Automotive

Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)

Newbie
May 7, 2014
19 posts
2 upvotes
Burnaby, BC
As well, i knew what speed i was going, thats how i know i was doing 90
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
cleowin wrote:
May 8th, 2014 3:33 am
In BC, under section 155 (Highway Lines), it is indicatively clear that passing a vehicle over a single yellow line is infact legal, with extra caution.
Just for interest, I looked it up and that's not exactly what Section 155 says:

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC ... section156

Your reference to "extra caution" is about the Sec 155 Subsection 2 exemption for crossing the line to avoid an obstruction in the road. However another car traveling at the proper speed limit is not an "obstruction", so you wouldn't be entitled to the exemption through Sec 155 Sub 2.

Sadly I do think there is at least some basis for your objection, however small and unjust it may be:

Sec 155 Sub (1) (c) one single line, broken or solid, the driver of a vehicle must drive the vehicle to the right of the line, except only when passing an overtaken vehicle.

Your situation sounds similar to this discussion:

http://drivesmartbc.ca/lanes/double-sol ... mment-1199

But suppose we consider your argument that you applied "extra caution". A justice has to determine if that is a credible statement. A sworn officer will state that you certainly didn't apply extra caution, and will be supported by notes indicating you were observed and/or clocked at 90 km/hr. Any sober justice will hear that and will have serious doubts about your claim of using "extra caution".

The rules seem to create a contradictory situation. The road you were traveling sounds maybe rural or whatever with a single solid line. An exemption to crossing that line exists for people entering and leaving their driveways. The town can't just make it double solid, because that would affect the people living along it who will want the option of turning left or right as they leave their driveways.

So what remains is the issue of were you safe to cross over a solid line into oncoming traffic direction? It then becomes a subjective call, open to law enforcement discretion. I suspect that if you were traveling 50 and crossed over to pass a horse carriage going 20, the officer would have made a different subjective decision than he did watching you blast down the road at 90 km/hr. Agree?

To recap for simplification:

Your defense is you crossed over the center line to overtake a vehicle. Did you do this safely? No, because you were speeding.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
cleowin wrote:
May 11th, 2014 7:07 pm
He never said what speed he observed, he just said "you were going over 50 km/hr to pass the car, because he was going 50"
You started talking about details of the police officer's radar, so I assumed there was some relevance.
Newbie
May 7, 2014
19 posts
2 upvotes
Burnaby, BC
Yes, but i was charged under section 151(f), which states that you cannot overtake a vehicle if means entering the opposing side of the road. Section 119 explains laned roadways as a road with 2 or more clearly marked lanes for travel in the same direction, and section 151 is in reference to "laned roadways", as such, the charge "illegal pass on LANED roadway" is not even relevant to the road i was using.
Newbie
May 7, 2014
19 posts
2 upvotes
Burnaby, BC
The officer did not charge me
Under sec 155, or 146.
Newbie
May 7, 2014
19 posts
2 upvotes
Burnaby, BC
The only way i could see the officer winning this case is if he charged me under sec 155, which he did not, so is any of the prior facts even relevant to this specific case?
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
cleowin wrote:
May 11th, 2014 7:35 pm
The officer did not charge me
Under sec 155, or 146.
Right, but the start of Sec 155 says "Despite anything in this Part"

By "this Part", they mean Part 3, of which Sec 151 and Sec 155 both reside.

Your charge may be under Sec 151 (crossing the solid line into oncoming traffic) but your defense would be to raise Sec 155 Sub 1 (c), which provides the exemption to Sec 151 for overtaking.

If I were you, I wouldn't bring up Subsection 2 (obstruction) because there wasn't really an obstruction.

Personally I hate what you did, but I can (sort of) see your point that Sec 155 Sub 1 (c) might give you a loophole.
Newbie
May 7, 2014
19 posts
2 upvotes
Burnaby, BC
It wasn't my brightest moment in driving, but I had to get to my dentist appointment, and I had to be there on time or face a $200 cancellation charge that I could not afford at the time. And this car was driving merely at the speed limit (felt like he was doing only 35-40), and the roadway was entirely empty except for this one vehicle, and it just happened to be that there was cops doing speed radar going northbound when i was travelling southbound. The officer did not even write any notes from what I saw. I had pleaded that he not issue me a ticket at all, due to fear of losing my license, so he said 'I'm not issuing you a speeding ticket or dangerous driving maneuver', and he just issued the one, (fortunately). I tried explaining that passing over a single solid yellow in BC is legal when 'safe' and he proceeded to show me the rulebook which said the same thing, so I argued 'Then it is infact true I could have passed' and he went on to say 'If the line was broken, then sure, but even then, there could have been anyone hiding and stepping on the road when you were doing it, and it was not a smart move' and I agree, it wasn't smart, but I've passed many vehicles on 2 lane roads without problem (mostly on rural roadways / 80-100 km/hr highways), so I don't see a road being signed at 50 km/hr being any different.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
It wasn't my brightest moment in driving, but I had to get to my dentist appointment,
I respected you more before you admitted your reason for gambling your life and the lives of other innocent people was for such a frivolous reason.
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
I had to be there on time or face a $200 cancellation charge
Frankly I think you are embellishing this excuse. No dentist on earth charges $200 for someone walking in 2 minutes late. Dentists deal with people being a little bit late all the time, that's the nature of the business. Unless you were grossly late, in which case speeding wouldn't make the difference.
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
And this car was driving merely at the speed limit
Driving safely at the speed limit? How dare he!
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
the roadway was entirely empty except for this one vehicle, and it just happened to be that there was cops doing speed radar going northbound when i was travelling southbound.
OK. First you said the road was empty. Except it actually wasn't, there was no, and the innocent occupants of the other car. But not only that.. there was also a police car. Sorry but your stories are filled with blame shifting and inaccuracies. You will definitely be best served to have your lawyer do the talking at the hearing.

cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
The officer did not even write any notes from what I saw.
There's strong likelihood the notes were taken without you watching.
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
I had pleaded that he not issue me a ticket at all, due to fear of losing my license, so he said 'I'm not issuing you a speeding ticket or dangerous driving maneuver', and he just issued the one, (fortunately).
It sounds like you caught a huge break.
cleowin wrote:
May 12th, 2014 2:29 am
I tried explaining that passing over a single solid yellow in BC is legal
Generally speaking, experienced traffic enforcement officers don't appreciate having legislation "explained" to them. You were probably lucky not to get additional ticket or check for vehicle deficiencies. Even if you are in the right, arguing your trial at the side of the road never works, and it just puts the law enforcement officer's guard up. Because of that conflict, you hinted that you would be challenging it, so he would have made sure those notes are detailed and double checked. If you'd just been chill he might have not taken as much care with them, and been surprised later to hear you contesting it.

The crux of your case is a judgement call as to whether it was "safe" to pass. You'll be up against someone who is probably experienced and respected and has no reason to be biased. I think your best defense should focus on the exemption for crossing over to pass. But I think it would be better if you just took the light punishment and learned from it. Consider it like you would exercise or weightlifting: no pain, no gain.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2009
1964 posts
122 upvotes
Center of the Univer…
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 12th, 2014 9:10 am
I respected you more before you admitted your reason for gambling your life and the lives of other innocent people was for such a frivolous reason.

Frankly I think you are embellishing this excuse. No dentist on earth charges $200 for someone walking in 2 minutes late. Dentists deal with people being a little bit late all the time, that's the nature of the business. Unless you were grossly late, in which case speeding wouldn't make the difference.

Driving safely at the speed limit? How dare he!

OK. First you said the road was empty. Except it actually wasn't, there was no, and the innocent occupants of the other car. But not only that.. there was also a police car. Sorry but your stories are filled with blame shifting and inaccuracies. You will definitely be best served to have your lawyer do the talking at the hearing.


There's strong likelihood the notes were taken without you watching.

It sounds like you caught a huge break.

Generally speaking, experience traffic enforcement officers don't appreciate having legislation "explained" to them. You were probably lucky not to get additional ticket or check for vehicle deficiencies. Even if you are in the right, arguing your trial at the side of the road never works, and it just puts the law enforcement officer's guard up. Because of the conflict, you hinted that you would be challenging it, so he would have made sure those are detailed and double checked. If you'd just been chill he might have not taken as much care with them, and been surprised later to hear you contesting it.

The crux of your case is a judgement call as to whether it was "safe" to pass. You'll be up against someone who is probably experienced and respected and has no reason to be biased. I think your best defense should focus on the exemption for crossing over to pass. But I think it would be better if you just took the light punishment and learned from it. Consider it like you would exercise or weightlifting: no pain, no gain.
Buddy, i suggest you stop trolling. This is a tread on helping people with their tickets, not criticizing driving.

Go make your own thread.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
Saibot wrote:
May 12th, 2014 1:07 pm
Buddy, i suggest you stop trolling. This is a tread on helping people with their tickets, not criticizing driving.

Go make your own thread.
Not trolling, perhaps you don't understand the word? Discussion boards are for discussions and the post you quoted discusses an unusual ticket.

Personal attack posts such as yours are a violation however.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2009
1964 posts
122 upvotes
Center of the Univer…
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 12th, 2014 3:34 pm
Not trolling, perhaps you don't understand the word? Discussion boards are for discussions and the post you quoted discusses an unusual ticket.

Personal attack posts such as yours are a violation however.

Discussion boards have "topics" your posts are clearly off topic, thus I asked you to make your own rant thread.

Oh, and you shouldn't take things so harshly,
I didn't know that someone could be so easily offended by "buddy".
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
682 upvotes
Shhanada
Saibot wrote:
May 12th, 2014 3:42 pm
Discussion boards have "topics" your posts are clearly off topic, thus I asked you to make your own rant thread.

Oh, and you shouldn't take things so harshly,
I didn't know that someone could be so easily offended by "buddy".
My posts are on topic, perhaps you didn't read them? Incidentially, trying to provoke a fight with false and insulting posts that have zero on topic content is the very definition of trolling - which is precisely what you're doing. Continue, and you'll be ignored and given infractions.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 8, 2009
1964 posts
122 upvotes
Center of the Univer…
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 12th, 2014 3:48 pm
My posts are on topic, perhaps you didn't read them? Incidentially, trying to provoke a fight with false and insulting posts that have zero on topic content is the very definition of trolling - which is precisely what you're doing. Continue, and you'll be ignored and given infractions.
Link me to one useful post you've made mr.Goodie2Shoes


p.s keep in mind the topic is "Ask me anything about fighting your traffic ticket (Speeding, Parking, etc.)"

from your posts, it seems that all your replies are "don't fight it."
Newbie
May 7, 2014
2 posts
Milton, ON
(I got ticket for talking on phone at red light, yes i understand cop still has right to give me ticket. Anyways so the fine is $285 with no demerit points please help me with what option should i choose.(p.s it was from peel region police). I would really not want it on my insurance. In addition to that I got ticket for not stopping at stop light 2 years ago payed the fine with option 1 and it did not affect my insurance atall neither received any point.)- OP

Update: so I went to court and went ahead with option 3 for the trial they said i should receive a date for it within 30 days. I was seeking for some suggestion here but unfortunately no reply, anyways now my question is
1) never been to trail before so any suggestion how it works?
2) can i plea guilty and get my fine dropped before court date?

Thanks for any input! Please i would really appreciate guys!

Top

Thread Information

There are currently 2 users viewing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)