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
I searched but could not retrieve a satisfactory answer.
It seems matter-of-fact that all sorts of work equipment, namely backhoes, loaders and other similar mororized vehicles without licence plates, sometimes equipped with a slow moving vehicle sign, often not, some with an amber beacon, some without, are encountered on a highway, travelling under their own power, sometimes on multi-lane roads…
Hello everyone I'm not sure if this is the right place to put it but I need some answers as I'm very scared and don't know what to do. Recently if got a Novice Driver B.A.C Above zero I am 23 years old and I'm pretty due to get my G class license in a couple of weeks. I understand that I was wrong for drinking a beer and half and driving with a G2 Class license.
I have been reading Fight Your Traffic Ticket site and have a couple of comments.
I was issued two tickets at the same time, one for invalid left turn (Hwy 7 in Markham and Swansea). Another one, because the officer did not like my copy of registration documents.
I am planning to challenge it in the court. Actually I already submitted the request.
Hi, I have a court date Oct. 21,08 for parking in the fire route of my friends building. How can i get this $100 fine reduced or eliminated? only argument i really have is that visitor parking was full and i went around a few times. I wasn't there for long either.
+
I just got a ticket for going right on red fail to stop(114[18])$180. No pedestrians were in the way. I'm not a unsafe driver, so I'm…
My mom received a ticket under OHTA 159(1). She was turning left at an intersection. The light was green and there were no cars in front of her. She entered the intersection and waited for incoming traffic to clear so that she could complete the turn. As she waited, a fire truck with its sirens on was driving from the street onto which she was turning (perpendicular). He honked at her (presumably…
Basically, I was selling the car and I informed the buyer that the car was in not insured at the time.
He bought dealer plates from his work place and assured me that it was fine. We got pulled over by OPP and they asked for our information.
I explained that it was my car and the test driver was working at a dealership with his plates that has insurance, they told us that the plates don't apply
The other day I was given a ticket for speeding 119 in a 90, on highway 17 near Marathon, ON (Speeding ticket capital of the universe, BTW). The officer claims to have "clocked" me using the vehicle mounted radar at 121 KMH and dropped it (presumably to lower fine and demerits).
I was not going that fast, but there was a larger, and faster moving, vehicle behind me, gaining fast (I was driving a…
Location: 401 exit to Homer Watson Blvd, Kitchener/ Cambridge.
I was going on 401. When I was approaching the location mentioned at the topic, I tried to over take a truck in front of me, and realized a car tailgating me right after I went out to the fast lane. At first I thought it was some other fast drivers so I just thought that I would go back into the middle…
Hey, i recently got a ticket for failing to stop a red light (Section 114(18)).
I was travelling south, the cop was travelling north. He was on the other side of the intersection then me, my light turned yellow and i tried running it but it turned red before i could cross the line. I was going too fast to be able to stomp the break so i had to run it through.
I'm just curious how long will a Driving while suspended affect my insurance rates? Initially when I got my conviction with DWS my rates went from 180 a month to 390, since then I've had no tickets or even been pulled over and my rates have gone down to 240 since then. I believe it will be 3 years in Sept 2017. Will the DWS affect my insurance for 6 years because thats how long it stays on my…
It's winter, and there's been a cold snap. The highway you are traveling on is wet, but not slippery. You take your exit, but the salt trucks haven't been on this ramp, and despite slowing down to below the recommended speed, your car slips on some black ice, and you find the car rotating clockwise. The car rotates 180 degrees, and slides backwards off the ramp…
So about a month ago I received a stunt/racing charge for going 140 in an 80 zone. I decided to go with a paralegal, and was notified by the paralegal that on the summon's it states to go to a criminal court. The paralegal was confused as this should be at a Provincial court. They said that since I do not have any criminal charges, that the officer wrote the wrong address down including…
I got a careless driving ticket and I was involved in quite a serious accident. I was driving at about 60 km/h arriving towards a stop sign. Unfortunately when I tried to stop, my shoes were sliding off from my foot as they did not have any strap and were perhaps oversized and slippery. I could not stop at the sign and hit a van that had the right of way. Both vehicles were badly damaged and…
In some cases, it takes too long for the Crown to bring a charge against a defendant to trial. If your charge has taken too long to come to trial, you can stop the proceedings by "filing an 11B." This is filing paperwork to bring a motion at your trial, where you essentially say, "my rights to a speedy trial have been violated, and I want the case stopped." It is called an 11B because section…
Hi I'm new to this forum but I hope I'm bringing you all good news.
I recently wrote a book short titled ABUSE OF POWER
This book is all about how the Ontario government broke the law to enact the new street racing legislation.
To start with the denial of the right to remain innocent until proven guilty was enacted without due process under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How it wasn't done…
I have been caught 3 times driving while suspended for unpaid fines . I have still not paid the fines and did not go to the first 2 court dates. When I was pulled over the second time the police officer said he would put down as it was my first time . But I had to work as I just started a new job. I called in to have the date changed but they said it was to late . So I did not go to court .…
Today I received a hand held device ticket on Gardiner. I was pulled over by the police officer and told i was using my cell phone while driving but i never even touched my cell phone. He told me my hand was not on steering. I am sure i didn't touch the phone. The phone was on the right passenger seat connected to my car. I was using mobile gps which was on dashboard display and never touched…
As the title states, I received a ticket for failing to proceed at a green light. I have gained a lot of knowledge from this site for various things, however even a google search of this ticket doesn't seem to pull up much info. Someone else had made a post about this back in 2009 but my story is quite different.
So I shall explain...
On the night of February 23/2013 I had decided to be the…
Need some advice on reaching a plea deal with the prosecutor and how to go about talking to the crown. I'm not here to be lectured ect. I'm aware I made a mistake, and need advice on fixing it. So kindly keep comments about my impulsive decision to yourself.
Backstory:
I'm 19 with a g2 license. Was going home late at night and decided to go down a road that I knew was smooth with zero traffic so I…
I recently got pulled over and issued a ticket for following too closely and am looking to challenge the charges. However, I will be at school by the trial date. This is significant because I received the ticket in Ottawa (where my family lives), but attend school in Waterloo (almost 6 hours away). I will also be starting co-op this summer and as such likely won't be returning home in order to…
I was charged with careless driving for a one-vehicle accident, and would like to know how to go about pleading not guilty. I was driving on a rural road at night in an 80 kmh zone. I was driving up a hill. At the top of the hill is a 90 degree turn sign (no stop sign, no kmh posted). I hit the brakes too late, and because the road goes downhill and there's a lot of gravel, skidded one or two…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Tonight, I was pulled over for apparently doing 132km in an 80km zone. Although I'd only caught myself doing 120km(yes, still over, I'm aware). After about 30 min of sitting on the side of the road, the officer came over and kindly decided not to take away my license or impound the car on the spot. I did not recieve any fines. He did, however, give me a court date in August. Never mentioning…
I have been a frequent visitor of this site for a while now but I just made an account today to ask a question that I have gotten no real clear cut answer on in the past.
What I'm talking about here is H.I.D. (High Intensity Discharge) Headlight Conversion Kits. For those of you who don't know what they are all about you can just google it and you will receive more than enough…
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?