Search found 888 matches

Not the first time either

If the lights were blue then you should've stopped. If the lights were Amber you could argue that it looked like construction. If you can't remember then you likely weren't paying enough attention.

Does the video show you driving away with the logs still on the road or dud the video guy drive away while you were still working ?

I don't know your financial situation but if you get convicted of stunt driving as a G2 you are not going to be able to afford insurance for a long time. $500-$1000 a month probably.

Disqualified is different than simply not having a license. Whether the age thing would fall under that definition I doubt but that would be for a crown to argue and a judge to decide.

Personally I'd tell my kid just to wait.

Nope. But it couldn't turn on to road A.

Select the trial option and ask for disclosure. Then you can see what the evidence is.

Driving is indeed a right, on one's own property. If you choose to drive on public land then you must agree to the public laws.

They are in widespread use in the UK and are an excellent piece of kit. Basically people don't drive with valid registration or annual MOT (safety check) because you will be caught. Makes the roads much safer for me, my family and all road users.

I'd be interested to hear the rationale for why you think it is an infringement on rights, jsherk.

And that is the problem in lots of cases. People find one case law that supports their argument and ignore the dozen case laws that are contrary.

Yes. This is pretty standard. I had an impaired case where I testified that I was riding double with my partner and he testified we were in separate cruisers. Oops. The accused was still convicted as the rest of the testimony was solid. Just shows that you can't pin your hopes on one small discrepancy being enough to toss the whole case.

You can only play the motion of non suit card after the Crown has tendered all of their witnesses. Once the Crown has concluded their case you can make the motion. I am still having a very hard time with the whole sidewalk not being a part of the highway thing. Even ditches are considered highways if between the property lines, why wouldn't a side ...

A bit of a tangent but this refers back to the other thread about whether or not to speak to the police. Without having been there I would suggest that the OP's friend talked themselves into a ticket here. Sometimes a bit of politeness and civility will result in a warning whereas this alleged behavior will almost always result in paper being laid.

Absolutely not. Locking in is actually pretty irrelevant. I would testify the speed that I saw being displayed whether or not it was locked. I didn't allow people to come and see the radar because there is no need. To do so they have to get out into traffic and also tactically it would allow for someone who's agitated to take a run at me. I simply ...

I know you are putting great stock in that question. I just have my doubts that the justice will give it much weight. Time will tell.

And I certainly wouldn't take the 2 paper tickets over the moving violation ticket. Points mean nothing unless you are a habitual offender - it's all about the insurance and I'd rather have 1 ticket than 2. They don't care what they are for.

The problem I see for you is that you can't take the stand without purjuring yourself as you've said you were speeding (just not by as much as the ticket). Your entire case therefore rests on throwing enough reasonable doubt on the officers testimony by focusing on the fact that he caught you 80m from the intersection when he was 40m from the ...

It'll be interesting. I doubt the justice is going to give you what you're hoping for or put as much weight on your physics calculations as you are expecting but who knows. Do come back and let us know how it went.

So on this occasion, did you actually stop or did you roll to where you knew you would be able to see and then hit the gas to avoid what you perceived to be a possible collision ?

screeech wrote:I am curious, how can a vin number be key to your defence?

+1

Exactly. The correct action would have been to stop behind the line, then move forward slowly to where your view was sufficient to see that the way was clear, then proceed.

jsherk wrote:My point was that they can't make up charges and give you invalid tickets for having a bad attitude. If they charge you for something, then it had better be a valid charge.

That isn't what you said

My experience is this:
Don't give a statement = definitely get charged
Be nice, polite, apolgetic and give a statement = still definitely get charged.

I never suggested above that you should be rude or impolite. I simply say, very nicely "No comment." or "Am I required to answer that?"

This is your RIGHT to not say anything. The law says you do ...

Exactly that.

Do keep us posted. It will be interesting to see how this one develops. Cheers.

I understand that you are upset about this but I fail to see what you hope to gain. You say you are prepared to pay for the speed you think you were doing (10km/her over) and yet you've been offered 14km/hr over and turned that down.

It appears to me that you just want your day if court and for you to demonstrate to all that you believe the police ...

If you did stop and your brother and mother can testify to that, it would likely cause enough doubt. It will be hard for the officer to be able to give much detail if they made no notes.

Also, this won't affect your mother's insurance. You were driving, not her.

The police are not required to take statements from everyone. If they have the grounds then the charge can be laid and it sounds like you provided that. The law says it is your responsibility to be able to stop. Whether Careless is the correct charge is one for the court to decide - I'm sure you could get that changed to Fail To Turn Out To Avoid A ...

That was published eight and a half years ago. Perhaps their opinion has changed as technology has changed.