Search found 2654 matches

Agreed there are no obstructions, but you could be at an odd angle, and one that is not constant as you're observing, seeing as the plane will be flying faster than traffic. It's a hard thing to test, although travelling some back roads the other day, as I approached an intersection I spotted two cars travelling perpendicular to me, about 400m ...

If there was no real consequence for failure to pay, why would anyone pay a small fine? At what point would we cut it off? Also, The Stig points out that there was a warning on the offence notice. I'd be willing to be that in 80% of the cases, a written warning would still not compel the driver to pay the fine, so why waste the postage and paper ...

Where did you get pulled over?

Good news is, at the very worst, there should be an opportunity for a plea-bargain to a lesser speed, like 29 km/h over the limit, or less. That would be the route I'd take, unless one of the officers (the observer or the one who stopped you) does not show up... or if disclosure is not complete.

Bad news... charges ...

This situation reminds me of an incident a couple of years ago...

19-year-old driver pulled over by police for smoking with an individual less than 18 years of age in car. During traffic stop, 16-year-old occupant (driver's sister) gets out and starts smoking a cigarette. Officer hands driver a ticket... as the 16-year-old continues to smoke the ...

Marquisse wrote:It's too bad the left lane bandit didn't get ticketed as well.

+1

Go in to the courthouse and talk to a clerk. You'll have to appear before a JP to re-schedule/postpone the trial.

If there's no sign, you have been charged with the incorrect offence. You should have been charged with disobey lane marking. It's an entirely different offence. A lane marking is not a sign.

I'd choose option 3 (trial) and file the Notice of Intent to Appear to get started.

Definitely get professional help with this! The consequences of getting convicted could be very severe. Talk to some paralegals/traffic lawyers and see what they have to say, but don't go into this alone.

A reduction from a Red Light - Fail to Stop to a 0 demerit point offence is always a good thing, plus your insurance company likely won't freak out over it.

I'd say you did the right thing. Could you have won? Don't know. And I don't want to speculate either. You got a good result. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Visiting the courthouse as an observer is a great idea. This shows you how trials will proceed, and you can learn from those who are successful, and those who are not. It's free, too.

Arguing that if I did drive at 30kh/hr through a controlled intersection would be grounds for dangerous driving and the officer should have also given me a ticket for dangerous driving, which he did not, therefore I was traveling slower than 30km/hr?

Too subjective. There is no law, statute or ruling that says proceeding through a stop sign at ...

I also understand that the disclosure request should be sent registered mail. Lastly if I am provede with video evidence from the officers in car camera. would that not be enough to clear me as it would clearly show that the officer could not possibly see the light.

You can also go into the courthouse and hand-deliver the disclosure request ...

You can talk to a Prosecutor any time after the trial date is set. Just be forewarned, some of them will play games and try to back you into a corner. If they want to engage in brinkmanship, that's their problem. This case is easily winnable. What I'd suggest you do is look at the "Guidelines for Submitting Photographs" thread here:

http://www ...

I am in London & have an actual appointment with a time frame of 45 mins. Is this not customary?


They usually schedule several people for that "time frame," depending on how the court handles things and their workload.

They go first and if I don't agree with what they have to say I can reword questions to lead them in another direction? Only ...

The best suggestion I have is that, if you have any time between now and then, go over to the courthouse and observe a few trials. It is free of charge (except for parking). This will give you an idea of the procedure/protocols.

For the day of trial, show up early and check in with the Prosecutor, who may offer you a deal. Trials are usually held ...

Is this due to the collision where you were charged with "following too closely"? If so, any officer from the scene and/or witness could identify you as the driver if the summons was not delivered at the scene.

To answer your questions:

1. Something like "disobey official sign" under Metro Toronto by-law 32-92. Make sure that the Crown Prosecutor understands that you're not asking for "disobey sign" under the Highway Traffic Act, but a municipal offence. A municipal offence like that one would not be counted as a conviction because it would not go on ...

If the officer testifies "I could clearly see the signal," the JP will accept his testimony unless you can show it wasn't realistic. You'll need to prove, in court, that he couldn't see it. You'll need him to testify what his position was, and then show, using photographs or whatever, that he could not have seen the signal facing you from that ...

Don't plea bargain this one. You could do what hwybear suggests, or, after the trial date is scheduled, you could walk in and meet with a Prosecutor and explain the situation. Bring the evidence with you (photographs, etc). The Prosecutor should then drop the charge.

This was surprising...

A couple of weeks ago, I had just returned from Newark. It was roughly 9:00 AM, pulled into a Tim Horton's drive-thru. This particular one (Lawrence at Curlew in Toronto) often gets backed up with two lines of cars, one coming off Curlew, the other off Lawrence through the parking lot, going into the drive-thru.

Anyway ...

I read in another post that suggested that you quiestion credibility as the officer could not see the light I was facing from his vantage point?

It could work, but you'll have to prove that he couldn't see the signal.

Best thing to do is request a trial. At least that gives you some options, like plea-bargaining, etc.

Or, if you're sure that ...

Can I believe what he is saying and plead not guilty?

You can always plead not guilty. Whether he remembers or not, don't know. He may have written some information down in his notes that will jog his memory about that.

In this case, the first step would be to go to the courthouse with the ticket and a Notice to Appear filled out (print off ...

Best thing to do in your situation is to hire a paralegal who can fight this for you, unless you're in Toronto frequently. Ontario and BC have traffic-ticket reciprocity so if you get convicted of an HTA offence here, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation will notify BC, and they'll apply the conviction to your record. And of course, since ICBC is ...

I find people to be so aggressive that there have been occasions where my life was on the line because of their bully-driving. I'm not just using overblown prose here, either. I've been frightened - not by the speed of the highway as I've travelled the highways (particularly the QEW from Toronto all the way to Fort Erie) on a very frequent basis ...

True but its not what you know its what you can prove. It would be hard to prove intent.

Remember about two years ago near Milton? Two guys got into a road-rage incident on the James Snow Parkway, merged onto the eastbound 401, took off at high speed and then one of them cut the other off and gave him a brake job. The guy slammed on the brakes ...

yes it was on Riverside and Devonshire....lol
How'd you know lol


Well... I used to live in Windsor... lived in Riverside East, was based at Detroit-Metro Airport... so my commute was right down Riverside, with a stop at the Tim Horton's on Walker Road just north of there. :D Windsor Police would always set up with that black Dodge Magnum ...

Should have break checked him.

That's also stunt driving per O. Reg 455/07:

Definition, "stunt"

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another ...

hwybear wrote:freaking crazy out there....

I still get WTF moments on a regular basis... things I never saw when living in Detroit, Windsor, Vancouver, Memphis or Ottawa, I see all the time here. Driving in the GTA is really good for shock value.

Reflections wrote:I don't concern myself too much about other drivers on the roads that drive the same routes regularly.

+1

Weekends are chock full of erratic, incompetent driving... much more so than weekdays...

Incidentally, the highest driver test failure rates were at:

1. Brampton
2. Scarborough

Coincidence?

There is something so fundamentally wrong with charging $325 when you really don't know who was behind it.

Ditto for photo radar... although Arizona found a way to solve that problem. They have speed cameras set up on freeways in Phoenix, which take high-resolution snapshots of both the vehicle AND the driver, so then the driver gets charged ...