Reflections wrote:

davec wrote:

hwybear wrote:

From Stats Canada - they are couple years behind

2006

2889 traffic fatalities = 83 % http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2006/page1.htm

606 Homicides = 17 %

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal12a-eng.htm

Fatalities by road type ... as of 2003 http://www.ccmta.ca/english/pdf/collisi ... s_03_e.pdf

Urban 936 ( defined by metropolitan or speeds below 60km/h at collision site)

Rural 1539 ( primary or secondary hwy speeds exceeding 60km/h at collision site)

A more relevant statistic is the number of injuries,

Urban 110,511, Rural 41,639

One could argue that since it costs the taxpayer more for injuries than fatalities that the extra resources required in rural areas to police traffic are warranted, however I doubt that speed is an issue in rural collisions. I would guess it's driver training, experience etc.

Regardless if your argument is that more fatalities on the road than homicides justifies all the policing of highways, then the majority of the police resources should be concentrated on rural roads as defined above.

Damn dave, you come armed with numbers....

You were the one that started the numbers. I was content to just BS with you.

Update:

Received disclosier today via fax. Only thing there is officer's notes from ticketing officer. His notes state that a constable came to help him. Can i get the other guys notes? Or are there any? What if i want him as a witness? Notes are mostly legible, i managed to read it all. What a bunch of.... sigh..

ponyboyt wrote:

Update:

Received disclosier today via fax. Only thing there is officer's notes from ticketing officer. His notes state that a constable came to help him. Can i get the other guys notes? Or are there any? What if i want him as a witness? Notes are mostly legible, i managed to read it all. What a bunch of.... sigh..

Request 2-nd officers note. A 3-rd Independent Version Of Events should have a bearing on a case.

i am going to send another disclosier request. The ONLY thing they sent me so far is the ticketing officers notes.

I want to look at 2 ways to fight this.

1: Are the brakes even defective? How many times have you got in your car and driven away forgetting that the parking brake is on? My cadillac will smoke the hell out of the front tires with the e-brake to the floor, the car wont move. But this is my truck we are talking about. Its rear wheel drive with a string V8 engine. If you hit the gas its gona move. My driveway is a steep incline, and ive done maintanance on my truck with it in neutral only using the parking brake to hold it still.

2: Did they even have justification to check the brakes? Was he just fishing because he needed SOMETHING? From what i gather, fishing is not alowed per-say. He states in his notes my truck appeared to be in "poor physical shape". I can take pictures... it looks like it needs a paint job ill give that, but only becauseyou can see the original clear-coat is peeling and faded. A few dings and dents, there is rust in the very front of the front fenders, but the entire rest of the truck there are no holes or huge smashes/dents. Is it his opinion because maybe he drives a 2009 ford that my 1993 chev looks rough?

I dont want to plead this ticket down. I want it gone. Whether it gets tossed, stay'd or found not guilty, i dont care. I have not touched the parking brake system at all. It works perfectly fine and does what it is supposed to do. There is no reason for this ticket, i want it gone.

Thanks.

i have court on december 3rd. The only thing i have is officer's notes from ticketing officer, and there is an illegible line there the page changes and htats the line where the 2nd officer is mentioned. I have called and sent 2 requests via fax. 9 days to go.

I figure i only have one question i can ask:

"How long have you had your mechanics license?"

And then go into the stipulations of sec 64 which states something like: 2 braking systems, 1 to stop th evehicle while its being driven, and a 2nd to hold it in place while it is parked on any grade.

I figure there is NO point showing pictures i have of it parked in my driveway which has a drastic uphill grade because they can just say i fixed it later (i have not touched the ebrake cable or fixed anything else on my truck except the exhaust in over a year).

I have it in my head that tey will try to negotiate with me before trial and then when it comes in front of the justice the crown will probably throw it out.

What do i do about lack of disclosier?

so i had my day in court. I got there about 25 minutes late Try finding that court house, then a place to park with all that construction... who woulda thought it was inside the mall. Anyway....

I told her (crown) i was missing disclosier, she said she sent me the ticketing officer's notes. I said i had asked for more, she said there was no request. I said i had sent 2 via fax. Then she said well you dont need all that other stuff no one ever asks for that stuff.I told her i needed it for my case. She opened a big book and said it looked like i was charged under the wrong section ((64 (7) )) and i said oh no, not at all, i was definitly charged under the right section, just for the wrong reason. And she said:

"You know what, il just withdraw it". I said, "works for me".

ponyboyt wrote:

so i had my day in court. I got there about 25 minutes late Try finding that court house, then a place to park with all that construction... who woulda thought it was inside the mall. Anyway....

I told her (crown) i was missing disclosier, she said she sent me the ticketing officer's notes. I said i had asked for more, she said there was no request. I said i had sent 2 via fax. Then she said well you dont need all that other stuff no one ever asks for that stuff.I told her i needed it for my case. She opened a big book and said it looked like i was charged under the wrong section ((64 (7) )) and i said oh no, not at all, i was definitly charged under the right section, just for the wrong reason. And she said:

"You know what, il just withdraw it". I said, "works for me".

Way to be a legal pain in their a$$. Good job with the crown........