bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

Re: Stunt Driving Charge At Officers Discretion ???

by: bend on

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.

OPS Copper
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:06 pm

by: OPS Copper on

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

gbs
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:24 pm
Location: brampton

by: gbs on

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.

bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on

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.

gbs
Jr. Member
Jr. Member
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:24 pm
Location: brampton

by: gbs on

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.

UnluckyDuck
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:03 am

Posting Awards

by: UnluckyDuck on

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.

bend
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1436
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:44 am

Posting Awards

Moderator

by: bend on

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.

Post a Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Stunt Driving”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests