Following too close alternate charge?

Radar Identified wrote:

However... it could also prove that you were driving an unsafe vehicle. Might depend on how aggressive the Prosecutor is.

Well the defective brakes ticket doesn't carry demerit points unlike the follow too close.

I'm getting closer to my date to meet with the prosecutor and I've got a couple of questions that I would appreciate answers to if anybody knows the answers:

If I were to bargain down to a defective brakes ticket do insurance companies still count this as a minor offense? In my mind it's not on the same level as many other traffic tickets but I have this funny feeling insurance companies don't look at it this way since they would just like some more money.

If I can manage to bargain down to a bylaw infraction of a similar fine amount, does the insurance company even get notified of this when I go to renew my insurance?

If I'm not satisfied with what the prosecution has to offer in terms of a deal am I out of line requesting items that would disclosed in a speeding case such as the radar/lidar manual? I ask because the officer was there catching speeders and operating the radar/lidar gun at the time and my justification is that I need to know how much attention the officer had to devote to reading the radar gun to know whether she could have accurately judged how closely I was following. If she was only half paying attention to me her judgment of the situation goes into question.

Now this one is bear and I could see you not wishing to answer this but I figure it doesn't hurt to ask. You mentioned in another thread that you rarely see a follow too close beat in court, I'm curious as to how often those cases involve collisions? And, for those cases that didn't see convictions was there any similar strategy to the defense? Finally, I know your notes are very detailed (at least this is what I've gathered), when I receive my disclosure package should I expect it to be the same (in other words are most officers as diligent as you with their note taking?)

Thanks again for all the help everyone.

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Now this one is bear and I could see you not wishing to answer this but I figure it doesn't hurt to ask. You mentioned in another thread that you rarely see a follow too close beat in court, I'm curious as to how often those cases involve collisions? And, for those cases that didn't see convictions was there any similar strategy to the defense? Finally, I know your notes are very detailed (at least this is what I've gathered), when I receive my disclosure package should I expect it to be the same (in other words are most officers as diligent as you with their note taking?).

I will guess 50% have collisions.

Here are a few reasons my notes are detailed....

- # of yrs experience

- # of yrs experience only working traffic

- when I lose a case in court due to a "technicality", I will never be beat again on that again

- being on sites like this and ALL the kind folk in here with their defence "tactics"......this helps me write my notes better each day... so I "tip my hat" to yall Keep up the good work for me!

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Well the defective brakes ticket doesn't carry demerit points unlike the follow too close.

Correct. Many insurance companies frown far more on the "follow too close" than defective brakes, particularly with no collision. Your insurer might just ignore it all together.

Plenderzoosh wrote:

If I can manage to bargain down to a bylaw infraction of a similar fine amount, does the insurance company even get notified of this when I go to renew my insurance?

Nope. That's why a lot of times we suggest plea-bargaining to municipal by-law infractions on this board. It does not show up on your driver abstract, either. The only things they care about are essentially HTA, some Insurance Act and Criminal Code convictions.

Plenderzoosh wrote:

If I'm not satisfied with what the prosecution has to offer in terms of a deal am I out of line requesting items that would disclosed in a speeding case such as the radar/lidar manual?

I don't see why that would be a problem, particularly since you have a good reason for requesting it.

hwybear wrote:

being on sites like this and ALL the kind folk in here with their defence "tactics"......this helps me write my notes better each day... so I "tip my hat" to yall

That's okay we'll just keep coming up with new ones. And really, how many other officers have browsed this website to educate themselves and others? Maybe...what... one? Two? (Picture this at OPC: "Your new mandatory reading is ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.")

Radar Identified wrote:

That's okay we'll just keep coming up with new ones. Razz And really, how many other officers have browsed this website to educate themselves and others? Maybe...what... one? Two? (Picture this at OPC: "Your new mandatory reading is ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.") Shocked

"And make sure you pay attention to the posts by that R.I. guy, he's sneaky".

Radar Identified wrote:

That's okay we'll just keep coming up with new ones. And really, how many other officers have browsed this website to educate themselves and others? Maybe...what... one? Two? (Picture this at OPC: "Your new mandatory reading is ontariohighwaytrafficact.com.")

Jeez, I think that there is more text here now than in the entire Ontario Highway Traffic Act itself! 7000 articles as of now, and counting...

Yeah and I think our members are more familiar with the HTA than the people who wrote it.

Reflections wrote:

"And make sure you pay attention to the posts by that R.I. guy, he's sneaky".

That would be funny... or I could wake up and see 10 cruisers parked outside waiting for me to get into my car. "So you think you know the HTA, eh?" Then again, they'd have to know who I am and my address.

Radar Identified wrote:

Correct. Many insurance companies frown far more on the "follow too close" than defective brakes, particularly with no collision. Your insurer might just ignore it all together.

I thought insurers only differentiated between the "major" and "minor" convictions.

Radar Identified wrote:

Then again, they'd have to know who I am and my address.

That can be arranged...how many Toronto pilots drive an '07 Civic and used to live in Michigan?

Squishy wrote:

I thought insurers only differentiated between the "major" and "minor" convictions.

Yes, for the most part. Some of them only count "moving" violations (unsafe vehicle/defective brakes wouldn't be one of them), though, and a few others (such as mine) have certain "minor" offences that, if you only have one or two of them, it results in no increase, such as speeding 15 km/h over limit. But "follow too closely" would almost certainly result in an insurance increase, whereas a ticket for improper brakes or whatever might not.

Squishy wrote:

That can be arranged...how many Toronto pilots drive an '07 Civic and used to live in Michigan?

Hmm... good point. No cruisers outside today though.

Radar Identified wrote:

Hmm... good point. Shocked No cruisers outside today though. Surprised

That's because they're in the trees and have already attached a GPS device to your car....

Reflections wrote:

That's because they're in the trees and have already attached a GPS device to your car..

Dang it, I'll have to train my dog to sniff those things out now. I guess that also explains why that car with the licence plate "IMPOUND U" has been following me all day...

Oh ya that 07 civic with the pilot from Michigan.

Isn't he also the one that carries all the doughnuts in his car from Essex to London on the 401???

I bet bear is going to go on a blitz for stopping civic's on the 401 in an attempt to find R.I and impound his car and (accidentally put him in the trunk) of his car.

tdrive2 wrote:

Oh ya that 07 civic with the pilot from Michigan.

Fortunately my driver record doesn't show that I lived in Michigan for two years. They also don't have access to Transport Canada's database, fortunately. However... the FAA's (US Federal Aviation Administration) has a public database... hmm... and I have both licenses...

tdrive2 wrote:

I bet bear is going to go on a blitz for stopping civic's on the 401 in an attempt to find R.I and impound his car and (accidentally put him in the trunk) of his car.

Funny you mention that, this coming Friday and Sunday I'm going to be going through Bear's territory. Wait a minute...

I'm picturing a six-foot tall cop with sprinkles in his hair ripping doors off of Civics and growling at the drivers.

Hey R.I i heard if you want to attract some bears you should put a big thing of Honey on the hood of your car and or a massive be hive on your roof as you go through "bear country."

Either that or bring out the Fuzz Buster 2000 west of London

I can see it now, bear is under a overpass somewhere between London and Essex, he pulls out the lidar on a civic that is going at 118 then he hears the Spectre go off, suddenly you'll see a blueberry fritter smash all over the window and see his crown vic take off like batman!!!

And knowing R.I i assume his Civic would be Black?

Ha i just though of a great license plate name to!

"AIM HERE"

"LASR HERE"

Anyways i would assume all OPP Cars got spectres now as it is?