Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ??? I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause. For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it. After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt. Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside. The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity. Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ???
I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause.
For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it.
After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt.
Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside.
The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity.
Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
If you read section 172(5): (5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall, (a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and (b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days. There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
If you read section 172(5):
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b).
Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days.
There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over. Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion. I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition. I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language. >> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over.
Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion.
I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition.
I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language.
>> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion?
I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
R. v. Paraschiew [2012] O.J. No. 4085 In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence. Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding. However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away. The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it. For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.) Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away.
The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it.
For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.)
Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now :-) . Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers :-) Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now .
Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers
Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't. As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers. accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding. just my take, and just IMHO
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers.
accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se
there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding.
just my take, and just IMHO
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing. The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to: - Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle. - Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat. - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing - stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so, - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing.
The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to:
- Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
- Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing
- stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway
The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
bend wrote:
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break? -- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion. I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers. What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over. That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen. These are muddy waters. I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines. The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars. Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law. Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
bend wrote:
Let's pretend an officer MUST charge someone (they don't). What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers.
What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over.
That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen.
These are muddy waters.
I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines.
The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars.
Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law.
Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next. Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial. A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room. Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is. If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels. It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
gbs wrote:
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next.
Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial.
A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room.
Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is.
If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels.
It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
Ok one last time. 1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket. 2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well. This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty. OPS
Ok one last time.
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected. >> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. -- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is. I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ... Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
OPS Copper wrote:
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
OPS
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected.
>> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads.
-- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is.
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation. I would be in the little/no history category ... The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed. That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
bend wrote:
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
gbs wrote:
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst. The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge. Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
gbs wrote:
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst.
The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge.
Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
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…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
.
