Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

I got a ticket the other day for following too close and have scheduled a meeting with the prosecutor and am wondering if there is a possibility of a lighter charge that they could knock it down to because I really don't feel this is worth 4 demerit points.

Here's the situation:

It was in a known speed trap area in town and I had actually consciously thought that the police might be out at this time. But, the driver in from of me was traveling 40km/h (the posted speed limit) so I figured I had nothing to worry about. Wrong.

It's an interesting road and there is a general consensus that the speed limit is far too low (probably why they're able to catch so many speeders). It's a 40 road with lanes wide enough to fit a car and a half that only has the backs of houses facing the road. Down the road from where I got pulled over there is a high school and an elementary school. The speed limit in front of the high school is 40 and in front of the elementary school is 50 (that makes sense in somebody's mind I guess). Anyways, it was around lunch time and a bus was going in the opposite direction and the car in front of me and myself were going down the hill. Once the bus had passed the guy in front of me got spooked and put on his brakes (the natural reaction to cops even if you're going the limit). No collision occurred but I was a bit closer than I usually would have been since he had just braked rather suddenly. At this point the officer working the radar gun motioned to me and told me to pull over and issued a ticket for following to closely.

In my mind I had left ample room to brake in time to avoid a collision (shown by the obvious evidence that my car doesn't have a nice dent on the front bumper now). It was a 40km/h road so the speeds obviously weren't as dangerous as on a faster road. But, nonetheless there are still 4 demerit points attached to this ticket. Essentially had I been going 89km/h on the road and been ticketed for the my fine would have been bigger but I would have only got 4 demerits. I'm wondering though what the prosecutor can really offer with my situation. From a quick look I can't really see another similar offense that it could be knocked down to so is there anyway that they can issue the fine ($110 isn't a huge hit to me) and just scrap the points involved? Or is the prosecutor able to change it to an unrelated offense of similar fine value (I'm guessing this is probably a big no no)?

Thanks for the help and I appreciate any comments.

One of the good things about the OHTA is that the prosecutor can charge you with an unrelated offence upon plea bargain. You might get charged with a by-law infraction instead upon plea, which would have no demerit points associated with it. However, request disclosure if you haven't done so already, see what they have.

Do not admit being too close. Say that you were doing 40 in a 40, and the guy in front braked suddenly. This way it appeared that you were following too close because it took you a split second to react to the fact that the driver in front slowed down without good reason (that reason being a cop). Also, do bring up the point that you did not rear-end into the guy in front. The guidelines suggests 2 seconds between cars, maintain that you followed that. You might even have a good chance to win this in court.

racer wrote:

One of the good things about the OHTA is that the prosecutor can charge you with an unrelated offence upon plea bargain. You might get charged with a by-law infraction instead upon plea, which would have no demerit points associated with it. However, request disclosure if you haven't done so already, see what they have.

Do not admit being too close. Say that you were doing 40 in a 40, and the guy in front braked suddenly. This way it appeared that you were following too close because it took you a split second to react to the fact that the driver in front slowed down without good reason (that reason being a cop). Also, do bring up the point that you did not rear-end into the guy in front. The guidelines suggests 2 seconds between cars, maintain that you followed that. You might even have a good chance to win this in court.

Yup, just like that.

Thanks for the responses. Out of curiosity, since it was a speed trap and there were two officers on site at the time even though only the one issued the ticket do both have to show in court if I can't get this bargained down?

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Thanks for the responses. Out of curiosity, since it was a speed trap and there were two officers on site at the time even though only the one issued the ticket do both have to show in court if I can't get this bargained down?

Disclosure will tell you. I would say that the officer that witnessed the incident was the one that ticketed you, so only one will have to be there.

will disclosure always tell you who will appear as a witness..I requested disclosure and all I got was a photocopy of the cops notes, and the accident reports...at this point I don't really know if they have any witnesses beyond the cop that issued me the ticket?

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Out of curiosity, since it was a speed trap and there were two officers on site at the time even though only the one issued the ticket do both have to show in court if I can't get this bargained down?

If one identified you as the offending vehicle and the other one flagged you down, then yes, both have to attend. Also, "following too closely" requires that the police identify an affected driver (the person you allegedly followed too closely) in order to get a conviction. Usually the only way to do this is if a collision occurred. If they do not have an affected driver to present, the chances of a conviction are very low. The officer cannot be the "affected driver." The officer's notes in the disclosure package should tell you if they managed to identify the affected driver (which, 99.5% chance, they did not).

dgs wrote:

will disclosure always tell you who will appear as a witness..

Nope. Even if someone is subpoenaed to testify as a witness, they still may not appear. I don't think the disclosure package would tell you if a subpoena was issued.

Radar Identified wrote:

Also, "following too closely" requires that the police identify an affected driver (the person you allegedly followed too closely) in order to get a conviction. Usually the only way to do this is if a collision occurred. If they do not have an affected driver to present, the chances of a conviction are very low. The officer cannot be the "affected driver." The officer's notes in the disclosure package should tell you if they managed to identify the affected driver (which, 99.5% chance, they did not).

Really...I'd be willing to put bet they definitely couldn't have identified the driver. I feel a lot better about my case now.

Thanks everyone for the help so far.

Radar Identified wrote:

Also, "following too closely" requires that the police identify an affected driver (the person you allegedly followed too closely) in order to get a conviction. .

Negative, do not require the other driver for a conviction.

My bad. I'd still be willing to bet that this charge can be beaten in court. Without a collision, where's the proof that he was following too close? Gets very subjective from there.

racer already outlined a pretty good defence. There is no specific following distance between vehicles, just "reasonable and prudent" (unless you are a commercial vehicle going over 60 km/h). Can the officer say what your following distance was? How did that following distance equate to being less than "reasonable and prudent"? One other thing to ask the officer: For a private vehicle, what is the specific following distance that is allowed in the HTA? (There is none.) The fact that you were able to react to the other vehicle's sudden braking indicates, if anything, that you were at a "reasonable and prudent" following distance.

Excellent point how do you exactly define following to close?

Have you driven on the 401 through Toronto during the evening rush hour or sat on stop and go traffic on the QEW?

What happens if the flow of traffic is going at 130 and some ass in a bus behind a slow truck going in the middle lane behind a truck stuck at 105 km/hr and this bus now wants to pass the truck?

So he cuts infront of the whole left lane travelling at 125-130 and then they are all riding the next guys ass and have to slam on their brakes as they wait for that big bus to pass the truck going 3 km/hr faster?

Would these people be following to close?

It seems to me the officer has alot of power and there is many ways to "define following to close."

Does it mean over a period of time?

What are you to do with left lane road blocks who do this on purpose and try to police the road themselves and always slow it down?

Following to close is a serious charge but its definition confuses me.

There is a specific distance to travel i dont know but okay, but what happens when the amount of traffic on the road is way more then the volume it was designed for and is not ideal conditions at all (GTA rush hour)

Now today I had my car brought in to have it safetied and e-tested as I'm looking to sell it and I hear back that the brake lines have a break in them. I got a new car soon after the ticket was issued and the car I was driving has rarely been driven since the issuing of the ticket. My question is, can this be used in my defense or to try and talk the prosecutor into an alternate charge (one that wouldn't have implications to my insurance)?

I wanna hear what others thing about what R.I said.

Alot of these charges in the OHTA are subject to alot of discression.

With Lidar and Radar you get a reading okay.

But alot of other stuff can be very hard to prove.

How do they prove for example many lange changes, unsafe lane change, and especially following to close.

So lets say your on the highway going 125 and someone butts infront of you at 105.

What are you to do????

There needs to be time to slow down and brake to get a safe distance again.

Some of this stuff i wonder how they can prove or justify it.

tdrive2 wrote:

So lets say your on the highway going 125 and someone butts infront of you at 105.

What are you to do????.

You slow down and then have to drive a speed that someone else is comfortable with. However, IMHO this is now a unsafe lane change if you had to immediately hit your brakes to avoid a collision.

To my take on a unsafe lane change and/or fail to yield to traffic on a thru highway (someone on another road left/right onto a road) is when someone makes a driving action and other traffic travelling on the thru highway has to drastically change their driving to avoid a collision.

Following too close is easy to prove. One has to be able to stop without striking the vehicle in front, should the vehicle in front immediately stop.

The problem is obtaining the evidence that I like to have while driving a big billboard.

On 400 series.....I usually move up in the open lane and use the cruiser as a reference between the 2 vehicles for 1km. I know a vehicle travels 28m per second at 100km/hr and the cruiser is 6m long. If I can not fit at least 4 lengths of a cruiser (24m) in this is way too close. I believe this is more than fair, people reaction time is longer than 1 second to react, so in essesence they should be farther than 1 sec back(28m) apart.

2 lane hwy is hard unless the person is following me. If I can not see the plate or headlights they are too close, again I like a 1km distance, so that it is just not a fluke movement but a controlled action by the driver.

Plenderzoosh wrote:

Now today I had my car brought in to have it safetied and e-tested as I'm looking to sell it and I hear back that the brake lines have a break in them.

That makes things a little more interesting. You were following another vehicle at the posted speed limit who suddenly braked. You then did not hit the vehicle while your car had defective brakes. Could it help? It could prove that you undoubtedly maintained a safe and proper following distance, particularly since no collision occurred. However... it could also prove that you were driving an unsafe vehicle. Might depend on how aggressive the Prosecutor is.

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?