so last night i was driving home at around 1am i was going 120 in a 100 when a car started tailgating me (almost bumper to bumper) i sped up in order to put some distance between us but it wouldnt leave me alone for over 10 minutes. i was exhausted and not paying attention to my speed guage i ended up accelerating to 140 then 150 and at 150 the car tailgating me turned ou to be an unmarked police car which pulled me over and charged me for speeding and stunt driving then took away my license and car for 7 days im a 19 year old female, g2, no previous offenses is there anything i can do to fight this fight? on a side note i think its horrible how police vehicales entrapt people like this.
so last night i was driving home at around 1am
i was going 120 in a 100 when a car started tailgating me (almost bumper to bumper)
i sped up in order to put some distance between us but it wouldnt leave me alone for over 10 minutes.
i was exhausted and not paying attention to my speed guage i ended up accelerating
to 140 then 150 and at 150 the car tailgating me turned ou to be an unmarked police car which
pulled me over and charged me for speeding and stunt driving then took away my license and car
for 7 days
im a 19 year old female, g2, no previous offenses is there anything i can do to fight this fight?
on a side note i think its horrible how police vehicales entrapt people like this.
I think youd be best consulting with a paralegal. They could review the case for possible defences or more likely work out a plea deal. I personally dont think your reasoning is a valid defence. If someone is riding on your bumper speeding up is the last thing you want to do. If youre concerned about your safety youd either want to gradually slow down or simply pull over to let the vehicle pass. It certainly isn't entrapment.
I think youd be best consulting with a paralegal. They could review the case for possible defences or more likely work out a plea deal.
I personally dont think your reasoning is a valid defence. If someone is riding on your bumper speeding up is the last thing you want to do. If youre concerned about your safety youd either want to gradually slow down or simply pull over to let the vehicle pass. It certainly isn't entrapment.
I believe that fear for life (or might be safety) is a valid defence to speeding charge. I don't remember the exact wording but it should be in the HTA. If you state that you saw this dark car behind you with tinted window, and you have a reason to fear that it is someone who is targetting you (for kidnapping, rape, robbery, or to shoot you dead), then you can speed due to the risk to your life. Never saw this defence being used, but you might be able to frame it properly. It would have been virtually impossible to use this defence if it was a clearly marked police car behind you that you couldn't have mistaken for a criminal's car :) This is just my opinion, you might want to get some proper legal advise on what defence will be best for you. Regards,
I believe that fear for life (or might be safety) is a valid defence to speeding charge. I don't remember the exact wording but it should be in the HTA.
If you state that you saw this dark car behind you with tinted window, and you have a reason to fear that it is someone who is targetting you (for kidnapping, rape, robbery, or to shoot you dead), then you can speed due to the risk to your life.
Never saw this defence being used, but you might be able to frame it properly. It would have been virtually impossible to use this defence if it was a clearly marked police car behind you that you couldn't have mistaken for a criminal's car
This is just my opinion, you might want to get some proper legal advise on what defence will be best for you.
Even better.. as long as she couldn't tell whether that was a friend/relative's car, a police or other official car, or a stolen car in the progress of committing a crime
Even better.. as long as she couldn't tell whether that was a friend/relative's car, a police or other official car, or a stolen car in the progress of committing a crime
I guess she could :) But my argument would be if this is the case, then why have the exception embedded under the speeding clause at all? The Justice must apply the law, not make the law. If he thinks that this exception under the rule of speeding must be removed, he should write a letter to the provincial parliament, but it remains valid until the law is modified.
I guess she could But my argument would be if this is the case, then why have the exception embedded under the speeding clause at all?
The Justice must apply the law, not make the law. If he thinks that this exception under the rule of speeding must be removed, he should write a letter to the provincial parliament, but it remains valid until the law is modified.
I have yet to see this "exemption" you speak of .....if you can put a link to the section for all members, exemptions under the HTA 128 (speeding) is for emergency vehicles and HTA OREG 455/07 (stunt regulation) is for emergency vehicles
I have yet to see this "exemption" you speak of .....if you can put a link to the section for all members, exemptions under the HTA 128 (speeding) is for emergency vehicles and HTA OREG 455/07 (stunt regulation) is for emergency vehicles
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I'll have to look it up as I said I don't remember the specifics. But this is a general principle in law that applies to anything short of murder. There were cases that spoke of this, there is also a criteria such as: 1. fear must be genuine, not something you just made up so you can commit the said offence 2. the eminent danger must be to the defendant 3. The evil prevented should be more than the evil done. 4. No more than reasonable evil can be done to avoid the eminent threat or danger (i.e., if she needs to speed to 150 to lose the guy, she can't justify going 240 km) An analogy to this defence is the Self-Defence clause, where you can defend the use of force to assault someone, if you are facing the eminent danger of being assaulted yourself. Only difference is that Self-Defence may in some situation apply to murder as well, while the above principle can't. That's all I know.. sorry I don't know where the clause is specifically to post a link
I'll have to look it up as I said I don't remember the specifics. But this is a general principle in law that applies to anything short of murder. There were cases that spoke of this, there is also a criteria such as:
1. fear must be genuine, not something you just made up so you can commit the said offence
2. the eminent danger must be to the defendant
3. The evil prevented should be more than the evil done.
4. No more than reasonable evil can be done to avoid the eminent threat or danger (i.e., if she needs to speed to 150 to lose the guy, she can't justify going 240 km)
An analogy to this defence is the Self-Defence clause, where you can defend the use of force to assault someone, if you are facing the eminent danger of being assaulted yourself. Only difference is that Self-Defence may in some situation apply to murder as well, while the above principle can't.
That's all I know.. sorry I don't know where the clause is specifically to post a link
What youre talking about isnt an actual exemption under the HTA, but rather one of the few defences available for an absolute liability offence. A defence of duress however places the onus on the defendant to show they reasonably feared for their life and their actions taken were reasonable. So while the defence is available to the OP, you cant simply say that it might have been a criminal following you.
What youre talking about isnt an actual exemption under the HTA, but rather one of the few defences available for an absolute liability offence. A defence of duress however places the onus on the defendant to show they reasonably feared for their life and their actions taken were reasonable. So while the defence is available to the OP, you cant simply say that it might have been a criminal following you.
Correct. And the onus would be on the defendant to prove the duress as you stated. Check out this scenario, I don't know the chance of success but it sounds reasonable to use. After all, it all depends on the defendant and the circumstances: I could see someone saying that they saw a dark looking, unknown vehicle tailgating them too closely at 1 a.m. in the morning with very few (if any) vehicles driving by. The tailgating was too close that it would have been a danger to hit the brake in a highway at that speed. OP tried to speed a tiny bit hoping to maintain a safe distance from the other unknown car in case of a sudden break due any unforeseen circumstances but to no avail, the unknown, dark vehicle sped up to drive again to stick to the OP's bumper. The OP started to fear for her safety, she notices that the actions of the unknown vehicle leave no doubt that this car is targetting her. She worries that after leaving the club (or restaurant, or wherever she was), maybe she was targetted as a potential prey for rapists. She was worried she'll end up being raped or worse. At the circumstances, with no doubt that she is being targetted by the unknown vehicle, the only option for her is to try to flee and hope to see a police patrol on the highway or reach a police station. (Who knows whether she had a phone with her to dial 911 or whether she even had a chance to do so). After speeding up, the unknown vehicle turned its police emergency lights on. She then felt safe to stop as it is a police car and her fears for being raped would now diminish. She then slowed down and stopped at the officer's request. What do you guys think of this defence? N.B: I sped up once after being tailgaited by a cop. That was 8 years ago. I was anxious to have that officer on the stand for cross examination but unfortunately he resigned before the trial. So he escaped the exercise :)
Correct. And the onus would be on the defendant to prove the duress as you stated.
Check out this scenario, I don't know the chance of success but it sounds reasonable to use. After all, it all depends on the defendant and the circumstances:
I could see someone saying that they saw a dark looking, unknown vehicle tailgating them too closely at 1 a.m. in the morning with very few (if any) vehicles driving by. The tailgating was too close that it would have been a danger to hit the brake in a highway at that speed.
OP tried to speed a tiny bit hoping to maintain a safe distance from the other unknown car in case of a sudden break due any unforeseen circumstances but to no avail, the unknown, dark vehicle sped up to drive again to stick to the OP's bumper. The OP started to fear for her safety, she notices that the actions of the unknown vehicle leave no doubt that this car is targetting her. She worries that after leaving the club (or restaurant, or wherever she was), maybe she was targetted as a potential prey for rapists. She was worried she'll end up being raped or worse.
At the circumstances, with no doubt that she is being targetted by the unknown vehicle, the only option for her is to try to flee and hope to see a police patrol on the highway or reach a police station. (Who knows whether she had a phone with her to dial 911 or whether she even had a chance to do so).
After speeding up, the unknown vehicle turned its police emergency lights on. She then felt safe to stop as it is a police car and her fears for being raped would now diminish. She then slowed down and stopped at the officer's request.
What do you guys think of this defence?
N.B: I sped up once after being tailgaited by a cop. That was 8 years ago. I was anxious to have that officer on the stand for cross examination but unfortunately he resigned before the trial. So he escaped the exercise
FYI, I've seen that particular defence (or versions of it) attempted on more than one occasion in court. I have yet to see it succeed.
FYI, I've seen that particular defence (or versions of it) attempted on more than one occasion in court. I have yet to see it succeed.
* 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
Hi radar identified, can you share with us the reason why that defense didn't succeed in the occasion you witnessed? Was it that the justice wasn't satisfied that reasonably the danger was in fact eminent or real? Or did he say something about the legality of the defense? Just curious
Hi radar identified, can you share with us the reason why that defense didn't succeed in the occasion you witnessed? Was it that the justice wasn't satisfied that reasonably the danger was in fact eminent or real? Or did he say something about the legality of the defense?
Hi taikora, Can you elaborate a little bit. If the speed limit is 100, you were likely on a controlled access highway with multiple lanes in each direction. Were you alone in the car? What lane were you traveling in when the boggy latched on to your bumper and stuck like glue? What was the road lighting like? What was traffic like? Did you change lanes? Did you pass any off ramps or rest stops? Did you take any evasive action other than speeding up? How familiar are you with the general area? Would the cop agree that you maxed out at 150? Usually, when they come screaming up behind you, they're running your plate. That's the time to be cool. Don't brake because you'll look guilty. If you have to scrub speed, blip the throttle and shift down. But, don't speed up. Not a lot of non-cops do that stick-to-your-bumper thing on a multi-lane highway unless there's beaucoupe d traffic and you are parked in the left lane. (And I do wish that police would hand out more tickets for slow left lane driving; is there ever a campaign for that?) At 1 am, a cop is probably thinking booze and you darned well better be under whatever limit applies. If he's already running your plate, be prepared for a stop and be prepared to answer questions about alcohol. Assuming no impairment issues, 120 in a 100 is not going to get his dander up. But 150 usually is. It's better all the way around if no one's dander is up. If you really did max out at 150, you can probably get a couple of km/h knocked off. Even with that, this is going to be bad news for a 19yo G2's insurance :-( Also, don't tell them [insurance] the whole story; it's going to be construed as a propensity to race. The question that will arise is: what is the end game for losing the douche bag on your tail? One sixty? One Seventy? Very high speed drift through an off ramp?
Hi taikora,
Can you elaborate a little bit. If the speed limit is 100, you were likely on a controlled access highway with multiple lanes in each direction. Were you alone in the car? What lane were you traveling in when the boggy latched on to your bumper and stuck like glue? What was the road lighting like? What was traffic like? Did you change lanes? Did you pass any off ramps or rest stops? Did you take any evasive action other than speeding up? How familiar are you with the general area? Would the cop agree that you maxed out at 150?
Usually, when they come screaming up behind you, they're running your plate. That's the time to be cool. Don't brake because you'll look guilty. If you have to scrub speed, blip the throttle and shift down. But, don't speed up. Not a lot of non-cops do that stick-to-your-bumper thing on a multi-lane highway unless there's beaucoupe d traffic and you are parked in the left lane. (And I do wish that police would hand out more tickets for slow left lane driving; is there ever a campaign for that?) At 1 am, a cop is probably thinking booze and you darned well better be under whatever limit applies. If he's already running your plate, be prepared for a stop and be prepared to answer questions about alcohol. Assuming no impairment issues, 120 in a 100 is not going to get his dander up. But 150 usually is. It's better all the way around if no one's dander is up.
If you really did max out at 150, you can probably get a couple of km/h knocked off. Even with that, this is going to be bad news for a 19yo G2's insurance Also, don't tell them [insurance] the whole story; it's going to be construed as a propensity to race. The question that will arise is: what is the end game for losing the douche bag on your tail? One sixty? One Seventy? Very high speed drift through an off ramp?
Same thing happened to me but I didn't receive a ticket... http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic4160.html Always a good idea to back off. And I can honestly say I didn't feel threatened by this other car but was annoyed. I'm sure that if I had felt threatened in some way (for example, if he had followed me off to the shoulder), I would have dialled 911 immediately and kept a close eye on him. If I had needed to take evasive action, including speeding, I would have had kept 911 informed as to what was going on. In this sense, I think I would have had a strong case if the LEO charged me with speeding - I would have proof with my 911 calls that I was concerned. But without proof like this, I think it would be hard to explain you used speed because you were scared, IMHO.
Same thing happened to me but I didn't receive a ticket...
And I can honestly say I didn't feel threatened by this other car but was annoyed. I'm sure that if I had felt threatened in some way (for example, if he had followed me off to the shoulder), I would have dialled 911 immediately and kept a close eye on him. If I had needed to take evasive action, including speeding, I would have had kept 911 informed as to what was going on. In this sense, I think I would have had a strong case if the LEO charged me with speeding - I would have proof with my 911 calls that I was concerned.
But without proof like this, I think it would be hard to explain you used speed because you were scared, IMHO.
The only part that seems unfair to me is that they waited until she hit 150 before pulling her over and charging her. Surely she is already breaking the law at 120 so pull her over if she is speeding or acting in a suspicious manner (like you suspect intoxication). Why not pull her over at 130, 140, 145? Isn't it a responsibility to prevent further offences, like you see a guy with a gun do you wait until they shoot it before you arrest them? More serious perhaps but allowing them to keep going faster when they are already speeding just seems like waiting to see how fast they will go, which seems a bit irresponsible. Unless she floored it and went from 120 to 150 pretty quick, not sure what she was driving. Also surely the police car is also speeding, which is justified for the purpose of pulling over the other speeding car, but they must have then proceeded to keep pace until she hit 150 which also seems a little irresponsible if they could have ended the situation earlier. Not necessarily any defence, as you say on a multi lane highway at that time of night it is unlikely there was gridlock traffic prventing you from pulling over to let them pass if you thought it was a crazy person tailgating you. My borther inlaw had a crazy person tailgating them on the way home recently, honking their horn, pulling in front and slowing down. Not sure why, maybe they thought they were someone else, but he just pulled over and they carried on their way.
The only part that seems unfair to me is that they waited until she hit 150 before pulling her over and charging her. Surely she is already breaking the law at 120 so pull her over if she is speeding or acting in a suspicious manner (like you suspect intoxication). Why not pull her over at 130, 140, 145? Isn't it a responsibility to prevent further offences, like you see a guy with a gun do you wait until they shoot it before you arrest them? More serious perhaps but allowing them to keep going faster when they are already speeding just seems like waiting to see how fast they will go, which seems a bit irresponsible. Unless she floored it and went from 120 to 150 pretty quick, not sure what she was driving. Also surely the police car is also speeding, which is justified for the purpose of pulling over the other speeding car, but they must have then proceeded to keep pace until she hit 150 which also seems a little irresponsible if they could have ended the situation earlier.
Not necessarily any defence, as you say on a multi lane highway at that time of night it is unlikely there was gridlock traffic prventing you from pulling over to let them pass if you thought it was a crazy person tailgating you. My borther inlaw had a crazy person tailgating them on the way home recently, honking their horn, pulling in front and slowing down. Not sure why, maybe they thought they were someone else, but he just pulled over and they carried on their way.
My notes aren't the greatest but here's what I have. Essentially hk111 hit the nail on the head: If someone is tailgating you, what is the end game for getting rid of them? In two of the cases I saw, the drivers were in the left most lane and did not make any effort to move to the right. The JP ruled their basis for "I feared for my life" (or words to that effect) was not reasonable, because they did not take any effort to see if the person followed them into another lane. An aggressive driver in the left lane often just wants other drivers to move out of the way, or might be goading them into a race. Instead, the two defendants kept going faster. They also had a legal obligation to move right when a faster moving car approached from behind, which, they failed to do. One of them, when asked, said: "I don't move over for nobody." Why not? "Other drivers go too damn fast." FYI: He was caught going 226. IRONY MUCH? The third case involved a person who likely had histronic AND paranoid personality disorder, and her theatrics in court pretty much did her in. She claimed (with full waterworks) that because she is so "beautiful" she is "stalked all the time" and she often has to try to outrun these types of people. I think you can imagine how that ended... No wonder the cops call it "Kangaroo Court."
skywalker12 wrote:
Hi radar identified, can you share with us the reason why that defense didn't succeed in the occasion you witnessed? Was it that the justice wasn't satisfied that reasonably the danger was in fact eminent or real? Or did he say something about the legality of the defense?
My notes aren't the greatest but here's what I have. Essentially hk111 hit the nail on the head: If someone is tailgating you, what is the end game for getting rid of them?
In two of the cases I saw, the drivers were in the left most lane and did not make any effort to move to the right. The JP ruled their basis for "I feared for my life" (or words to that effect) was not reasonable, because they did not take any effort to see if the person followed them into another lane. An aggressive driver in the left lane often just wants other drivers to move out of the way, or might be goading them into a race. Instead, the two defendants kept going faster. They also had a legal obligation to move right when a faster moving car approached from behind, which, they failed to do. One of them, when asked, said: "I don't move over for nobody." Why not? "Other drivers go too damn fast." FYI: He was caught going 226. IRONY MUCH?
The third case involved a person who likely had histronic AND paranoid personality disorder, and her theatrics in court pretty much did her in. She claimed (with full waterworks) that because she is so "beautiful" she is "stalked all the time" and she often has to try to outrun these types of people. I think you can imagine how that ended... No wonder the cops call it "Kangaroo Court."
* 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
Hi, I am new to the forum. I have been trying to get information off of here and www.ticketcombat.com for my case.
I was given a ticket for going 122km/h in a posted 100km/h zone at Hwy 401 east at Thickson Rd in Whitby ON on April 10th, 2009.
I find this absolutely absurd, since I was in the left most lane of the 401 approximately(within 5km/h) following the speed of traffic in my lane. The guy in…
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
On Wednesday I attended court at 1530 Markham Road, courtroom E2, in order to fight my speeding ticket. My original plan was to plead not guilty, and to watch all the people who went before me, the process, the Prosecutor and the Justice Of The Peace so I could strategize and form the best plan for my defence at trial. I had done some research online and sort of knew I wanted to defend myself,…
About 5 months ago I was driving along a two-way road approaching an intersection. The road had a left/ straight turning lane and a right turning lane. There was an 18 wheel gravel truck occupying the left lane at a red light. I pulled behind the truck intending to drive straight. After not moving for about 1 second, I check my rear view mirror, signaled and changed lanes to the right…
I am currently working for an auto parts delivery company and they contracted me to work as a courier.
As I left my base to make my first delivery which was less than 300 meters away from the shop, I had my seat belt off because i was under the impression, according to Section 106 Exception #6 subsection (c) of the highway traffic act, that I would be exempted from the seat belt law. The rule…
Got a ticket yesterday for "Insecure Load" contrary to HTA Sec 111(2). $160. I was pulling a utility trailer in which I had loaded a steel and wood cabinet. Total length of cabinet is 57.5". 14.75" (1/4 of the cabinet) was sticking out over the side of the trailer at about a 45 degree angle, the rest (3/4) was inside the trailer. The trailer has sides 24" high. I didn't have a tie-down or bungee…
I've been researching for months for defence strategy and basic trial information regarding my speeding ticket. However, the information is so conflicting that I have no confidence whatsoever that I know what I'm doing.
I didn't get this info from a friend of a friend, it came from this website, court officials, case laws, and a consultation with a traffic ticket fighting company.
So I was driving east bound pulling an empty tandem trailer on a gravel highway. Eventually I caught up to a truck pulling a fifth wheel. The speed limit was 70km/h and I don't quite remember but I'm almost 100% that the guy in front of me was driving at 60km/h. After being behind him for a few kilometers and getting two cracks in my windshield from rocks off his tires, I decided to pass him. I…
I have been driving for over 10 years without any tickets and accidents what so ever. Unfortunately my luck ran out this past Friday; when the officer pulled me over doing 80 in a 50 zone in Mississauga, Ontario. Officer was very friendly and polite not to mention nice enough to reduce the charge to 15KM.
On the speeding ticket it now says doing 65km in a 50 zone. Never having a speeding…
hi everyone im just wondering if its right for a cop to have my car impounded and give me a traffic ticket for improper plates when my car didnt leave my property, yes i knew the plates werent to my car but on private property it dont matter aslong as it dosent go onto public property. am i right with this that i shouldnt have gotten the ticket or my car impounded?????????????
Have been busy and haven't had much time to follow up on this...
Went to court having not received disclosure (and was not organized enough to apply for a stay), so the trial was adjourned. They photocopied the officer's ticket and notes and provided a log sheet from the plane. I've sent another request for the rest of the disclosure items.
So here's my question -- can an officer amend the ticket…
Hi guys, I got pulled over last night and was ticketed with HTA 172, I was going 157 on a 100 on 400N and was wondering what I should do. I was using cruise control but the guy in the lane to my left was driving into my lane irresponsibly to I sped up to get ahead of him and just my luck that's when an OPP cruiser pulled up behind me flashing his lights. My court date is at the end of the month…
If anyone can answer this I would greatly appreciate it.
Friday morning I checked my mail and received a letter from the MTO stating that under section 47(1) of the HTA the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has decided to suspend my driving privilege for medical reasons. This was due to a report submitted by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the HTA. Enclosed with that letter were forms to…
Ok so looking for some advice in regards to my wife's speeding ticket 120k in 100 (I was in vehicle so witnessed most - but was resting at initial clock.)
whats the likelihood of positive outcome of an 11b (or an officer no show, which I suspect doesn't really happen as much as web/Ads would have you believe) of 8months.
Wife REALLY doesn't want to go, and of course I'm the one doing all of the…
I know I shouldn't have driving but I slept at my buddies' place and I thought I was ok to drive in the morning.. needless to say I still drove and got pulled over.
Background details:
I was pulled over in the morning last week, apparently going 120 km/hr on 90km Northbound DVP. Two cop cars tailed me for a bit, saw them in my rearview mirror while on the left lane, slowed down to…
I got two tickets on Feb 20 2011. One for red light, and the other for Stop sign. I knew I had a good chance at getting off on the red light, because the officer couldn't actually see the light facing me. He was at an opposite angle, further up the street.
I set a court date for both tickets. On April 22 I moved to a new place. I went to the Service Ontario location and renewed my licence…
Winnipeg's police officers have been told to issue more traffic tickets, in part to increase revenue.
And a union representing cops says the move could hurt their efforts to curb the city's gang violence.
Police Chief Keith McCaskill said last night he -- and he alone, without input from Mayor Sam Katz -- recently made the call to patrolling officers and to those in specialized units to step up…
I'm wondering if anyone could enlighten me on what to do about the following scenario:
I was pulled over by a YRP constable because I only had one front head light working. Upon being pulled over, I also realized my insurance card was expired by one month and my car permit was not on me at all. (It doesn't matter now but my valid insurance card was sitting at home in an envelope…
I have a wicked prosecutor in my area, he is an evil man and will lie and cheat, whatever is necessary for him to win. I got a yellow light infraction ticket and the cop was a no show. I requested the charge dismissed and it went like this:
Me: I request the charge be dismissed because the officer is not here
Prosecutor: No, we are going to adjourn the trial so the officer can attend
Accident happened at a regular intersection with turning lanes and lights. I was turning left. The light turned yellow, and the car approaching sped up to make the light. I thought he was stopping, so i made the turn. At the time of the collision the light was red.
I understand that it is my fault. I'm just wondering what my best course of action is.
alright well to get started ive developed a passion for longboarding
for those of you who dont already know a longboard is a big skateboard too heavy for tricks and stuff but boy can they ever go fast
my hobbies include going up the escarpment here in hamilton and stoney creek and riding down the roads leading to the lower part of the city. just wondering here. what would happen if i was going down…
My court date is nearing at old city hall at appeals court.
iwhats going to happen and what do i do?
do I present my certificate of offence and point out to the judge the fine was incorrect, I did not appear and am now appealing on the grounds the Justice of the peace erred and failed to quash the ticket on the basis of the certificate not being properly examined and is not complete and regular on…
Also, don't tell them [insurance] the whole story; it's going to be construed as a propensity to race. The question that will arise is: what is the end game for losing the douche bag on your tail? One sixty? One Seventy? Very high speed drift through an off ramp?