Hi, I'm new here. There is some very interesting reading in this forum. As you'd expect I got a red light camera ticket back in the winter, January 5, to be exact. The weather at the time was extremely snowy. There is snow and ice all over the roads and my car in the photos. It is clearly very slippery. I was photographed at the white line entering the intersection 0.2 seconds after the light had turned. In fact, the average human reaction time is slightly more than this. I would literally have been incapable of braking upon seeing the light turn. Anyway, the photos are clear and I don't think there is much point disputing them. My court date is in a few days I am wondering what my best options are for either getting the fine reduced or thrown out entirely given I would have slid right through the intersection had I slammed on my brakes? I am a grad student so money is extremely tight! I was driving my mom's car at the time. Any advice would be appreciated.
Hi,
I'm new here. There is some very interesting reading in this forum. As you'd expect I got a red light camera ticket back in the winter, January 5, to be exact. The weather at the time was extremely snowy. There is snow and ice all over the roads and my car in the photos. It is clearly very slippery. I was photographed at the white line entering the intersection 0.2 seconds after the light had turned. In fact, the average human reaction time is slightly more than this. I would literally have been incapable of braking upon seeing the light turn. Anyway, the photos are clear and I don't think there is much point disputing them. My court date is in a few days I am wondering what my best options are for either getting the fine reduced or thrown out entirely given I would have slid right through the intersection had I slammed on my brakes?
I am a grad student so money is extremely tight! I was driving my mom's car at the time. Any advice would be appreciated.
As its an absolute liability offence, the weather conditions aren't a defence. You're expected to drive slower in icy conditions so that you can stop if needed. You can see if the Crown will offer you any type of plea deal. You might be able to get your fine reduced by half. You can also make submissions upon being found guilty to the Justice of the Peace regarding your fine. They may reduce it further (unlikely) but they can give you several months to pay.
As its an absolute liability offence, the weather conditions aren't a defence. You're expected to drive slower in icy conditions so that you can stop if needed. You can see if the Crown will offer you any type of plea deal. You might be able to get your fine reduced by half. You can also make submissions upon being found guilty to the Justice of the Peace regarding your fine. They may reduce it further (unlikely) but they can give you several months to pay.
Thanks for your comments. I have a possible response that I'd like you to consider. The time of the amber light was 3 seconds at the intersection. A simple calculation based on my speed and position at the time of the photo puts my car at 39 metres away from the entrance to the intersection at the time the light turned amber. The safe stopping distance using a thinking time of 1.5 seconds, dry roads and my speed puts the vehicle stopping distance at approximately 31 metres (the mass of the vehicle was not included in the calculation and I used an online calculator.) As you can see this is not a huge difference. We can assume that 31 metres would constitute the "point of no return" as outlined in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, which states on the yellow light "you must stop if you can do so safely; otherwise, go with caution." In icy conditions the estimated addition to safe stopping times can be up to 10 times and my photos show that it was extremely icy. Therefore, at 39 metres from the intersection at the time the light turned amber I was already well within the safe stopping distance in icy conditions. Had I tried to stop it is likely I would have skidded through the intersection, hit a nearby pedestrian and other vehicles. I maintain, based on this, that I actually made the safe decision in this instance and was simply on the wrong side of the white line by 0.2 seconds. Thoughts on this line of reasoning?
Thanks for your comments. I have a possible response that I'd like you to consider.
The time of the amber light was 3 seconds at the intersection. A simple calculation based on my speed and position at the time of the photo puts my car at 39 metres away from the entrance to the intersection at the time the light turned amber.
The safe stopping distance using a thinking time of 1.5 seconds, dry roads and my speed puts the vehicle stopping distance at approximately 31 metres (the mass of the vehicle was not included in the calculation and I used an online calculator.) As you can see this is not a huge difference. We can assume that 31 metres would constitute the "point of no return" as outlined in the Ontario Driver's Handbook, which states on the yellow light "you must stop if you can do so safely; otherwise, go with caution." In icy conditions the estimated addition to safe stopping times can be up to 10 times and my photos show that it was extremely icy. Therefore, at 39 metres from the intersection at the time the light turned amber I was already well within the safe stopping distance in icy conditions. Had I tried to stop it is likely I would have skidded through the intersection, hit a nearby pedestrian and other vehicles. I maintain, based on this, that I actually made the safe decision in this instance and was simply on the wrong side of the white line by 0.2 seconds.
Im not sure what speed youre using to calculate the stopping distance, but the Crown would simply argue you were going too fast. When weather conditions deteriorate, youre expected to slow to a speed that would have allowed you to safely stop, even if that means youre travelling well below the speed limit. If the conditions were unforeseen (i.e. oil spill on an otherwise clear road) it might be more understandable, but when the weather has obviously deteriorated you cant argue it was unexpected. Regardless, such arguments are a moot point. As mentioned above, failing to stop for a red light is whats known as an absolute liability offence. Most HTA offences are strict liability offences, where you could try your above argument and say that you were driving with due diligence and took reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. With an absolute liability offence however, the Courts are only looking at IF you committed the offence. Weather, stopping distances are all irrelevant. Basically your only defence is to try and disprove the Crowns case (i.e. error on ticket, faulty red light camera, etc.).
Im not sure what speed youre using to calculate the stopping distance, but the Crown would simply argue you were going too fast. When weather conditions deteriorate, youre expected to slow to a speed that would have allowed you to safely stop, even if that means youre travelling well below the speed limit. If the conditions were unforeseen (i.e. oil spill on an otherwise clear road) it might be more understandable, but when the weather has obviously deteriorated you cant argue it was unexpected.
Regardless, such arguments are a moot point. As mentioned above, failing to stop for a red light is whats known as an absolute liability offence. Most HTA offences are strict liability offences, where you could try your above argument and say that you were driving with due diligence and took reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. With an absolute liability offence however, the Courts are only looking at IF you committed the offence. Weather, stopping distances are all irrelevant. Basically your only defence is to try and disprove the Crowns case (i.e. error on ticket, faulty red light camera, etc.).
Agree with Stanton. The Prosecutor will say you failed to sufficiently adjust your speed for the conditions. All of those calculations are not going to help, because the Prosecutor and JP will ask "why weren't you going slower?" One of the measures that the courts accept and use is that if you are unable to stop for a red light due to speed/distance from the traffic light, your speed was too fast. Simple as that. And yes, this type argument has been tried in various forms many hundreds of times before. I've seen it used and it didn't work. You're going to have to look at another angle. If the Prosecutor is mildly sympathetic they might offer you a reduced fine for that case, but they won't withdraw the charge and I doubt that a JP would be convinced. Sorry...
Agree with Stanton. The Prosecutor will say you failed to sufficiently adjust your speed for the conditions. All of those calculations are not going to help, because the Prosecutor and JP will ask "why weren't you going slower?" One of the measures that the courts accept and use is that if you are unable to stop for a red light due to speed/distance from the traffic light, your speed was too fast. Simple as that.
And yes, this type argument has been tried in various forms many hundreds of times before. I've seen it used and it didn't work. You're going to have to look at another angle. If the Prosecutor is mildly sympathetic they might offer you a reduced fine for that case, but they won't withdraw the charge and I doubt that a JP would be convinced.
Sorry...
* The above is NOT legal advice. By acting on anything I have said, you assume responsibility for any outcome and consequences. *
http://www.OntarioTicket.com OR http://www.OHTA.ca
Thank you so much for your responses. I appreciate the advice a lot. I am in court tomorrow and plan on telling my story. Hopefully I can get a reduced fine. Is there any way I can speak to the prosecutor today or before the trial and see if they would be willing to be lenient in this instance?
Thank you so much for your responses. I appreciate the advice a lot. I am in court tomorrow and plan on telling my story. Hopefully I can get a reduced fine. Is there any way I can speak to the prosecutor today or before the trial and see if they would be willing to be lenient in this instance?
It is probably too late to get in touch with them today, but you can almost certainly talk to them before court tomorrow. Prosecutors will very often talk to people before court starts and work out deals where people agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lower fine.
It is probably too late to get in touch with them today, but you can almost certainly talk to them before court tomorrow. Prosecutors will very often talk to people before court starts and work out deals where people agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lower fine.
While probably not specifically related to this case, would there be an argument if the amber light time is below the "minimum" time. I believe I read online that the minimum recommended time is 3.3 seconds for a 50km/h road. Would the city hold some liability if they are timing their ambers below whatever professional recommendation exists? The cynic in me says that changing the amber times on a few key intersections (read: the ones with cameras) even by only half a second would increase tax revenue greatly - not only despicable and unsafe, but would also, in my opinion, would open up the city to the argument that "your amber light was too short, therefore being in the intersection 0.2 seconds after the light changed to red was reasonable and unavoidable, and not in fact illegal until x time had elapsed as per the recommendation of *insert body of great amber light knowledge*. The city would then need to respond as to why their ambers are shorter than recommended - might even open up the absolute liability debate on this one. If this was westbound Catherine at Bank st I can attest that that amber has always "seemed" way too short. Shorter than the light at O'connor or Lyon for sure. Thoughts?
While probably not specifically related to this case, would there be an argument if the amber light time is below the "minimum" time. I believe I read online that the minimum recommended time is 3.3 seconds for a 50km/h road.
Would the city hold some liability if they are timing their ambers below whatever professional recommendation exists? The cynic in me says that changing the amber times on a few key intersections (read: the ones with cameras) even by only half a second would increase tax revenue greatly - not only despicable and unsafe, but would also, in my opinion, would open up the city to the argument that "your amber light was too short, therefore being in the intersection 0.2 seconds after the light changed to red was reasonable and unavoidable, and not in fact illegal until x time had elapsed as per the recommendation of *insert body of great amber light knowledge*. The city would then need to respond as to why their ambers are shorter than recommended - might even open up the absolute liability debate on this one.
If this was westbound Catherine at Bank st I can attest that that amber has always "seemed" way too short. Shorter than the light at O'connor or Lyon for sure.
@orcrowing, lawfully you have to come to a complete stop on an amber light. It's only when you're not able to stop safely (ie. skidding, lose traction, no ABS) that you can proceed through. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... uote]Amber light (15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).[/quote]http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/post18159.html
@orcrowing, lawfully you have to come to a complete stop on an amber light. It's only when you're not able to stop safely (ie. skidding, lose traction, no ABS) that you can proceed through.
(15) Every driver approaching a traffic control signal showing a circular amber indication and facing the indication shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely, otherwise he or she may proceed with caution. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (15).[/quote]http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/post18159.html
I have another question. Is there any chance that I could make a defence of necessity in this instance? i.e. Had I stopped suddenly and skidded I would have possibly hit a nearby pedestrian? Therefore, it was necessary for me to proceed through the intersection? I realize that in order to mount this defence there must be no reasonable legal alternative to what I did, which in this case would have been stopping. However, as I stated above, stopping in the space I had, given the conditions, would have been impossible. I don't mean to belabour the point. I understand that they will ask why I wasn't going slower on the day as has been clearly stated already. However, I am not sure that this is relevant given that I was travelling 47 km/hr and that fact does not change the possible outcome of me going into a skid and potentially hitting a pedestrian, which is why it was necessary for me to avoid a skid at all costs. By the way in the interest of full disclosure I was on King Edward Ave in Ottawa and the red light camera is at the intersection of St. Andrew St. The speed limit, I was shocked to learn earlier today, is 40. This is surprising because it is a 6-lane road and is a major artery in downtown. By the way, the incident was over 6 months ago.
I have another question. Is there any chance that I could make a defence of necessity in this instance? i.e. Had I stopped suddenly and skidded I would have possibly hit a nearby pedestrian? Therefore, it was necessary for me to proceed through the intersection? I realize that in order to mount this defence there must be no reasonable legal alternative to what I did, which in this case would have been stopping. However, as I stated above, stopping in the space I had, given the conditions, would have been impossible. I don't mean to belabour the point. I understand that they will ask why I wasn't going slower on the day as has been clearly stated already. However, I am not sure that this is relevant given that I was travelling 47 km/hr and that fact does not change the possible outcome of me going into a skid and potentially hitting a pedestrian, which is why it was necessary for me to avoid a skid at all costs.
By the way in the interest of full disclosure I was on King Edward Ave in Ottawa and the red light camera is at the intersection of St. Andrew St. The speed limit, I was shocked to learn earlier today, is 40. This is surprising because it is a 6-lane road and is a major artery in downtown. By the way, the incident was over 6 months ago.
Right, and I understand what the law says (although my concern has always been whether or not the guy behind me can stop safely if I brake too aggressively, not any of the other issues that you mention) I am blown away that the minimums are as low as they are. 50 km/hr is about 14 m/s, so the government expects everybody to be able to decelerate at better than 9 m/s (and that's without any reaction time) - There isn't a hope in hell that most people are able to. I doubt most cars would be able to - Trucks are certainly not. The post by hwybear doesn't mention any accounting for speed limits when calculating amber lights - Anyone know? I found the website I referred to earlier, referencing ITE recommendations (not minimums, I guess) http://web.ncf.ca/bf250/lights.html
iFly55 wrote:
@orcrowing, lawfully you have to come to a complete stop on an amber light. It's only when you're not able to stop safely (ie. skidding, lose traction, no ABS) that you can proceed through.
Right, and I understand what the law says (although my concern has always been whether or not the guy behind me can stop safely if I brake too aggressively, not any of the other issues that you mention)
I am blown away that the minimums are as low as they are. 50 km/hr is about 14 m/s, so the government expects everybody to be able to decelerate at better than 9 m/s (and that's without any reaction time) - There isn't a hope in hell that most people are able to. I doubt most cars would be able to - Trucks are certainly not. The post by hwybear doesn't mention any accounting for speed limits when calculating amber lights - Anyone know?
I found the website I referred to earlier, referencing ITE recommendations (not minimums, I guess)
This is absolutely not helping your case. If the posted limit was 40 km/h, and in what you described as deteriorate weather conditions... you were speeding +7 km/h. This is where the necessity defence also falls apart, the reasonable legal alternative would have been to drive at or well below the limit. The collision with the pedestrian can't be foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable. If by braking you were going to lose control of your vehicle, you were already going too fast. Believe me, everyone here wants to help you but you were simply going too fast for the conditions. Your best case here is to get a reduced fine and extra time to pay; if you have financial hardship, the courts in some cases can hand down suspended sentences ($0 fine). At Old City Hall in Toronto a defendant showed up and said he was unemployed with three kids and walked away with $0 fine.
MHero wrote:
I have another question. Is there any chance that I could make a defence of necessity in this instance? i.e. Had I stopped suddenly and skidded I would have possibly hit a nearby pedestrian? Therefore, it was necessary for me to proceed through the intersection? I realize that in order to mount this defence there must be no reasonable legal alternative to what I did, which in this case would have been stopping. However, as I stated above, stopping in the space I had, given the conditions, would have been impossible. I don't mean to belabour the point. I understand that they will ask why I wasn't going slower on the day as has been clearly stated already. However, I am not sure that this is relevant given that I was travelling 47 km/hr and that fact does not change the possible outcome of me going into a skid and potentially hitting a pedestrian, which is why it was necessary for me to avoid a skid at all costs.
By the way in the interest of full disclosure I was on King Edward Ave in Ottawa and the red light camera is at the intersection of St. Andrew St. The speed limit, I was shocked to learn earlier today, is 40. This is surprising because it is a 6-lane road and is a major artery in downtown. By the way, the incident was over 6 months ago.
This is absolutely not helping your case. If the posted limit was 40 km/h, and in what you described as deteriorate weather conditions... you were speeding +7 km/h.
This is where the necessity defence also falls apart, the reasonable legal alternative would have been to drive at or well below the limit. The collision with the pedestrian can't be foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable. If by braking you were going to lose control of your vehicle, you were already going too fast.
Believe me, everyone here wants to help you but you were simply going too fast for the conditions. Your best case here is to get a reduced fine and extra time to pay; if you have financial hardship, the courts in some cases can hand down suspended sentences ($0 fine). At Old City Hall in Toronto a defendant showed up and said he was unemployed with three kids and walked away with $0 fine.
Thank you all for your responses. I do believe that everyone is trying to help and I sincerely appreciate it. I was just trying to understand how I might best proceed in the case of an absolute liability offence, which as I have learned from this forum, is what I am dealing with. I will be trying to speak to the prosecutor and get a reduction to my ticket. However, in the off chance that he/she won't play ball I felt that I needed to be prepared with a backup plan. I will say one last thing however, and that is that regardless of speed slamming the brakes on in icy conditions is a good way to get into trouble. I may not have skidded or I may have. There is no way to know the outcome of that scenario with certainty. Therefore, at the time I felt it was safer to proceed with caution than potentially enter a more dangerous situation.
Thank you all for your responses. I do believe that everyone is trying to help and I sincerely appreciate it. I was just trying to understand how I might best proceed in the case of an absolute liability offence, which as I have learned from this forum, is what I am dealing with. I will be trying to speak to the prosecutor and get a reduction to my ticket. However, in the off chance that he/she won't play ball I felt that I needed to be prepared with a backup plan.
I will say one last thing however, and that is that regardless of speed slamming the brakes on in icy conditions is a good way to get into trouble. I may not have skidded or I may have. There is no way to know the outcome of that scenario with certainty. Therefore, at the time I felt it was safer to proceed with caution than potentially enter a more dangerous situation.
That is why you drive at a speed that allows you to react to situations ahead without having to slam on the brakes. You may have to for a kid that runs out onto the road but you were aware that you were approaching a traffic light and that it had the potential to turn on you, therefore it was your responsibility to be able to stop in time.
That is why you drive at a speed that allows you to react to situations ahead without having to slam on the brakes. You may have to for a kid that runs out onto the road but you were aware that you were approaching a traffic light and that it had the potential to turn on you, therefore it was your responsibility to be able to stop in time.
Former Ontario Police Officer. Advice will become less relevant as the time goes by !
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
