Search found 2111 matches

1) A valid insurance slips for the date of the offence should suffice as proof that you had insurance. But what were you actually charged with? Not having insurance or not having your proof of insurance with you? If it was the latter, the charge is for not having it with you at the time you were stopped. Bringing it to Court doesn't nullify the ...

Not sure on some of the short forms, but what I can decipher:

Obs (observed) ??? Toyota ???
Lane 2 of 3 ???
Approach high rate of speed
???
Target laser speed 147 km/h
Never lost sight
???
???
No valid excuse given
???
Highway posted 100
Signs ???
Markham Road ???

Laser Atlanta
Serial #23489
Tested at 0605 hrs
And at 1335 Hrs

1) Yes, police have 6 months to proceed with the charge. Very unlikely though, especially since the officer told you he wouldn't.
2) Very minor error that shouldn't cause any problems.
3) No, the error is on the part of the police and no, insurance companies have no say on charges being laid.

snowman15 wrote:'Guilty with an explanation'? ..... If I chose this route....is it possible to get the charge reduced to something lesser?

No, because you're pleading guilty to the charge as is. You can only get a fine reduction.

You'll want to select not guilty and seek a plea deal with the Crown to a lesser offence.

Yes, they have six months to proceed with the charge.

I personally wouldn't have waited so long to attend the reporting centre. Your legally obliged to attend right away, not at your earliest convenience. You're lucky you're not being charged for failing to report it.

clover wrote:Because i have never broken the law, and a criminal offense will cost me my job. Period.

Just to point out, none of these are criminal offences. None would impact your ability to travel outside the country, etc.

TomLee wrote:so would be two year from july 31,2011

Yes, two years from July 31, 2011. The demerit points are only added after a conviction, and only stay on your driving record for two years from the offence date.

Two years from the offence date actually.

I think there's mixed opinions on that bit of advice. In my opinion it would be difficult to argue in Court you never received disclosure because you refused to provide your phone number. It can quite rightfully look like a stalling tactic.

The other issue is I believe you get an additional 30 day suspension upon conviction.

Failing to stop for a red light is what's known as an absolute liability offence. Not seeing the light isn't justification for going through and wouldn't be a valid defence in Court.

Yes, they're directional and only photograph vehicles going the direction they're facing.

gabe wrote:The only difference between the two tickets is $$$ and really probably less than $30.

$12.50 would be the difference in fines or $20 if they go with the HTA versus set fines.

The term highway in traffic law typically refers to all roads, not just actual proper highways. Through highway typically means any road that connects to another road and has stop/yield signs where they meet. Still, Hamilton bylaws might have a different definition, so it's worth checking.

As for fighting it, I'd say it really depends on the fine.

Most likely the officer was using moving radar. It's mounted on the dash of the cruiser and can detect the speed of oncoming traffic. And you're correct, moving with the speed of traffic is not a defence. You'll have to request disclosure and go from there. Disclosure should consist of the officer's notes and at least part of the manual for the ...

How much your insurance goes up will really depend on your insurance provider and policy. Rough estimate is anywhere from 50% to 300%.

There's not really much to fight the charge on other then charter violation or calling the reading into dispute.

For a charter violation, you'd have to argue that the officer didn't have the grounds to make the ...

I don't think the e-mail would be accepted as evidence. You'd probably need to call the City employee as a witness, or possibly at the very least get some type of notarized letter.

As for your second question, which detection loop are your referring to? The one that changes the light? Are you saying the light wouldn't change at all?

Not sure that ...

Typically any suspension resulting from a conviction will impact insurance.

I honestly don't know what your chances are of pleading out to something else. It really varies depending on what region you're in and what Crown you're dealing with.

1) Yes, though I would contact the Court office ahead of time. They'll need to book more time for a full trial and make arrangements to have the officer attend.
2) No points, but I believe you receive an additional 30 day suspension upon conviction.

Throughout the night I was thinking about the scenario, I mean 0.01 how accurate is that? I had to ...

Since the other vehicle failed to remain, an offence has been committed. You can and should report the matter to police even if the damage is under $1,000.

No, I don't think so. Just the time an expense, with no gain that I can see even if you win. Unless it's just the principle of the matter.

If you go to trial the error on the ticket can be amended. Again, search the forums and check other threads on the process. I have no experience with fatal errors myself, but many members have had their tickets quashed by following the correct process.

Unfortunately as the owner it's your responsibility to ensure the vehicle is insured. It really doesn't sound like you exercised sufficient due diligence for a defence in Court. I would suggest consulting with a paralegal on the matter to seek out a possible defence or plea deal.

It's covered under section 79 of the Highway Traffic Act. It prohibits speed measuring warning devices, which are defined as anything designed to detect and/or interfere with speed measuring equipment.

Well, convictions appear on your driving record for life, but insurance companies can only go back 3 or 4 years, and demerit points only stay on for 2 years. So while the conviction would likely still appear on your record, it shouldn't have any effect on your licence or insurance.

1) Technically it would be considered an uncontrolled intersection, which is covered by section 135 of the Highway Traffic Act. While I would recommend treating it as an all way stop from a safety standpoint, you're not legally required to. All the section says is that you must yield the right of way to vehicles in the intersection and to vehicles ...

The red light camera wouldn't have activated if had you entered the intersection on an amber. If the photo does show you entering the intersection on an amber, you should fight the ticket since the charge is incorrect.

Running a Saskatchewan plate is no different then an Ontario plate, the respective Provincial database is sent the query and returns the relevant data. All Provinces share vehicle information for the most part. Most US plates can also be queried with little difficulty. None of these databases are stored on the laptop due to the sheer amount of data ...

It's not that the Highway Traffic Act actually says solid lines/arrow aren't enforceable, it's just there's no section that says they are. Without a section saying you must obey them, they're not legally enforceable. Lane designation signs, under section 154, are legally enforceable however, but as you can see in the attached photo, the sign ...

The centre lane can be used by traffic in both directions. The arrows on the ground are more for reference, and aren't legally enforceable. Lane use is directed by posted signs, in this case there's one posted right in front of the Latino Pharmacy for WB traffic on Google Street View. The sign shows the centre lane being for left turns in both ...