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.
Hi so I have a bizzare situation. Today I received a summons for "being the owner of a motor vehicle bearing Vehicle Identification Number ###, failed to submit the vehicle, equipment or drawn vehicle for inspection or tests as required by an officer" for a vehicle I previously owned. Apparently a violation of HTA 82(9).
The date of offense is June 15, the summons was issued on October 26th and I…
Hi, I need some help for the ticket of lmproper left turn.
When i drove my car from east to west, intending to make a left turn and stop in front of stop line. There was a car in front of me, which has turn on yellow light. The light was turning red and then I thought I cannot leave in the intersection and turned, an incoming car was runing the light and hit me. No one got hurt but both cars had…
Have a ticket in which the radar used was a Genesis VP Directional. I had downloaded the manual for a Genesis VP but I now realize that the unit is not the same so it is the wrong manual. My trial is very soon so I do not have time to ask for disclosure of the manual.
Does anyone have access to an electronic version of the manual for Genesis VP Directional?
I was pulled over today in the city of Oakville for going 75 in a 40 zone. However, I am 100 percent certain that I was going only 50 in the 40 zone. When I was pulled over, I was driving my Dad's car which I felt was the reason I was getting stopped since two teenagers driving a 2013 S Class. He asked does I know why I am being pulled over and I…
I really need help on fighting my 9 tickets i received from one police officer. Here is some background of what happened!
I was caught speeding 66km on a 40km (school zone) on January 29, 2010. I was driving my friend's car and turns out she didnt renew the validation on the vehicle and didnt leave the up to date insurance paper on the car.
Hey question that I think here's probably the best place to get the answer:
I was charged with a careless driving offence in oct, trail in early april, so as of right now my insurance record is 100% clean... except the officer did file an accident report at the scene where I was classified at fault due to it being PI (although very minor). The person I hit did not sue etc, so the insurance company…
Very much unintentionally passed a stopped bus, with sign and flashing lights. Didn't realize I had done it until I was at the end of the bus. I'll save you my sob story, but it was truly accidental. I'm generally very cautious and have a perfect driving record. Never been stopped.
While I realize if a cop had seen me that I would have gotten a ticket, there were none in sight. Though I may very…
I was recently pulled over for running a red and I wasnt able to find my wallet in the car at the time to hand over my license. I had a passport in the vehicle that he used. The wallet was in the vehicle, it just fell through the seats. (Tough to find a black leather wallet in a black/black leather truck at night).
The officer still wrote the tickets for both he signed the one ticket (failure to…
I was passing a vehicle that was going slow for me and there was an oncoming vehicle coming at me. I speed up to get around the person I was passing and the oncoming vehicle turns out to be a cop who turns around and tickets me for going 110km in a 80km zone. How does it work with passing a vehicle? Once I passed the vehicle I went back down to my original speed of just under 100. The officer…
I picked up a brand new (old stock) Fuzzbuster a while ago at auction (wopping $5!!) and I want to mount it on the dash of my old GTO as a cool accessory when I show it at car shows. But I'm not sure if it's legal or not.
Here's my thoughts:
- It is early 70's technology (x-band) so it won't detect modern police radar. That's assuming no police force uses the old x-band frequency.
Hi guys, I'm still a little in shock of getting my first traffic ticket...
On Monday afternoon, I was returning from Toronto to Ottawa on HW416, I was driving about 15 over 100 like always. Then a car came very close to me on the left lane and made me nervous, I speed up unintentionally to pass the car and change lane, but while doing that a police car pull out of the median. He was hiding in…
May i ask this question regarding transport trucks limited to 105 km/h. Moving road blocks or safety?
IMO it isnt speed that kills. I find transport trucks infact help keep the road going. With cars that choose to not move to the right and slow down the middle lane the trucks would try to pass in their passing lane therefore the slower traffic would move right.
Received a notice from the police that a motion is being put forward to adjourn upcoming trial date. Notice indicates that an officer has sworn an affidavit that the crucial witness cannot attend date trial is set for (we know there is a social engagement at 7:30 pm for the witness, trial time is 1:30 pm). This further delay is a big problem to my daughter's case. She is moving away to…
This is what happened. I was travelling west on a four lane city street that was very light with traffic. I was making a left hand turn into a wide driveway of a business. There was traffic lights about 100 yards past the driveway and were red for the east-west traffic. I was in the left lane with my signal on and there was no oncoming traffic due to the red light. I was slowed right down…
I was driving my families older car and got pulled over, and the police officer informed me my plate was dirty. He issued me a ticket of $110 for the 13(2) act and obstruct plate as the offense. He informed me that such a plate could be used to avoid red lights as well as 407 tolls, also that buying a new plate can help to lower the ticket if I fight the charge, and that he also took a picture…
I received a red light camera ticket. In the picture, you see an ambulance in front of me with flashing lights. I had moved to alleviate the traffic behind me for the emergency vehicles coming behind it.
Is this a possible defense, if so, does anyone know any good case law to justify this position?
what happens if they charge someone for driving at 151Km/hr in montreal and they put for trial, appear after some months and sadly lost the trial ?
In montreal its $300 fine and 5demerit points ...
I heard Ontario and Qubec share the information. So once the trial is over ( and when the file moved to ontario) will his car gets towed and licence get suspended for 7days (later to 30 days ) ? and he…
I got a notice in the mail that trial is set four weeks from today, so it's time to request disclosure. I have zero chance of getting an 11b since trial is less than two months after the offense date and the officer did not reduce the charge. I really want to try and create delays on the trial, to reduce the chance of the officer showing up on multiple occasions. Is there any known loop-holes…
This weekend my father was involved in an accident with a transit bus in Burlington, ON. After the police showed up he was charged with "Fail to obey stop sign" Sec. 136(1)(a). At this particular intersection there NO stop signs but there are traffic lights. There is construction going on there so one of the light posts is smaller.
Driving conditions were terribly wet and visibility was low.…
So my boyfriend and I recently started dating. I have a vehicle that was insured. Insurance cost too much and I found it was just as easy to walk to work due to how close it was. But I didn't want to get rid of my car just yet, plus I'm still making payments on it as well. When we moved into our appartment together, I had it towed to my parking spot out back.
I was making a left hand legal turn on a green light, a driver came through the lane I was supposed to be going into ran the red and hit me head on as I was turning into my lane. When the officer came he was telling me that I was racing and driving recklessly because apparently there was reports of street racing in the area. I was not charged on the scene for this but I'm scared i am going to be…
I got a ticket for failure to surrender insurance because I did not have my new insurance stubs with me, just a bunch of expired ones. My policy number has not changed, so I asked the officer to just run the policy number so I could prove that I was in fact insured. He said they don't have that ability, handed me the ticket and reminded me that my car could have been impounded.
So I'm in a bit of a pickle and would appreciate if someone could clarify something for me.
I'm less than a month away (test on April 6th) from getting my full G license, and got a speeding ticket recently. The ticket was for 49km/h over the posted limit of 100km/h on the 403 in Oakville/Halton region, but was reduced from the initial ~60km/h over.
.
