Search found 274 matches

Car are more efficient at 100 km/h then they were 20 years ago, but the ratio is the same, you still get much worse mileage at 120 than you do at 100. You just get better at 120 today than you did 20 years ago.

You have a first appearance, which won't be a trial. Talk to the prosecutor to see if you work something out on that day, if you are uncomfy with their request, then get a paralegal...

The officer talked about a lot of worse case scenrarios, it's just so you appreciate what is possible, but highly unlikely...

Like Break & Enter can get you 14 ...

It would appear yes, that you may lose you driving priviledges here in Ontario as a result of a conviction in the Michigan.


ONTARIO REGULATION 37/93

RECIPROCAL SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS LICENCE

Consolidation Period: From May 1, 2009 to the e-Laws currency date.

Last amendment: O. Reg. 404/08.

This Regulation is made in English only.

1 ...

The officer is merely reporting the approx speeds as estimated by the other driver.

In my jurisdiction, Careless is the defacto charge at most MVCs...you almost 100% can plead to a follow too close...

But here's the dealio...you go to court to fight Careless and you lose? Huge insurance hit, big fine, big points...it's risky.

You go and admit to ...

You had the right idea, but unfortunately the prosecutor is sick. That happens to all people.

You did sorta wait til the last minute, but you can still talk to them on your court date.

Courts aren't simple and user friendly or easy to understand, they've gotten more complicated over the years unfortunately as a result of case law, rights ...

I don't have a problem with that...

But is it more fuel efficient / enviromentally sound?

Certainly speed limits could be raised but by designating the 401 at 110 won't people speed up to 130 vs the current 120?

The 401 moves well above 110 on most days anyway...

I believe a lot of officers lay Careless cause it's 'all encompassing' and really if there was a collision, there generally was a degree of carelessness.

Some will disagree with the above statement, but I do this for a living and have layed this charge at hundreds of collisions...having said that, contact the prosecutor's office yourself, see if ...

If you're adamant you didn't break the law, never plead guilty...period, that's not what the system was created for...

If you think maybe you did, then work for the lesser offence, and disobey lane light applies, it's a light that control lane traffic, just a loose interpretation...

People think an amber means go ahead if you can and it by definition means you must stop.

So by saying you've gone thru an amber, you've broken the law provided you could have stopped. Now it's harder to prove cause it relies on a lot more factor, but the fine for amber lights is the same.

HOWEVER, you weren't charged with that, but while the ...

That's for the JP to decide...it's a big gamble considering what you have to lose...it could affect your insurance for years, your pocketbook straightaway...

Are you prepared to gamble...

Hence why I left the GTA....40 minute commute each way vs. 4 minute now...

Consider I've been here 19 years, have 10 til retirement work 182 shifts a year...

Time saving 72 X 182 X 29 = 380, 016 minutes or 6, 333hrs of driving time, plus associated fuel costs...and wear on my cars...

Thank God I got out when I did...

Justice = Justice of the Peace (judge)

Prosecutor - Crown Attorney

THe officer's memory is as permissible as the defence's. 90% of people who appear in court do so without notes, they aren't challenged on their lack of notes...

While I agree with your assertion that the volume of traffic stops the officer conducts would lead one to wonder how they would remember...

But memory is the entire point...notes alone ...

If you concede you went thru the amber (which is still the same fine and points), why not go see the prosecutor early on and discuss disobey lane light...$110, no points?

I have laid well over 1000 careless drivings...and continue too...despite what you think, it's a very winnable charge...

You can't blame 99.999999% of collision of exploding trailers etc...

Not here...

Your court date is your court date, you can meet with a Justice prior, but not sure what you're gonna argue, mostly unless there's a fatal flaw on the ticket faced it's a triable matter...if you absolutely want the smoothest path, take my advice...

I joined this board for several reasons but mostly it was to help people who show up in ...

I've never seen a speeding bridge, but if I do, it's getting a ticket!

If you don't show up you get convicted under section 9(1) of the provincial offences act, but they cannot amend if you aren't there...so you'll be convicted of what was on the certificate of offence.

As for your comment about over authoritative cops, that's why we have a court system and a professional standards branch and supervisors and a ...

No, you can call the prosecutor and tell them that you'll be unavailable those days and to request your day go to another date, or send someone in your place to court to act as your agent.

If you are found guilty cause you aren't there it may result in a licence suspension, increased insurance premiums and you applications for re-opening may not ...

More details please...

When, where, how, mobile radar? Laser? Other vehicles present?

29 over sounds like it was reduced...what was the recorded speed?

See my post in one of the other threads here about R. v. Wannamaker.

Well if you admit you were doing 75 (which morally you have) you are guilty of speeding. now the only arguement is the amount.

How do you know the officer is alledging you went 94 km/h? He told you at the stop...not sure if this is sufficient regarding this case law. But if you arrive and the prosecutor requests an amendment you're screwed. See my ...

Not sure why you can't find it, only we got it through our training branch / courts.

Case Name:
R. v. Wanamaker

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Steven Wanamaker

[2005] O.J. No. 1581

Ontario Court of Justice
Sudbury, Ontario
Y. Renaud J.

Oral judgment: January 25, 2005.
(15 paras.)
Criminal law — Appeals — Procedure — Information or indictment — Amendment — Transportation law — Motor vehicles — Offences — Speeding ...

Hmmm...I know people who are out of town on business when their wives give birth...but I can see what you're saying...

I would call the prosecution office BEFORE your court date, advise them you would like you matter put over for medical reasons (explain if necessary), they may require you to deliver a hand written / typed request.

Much easier to ...

I disagree.

Call the police, call the chief of police, call the Traffic Branch supervisor.

Call the mayor. Write the paper. Call the local Harley dealership.

The biggest obstacle we face is people not voicing their displeasures.

Granted the average street cop might care, but all major depts have a traffic branch.

I'd want the call.

I'd be more concerned with them entering the 94 kn/h amendment. The fine would go up from $138.75 and 3 demerits to $259 and 4 demerits. Also most insurance companies see anything 30 over and above as a MAJOR conviction which could seriously mess with your rates.

Where you going 94 km/h?

If so, pay this thing and be greatful.

I've seen dozens of ...

Yeah the fine structure is supposed to be $5k, $10k, $15k etc...I'm sure those a major hardships that will hopefully get the message across...

You have the officer's name? If not call their comm centre and get event#, time of dispatch and officer's info, tell them you need it for your insurance.

I think there is about a 1% chance you'll hear anything else about this.

Minor injuries, no damage to bike, the guy rode off on his power and unless you file a claim your insurance will never ...

Of the readings I've had on the radar unit 200 a day, 200 shifts a year, 22 years on the road...I've never once had a single reading that didn't match my observations.

If a radar fails, it doesn't operate, it doesn't register a reading or shows error.

It's like if your hearing starts to fails, you don't start hearing in another language, you just ...

Siriusone who have a very unique way of looking at things I'll give you that.

To address you're first comment, you are right more officers need to recognize it is their fault that people are speeding and not wearing their seatbelts. Good one.

All judicial officers are employees of the province. All revenue goes to the city...so the judges aren't ...