevented him from filing on time. Imho. unless the officer really has it in for you he'll just let it go. So, cautiously optimistic congrats to you. Maybe some other members will be able to clarify it for you.
While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.
While the cop has to submit a regular ticket issued under part 1 of the Provincial Offences Act within 7 days, he has up to 6 months from the date of the offence to serve you with a summons issued under part 3 of the Provincial Offences Act. So theoretically you still could be served with a summons, however in practice that seems like a lot of effort for a minor speeding ticket so I think he probably won't bother.
daggx, isn't part 3 of the POA only for serious violations? raybarrie's offence seems to fall into category 1. http://fightyourtickets.ca/law/ontario- ... ences-act/
The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of: 1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket. 2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together. 3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.
The wording on that link is a little confusing. You can actually proceed by way of Part III summons for any offence. Common reasons why that I can think of:
1) Too much time has passed to serve regular ticket.
2) A mix of minor and more serious offences (i.e. 15 over and no insurance). In such a case all offences should be on Part IIIs so theyre dealt with together.
3) A more serious punishment is being sought then the typical set fine.
So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?
So, part 3 would be issued immediately for serious offences but can be issued later for a ticket that was originally issued under part 1 or 2? in other words, i could be summoned to court for speeding 5km if the officer failed to file the ticket within 7 days?
The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.
The simple answer is yes. But not likely to happen in that scenario. Even a Part I issued for the offence would probably incur the wrath of most court offices, prosectors and Justices.
Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.
Technically I believe a Part 3 summons could be issued for any offence under the Provincial Offences Act, even minor stuff. However Part 1 tickets are preferred for most minor offences because if officers issued Part 3 summonses for everything the courts would not be able to handle the backlog.
I searched but could not retrieve a satisfactory answer.
It seems matter-of-fact that all sorts of work equipment, namely backhoes, loaders and other similar mororized vehicles without licence plates, sometimes equipped with a slow moving vehicle sign, often not, some with an amber beacon, some without, are encountered on a highway, travelling under their own power, sometimes on multi-lane roads…
Hello everyone I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it but I need some answers as I'm very scared and don't know what to do. Recently if got a Novice Driver B.A.C Above zero I am 23 years old and I'm pretty due to get my G class license in a couple of weeks. I understand that I was wrong for drinking a beer and half and driving with a G2 Class license.
I have been reading Fight Your Traffic Ticket site and have a couple of comments.
I was issued two tickets at the same time, one for invalid left turn (Hwy 7 in Markham and Swansea). Another one, because the officer did not like my copy of registration documents.
I am planning to challenge it in the court. Actually I already submitted the request.
Hi, I have a court date Oct. 21,08 for parking in the fire route of my friends building. How can i get this $100 fine reduced or eliminated? only argument i really have is that visitor parking was full and i went around a few times. I wasn't there for long either.
+
I just got a ticket for going right on red fail to stop(114[18])$180. No pedestrians were in the way. I'm not a unsafe driver, so I'm…
My mom received a ticket under OHTA 159(1). She was turning left at an intersection. The light was green and there were no cars in front of her. She entered the intersection and waited for incoming traffic to clear so that she could complete the turn. As she waited, a fire truck with its sirens on was driving from the street onto which she was turning (perpendicular). He honked at her (presumably…
Basically, I was selling the car and I informed the buyer that the car was in not insured at the time.
He bought dealer plates from his work place and assured me that it was fine. We got pulled over by OPP and they asked for our information.
I explained that it was my car and the test driver was working at a dealership with his plates that has insurance, they told us that the plates don't apply
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I was not going that fast, but there was a larger, and faster moving, vehicle behind me, gaining fast (I was driving a…
Location: 401 exit to Homer Watson Blvd, Kitchener/ Cambridge.
I was going on 401. When I was approaching the location mentioned at the topic, I tried to over take a truck in front of me, and realized a car tailgating me right after I went out to the fast lane. At first I thought it was some other fast drivers so I just thought that I would go back into the middle…
Hey, i recently got a ticket for failing to stop a red light (Section 114(18)).
I was travelling south, the cop was travelling north. He was on the other side of the intersection then me, my light turned yellow and i tried running it but it turned red before i could cross the line. I was going too fast to be able to stomp the break so i had to run it through.
I'm just curious how long will a Driving while suspended affect my insurance rates? Initially when I got my conviction with DWS my rates went from 180 a month to 390, since then I've had no tickets or even been pulled over and my rates have gone down to 240 since then. I believe it will be 3 years in Sept 2017. Will the DWS affect my insurance for 6 years because thats how long it stays on my…
It's winter, and there's been a cold snap. The highway you are traveling on is wet, but not slippery. You take your exit, but the salt trucks haven't been on this ramp, and despite slowing down to below the recommended speed, your car slips on some black ice, and you find the car rotating clockwise. The car rotates 180 degrees, and slides backwards off the ramp…
So about a month ago I received a stunt/racing charge for going 140 in an 80 zone. I decided to go with a paralegal, and was notified by the paralegal that on the summon's it states to go to a criminal court. The paralegal was confused as this should be at a Provincial court. They said that since I do not have any criminal charges, that the officer wrote the wrong address down including…
I got a careless driving ticket and I was involved in quite a serious accident. I was driving at about 60 km/h arriving towards a stop sign. Unfortunately when I tried to stop, my shoes were sliding off from my foot as they did not have any strap and were perhaps oversized and slippery. I could not stop at the sign and hit a van that had the right of way. Both vehicles were badly damaged and…
In some cases, it takes too long for the Crown to bring a charge against a defendant to trial. If your charge has taken too long to come to trial, you can stop the proceedings by "filing an 11B." This is filing paperwork to bring a motion at your trial, where you essentially say, "my rights to a speedy trial have been violated, and I want the case stopped." It is called an 11B because section…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
I have been caught 3 times driving while suspended for unpaid fines . I have still not paid the fines and did not go to the first 2 court dates. When I was pulled over the second time the police officer said he would put down as it was my first time . But I had to work as I just started a new job. I called in to have the date changed but they said it was to late . So I did not go to court .…
Today I received a hand held device ticket on Gardiner. I was pulled over by the police officer and told i was using my cell phone while driving but i never even touched my cell phone. He told me my hand was not on steering. I am sure i didn't touch the phone. The phone was on the right passenger seat connected to my car. I was using mobile gps which was on dashboard display and never touched…
As the title states, I received a ticket for failing to proceed at a green light. I have gained a lot of knowledge from this site for various things, however even a google search of this ticket doesn't seem to pull up much info. Someone else had made a post about this back in 2009 but my story is quite different.
So I shall explain...
On the night of February 23/2013 I had decided to be the…
Need some advice on reaching a plea deal with the prosecutor and how to go about talking to the crown. I'm not here to be lectured ect. I'm aware I made a mistake, and need advice on fixing it. So kindly keep comments about my impulsive decision to yourself.
Backstory:
I'm 19 with a g2 license. Was going home late at night and decided to go down a road that I knew was smooth with zero traffic so I…
I recently got pulled over and issued a ticket for following too closely and am looking to challenge the charges. However, I will be at school by the trial date. This is significant because I received the ticket in Ottawa (where my family lives), but attend school in Waterloo (almost 6 hours away). I will also be starting co-op this summer and as such likely won't be returning home in order to…
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…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot. I did not recieve any fines. He did, however, give me a court date in August. Never mentioning…
I have been a frequent visitor of this site for a while now but I just made an account today to ask a question that I have gotten no real clear cut answer on in the past.
What I'm talking about here is H.I.D. (High Intensity Discharge) Headlight Conversion Kits. For those of you who don't know what they are all about you can just google it and you will receive more than enough…
