Automotive

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

Sr. Member
Jul 25, 2015
863 posts
704 upvotes
qman23 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 6:02 pm
I'll inject a bit of my own reality, or wishes for reality anyway.
Police should not be pulling people over just anywhere. People should be required to drive to a parking lot, exit ramp, or side road where they will not impede traffic, before pulling over.
The way it is now, it's dangerous for the police officer (which is why the move over laws were implemented )
but, it's dangerous to everyone else too by creating an unnecessary safety/road hazard and disrupting the safe and consistent flow of traffic.
"To every officer I spoke with about the scenario, including the supervisor, they told me I should have stopped and waited"
Being required to stop and wait, should rarely ever be a necessity if traffic stops are done proficiently and competently.
So when the police are trying to pull you over on the highway, they'll just have to wait for X amount of KMs until theres a off ramp? Riiiiiiiiiight.

You do know police officers try and stop vehicles at the safest spots possible. There have been plenty of deaths and injuries from people hitting police cars, thats why theres the move over law.
Member
Apr 18, 2017
361 posts
157 upvotes
qman23 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 6:02 pm
I'll inject a bit of my own reality, or wishes for reality anyway.
Police should not be pulling people over just anywhere. People should be required to drive to a parking lot, exit ramp, or side road where they will not impede traffic, before pulling over.
The way it is now, it's dangerous for the police officer (which is why the move over laws were implemented )
but, it's dangerous to everyone else too by creating an unnecessary safety/road hazard and disrupting the safe and consistent flow of traffic.
"To every officer I spoke with about the scenario, including the supervisor, they told me I should have stopped and waited"
Being required to stop and wait, should rarely ever be a necessity if traffic stops are done proficiently and competently.
This is what I wrote, to which you wrote a lengthy reply that did not see how it spoke to my point.

I'll try to be as precise and plain as I can here.

My point being, that things can and should be made safer for everyone.
Blame is entirely irrelevant in identifying root cause and making meaningful change to procedures. The goal is to minimise the probability of recurring deleterious incidents.

There will be accidents, and situations where it's unavoidable and necessary to impede traffic. Here, the move over law is rightly and obviously a necessity.

I'm bringing forth the idea that the move over law should not be the only thing police need to rely on for their safety, when a simple change in driver expectations on a traffic stop, would mitigate and or minimize the danger to both the officer and the public at large.

This was and is my point, and I think is where you see it as me "blaming" the officer.
I'm not. The officer was following protocol in the stop. I'm describing what i see as a more beneficial protocol to the traffic congestion problem being caused by the traffic stop.

Even If everyone followed the rules in this situation, there still presents a condition where 3 lanes are down to one, with the commensurate congestion and confusion that really is unnecessary with a simple change in behavioural expectations.

I hope that's clear enough.
Member
Apr 18, 2017
361 posts
157 upvotes
Sinasta wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 10:28 pm
So when the police are trying to pull you over on the highway, they'll just have to wait for X amount of KMs until theres a off ramp? Riiiiiiiiiight.

You do know police officers try and stop vehicles at the safest spots possible. There have been plenty of deaths and injuries from people hitting police cars, thats why theres the move over law.
Yes I do. Even 10km is only 10min to the next exit, and well worth the added safety to the officer.
If you think about it they well both pass that exit eventually anyway, so there really is zero time wasted.
Last edited by qman23 on Feb 9th, 2018 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Banned
Jan 15, 2018
62 posts
12 upvotes
mbmbkop wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 9:47 pm
+1
It's starting to sound like we are being trolled.. :) Hence, I am no longer sure if I want to continue to respond to his posts..
It's just unbelievable that you wrote this
mbmbkop wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 9:21 pm
Don't ramps have suggested speed limits? If something is suggested then it cannot be enforced.
and think that I am the troll.
Sr. Member
Jul 25, 2015
863 posts
704 upvotes
qman23 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 10:31 pm
Yes I do. Even 10km is only 10min to the next exit, and well worth the added safety to the officer.
If you think about it they well both pass that exit eventually anyway, so there really is zero time wasted.
Sorry Maam your son/daughter passed away because I had to wait 10km to pull over that impaired driver.
Member
Apr 18, 2017
361 posts
157 upvotes
Sinasta wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 11:55 pm
Sorry Maam your son/daughter passed away because I had to wait 10km to pull over that impaired driver.
Hyperbole is not constructive.
This change would be no different than when high speed chases were stopped 20 years ago.
Police officers still have the discretion to chase,
But must ask themselves,
Has a crime been committed or is about to be committed?
Is there an alternative to a chase?
And does the need to make an arrest outweigh the safety of the public?

Police could have the same discretion in any traffic stop.
Last edited by qman23 on Feb 10th, 2018 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sr. Member
Jul 25, 2015
863 posts
704 upvotes
qman23 wrote:
Feb 10th, 2018 12:02 am
Hyperbole is not constructive.
Well theres no point in arguing with your opinion. I'm glad your opinion is just a fantasy and not reality.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 23, 2008
9749 posts
6137 upvotes
Edmonton
You guys are kind of derailing the thread with your personal debate. How about taking it to PM?

C
Newbie
Feb 7, 2018
4 posts
rcmpvet wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 11:21 am
I have bolded the relevant statement - Your credibility went to ZERO at this point. As I tend to ask others - Source?
I know a lot of different people and have brought the discussion up with all walks of life to do my own toll of opinions and believe it or not (and its irrelevant whether you in particular find it credible or not) thr majority of the people ive discussed it with have agreed with my statement. On top of that additional crimes are being committed: people will just continue to drive because driving is a necessity for some people so in order to earn money to pay off said fines theyll need to continue to operate a vehicle illegally. That means no insurance or registration which is dangerous for everyone and perpetuates my proposed cycle of crime. Dont deny that because regardless of your opinion or your refusal to believe it; shit is happening everydayand more because of these god damn cash grab radar tickets. BOOM
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
1711 posts
1009 upvotes
Just Moved To Somewh…
^^^^^ I rest my case - Your credibility is Zero - You have not provided a source for my original request (suicide = illegal?).

EDIT - Yes I know, don't feed the trolls.
“Before one can have a Clue they must first accumulate 10 Inklings. That said, all it takes is one bad post and you erase all Clues accumulated'"
Banned
Jan 15, 2018
62 posts
12 upvotes
StephH885025 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 1:48 pm
Hello!

On January 16th, I was involved in a 2 car collision. I was travelling north bound on Dixie Road in Mississauga. I merged into a left turning lane and there was another vehicle slightly ahead of me in the lane to my right. I would have been in his blind spot. All of a sudden, he turned in front of me to make a U-turn. He was not in the left turning lane and he did not have his signal on. I was unable to stop in time and we collided. I had significant damage to my vehicle and he had barely any. I pulled into a lot right beside and called the police, etc. When the police arrived on scene, the other driver decided he wanted to lie to the cop and say that I was behind him in the left turning lane and rear-ended him. Based on lack of evidence and because we moved our vehicles, the cop put me at fault and gave me a ticket for "following too closely". I have requested an early resolution meeting with a prosecutor. My insurance has gone up like crazy. What are the chances of beating this ticket? If it is only lowered, will my insurance go down at all?

Thanks!!
Even if it happened exactly the way you describe, the fact that you rear ended the other driver shows that you made the turn after he did and that means you did not make your left turn in safety.

Even if the ticket got dismissed because the officer didn't show up and no disclosure etc. your insurance will still hold you at fault. Insurance takes the opinion of the police officer into consideration but they have their own set of fault determination rules that they follow. Rear ending someone will almost always result with you being accountable.

So no, if they raised your insurance It's because you rear ended the other car and to them no matter what happens with charges on the court level, your insurance has already made up their minds about your fault in the accident.

Fighting the ticket can still help with fines and demerit points though but your insurance is pretty much what it is.
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
164 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
DavidA511606 wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 3:53 pm
Hey, got in an accident a couple weeks ago. Have dashcam so link to footage is added in. Cars were stopped in closest two lanes due to traffic, far lane normally for parkers... Pulled up saw light about to turn yellow due to crosswalk countdown didnt see anyone coming in far lane so I made turn. If you listen closely you can hear other driver speed up to try to make yellow. Got hit and as spun around yellow just turns to red.

I am sure it is my fault, cops came, told him I have footage and he said watch it later and if I see anything weird let him know. He said he has to give me a "Unsafe Left Turn" ticket, he made it the min amount. I accepted blame as I assumed I just messed up somehow and was a little shaken up.

After watching video and seeing how the other driver sped up and went through yellow, I emailed officer with video and asked if he could toss out the ticket as i thought with the circumstances with the lanes backed up with traffic in the intersection maybe he would cut me a break. He replied "nope".

What would be best way to proceed. I understand it is most likely my fault, but the insurance increase, paying deductible of 1000 and now ticket really sucks, would be nice to be able at least to get out of ticket if possible.

Its your responsibility to make sure it is safe to make a turn. The light was still green when you started making the turn so we have to assume the other driver had a green as well. For insurance purposes, if this is Ontarion, you will be found 100% at fault.

As far as ticket goes, assuming the officers notes as are good and both the officer and other driver show up for trial, you would most likely be found guilty.

Chances of the officer not showing for trial are slim to none, however the chances of the other driver/witness not showing are 50/50. If no witness shows up to testify then the charges will be dropped. So your best bet is to plead not guilty and request a trial with officer present. Once you get your notice of trial, request disclosure (officers notes, witness statements). Then show up on your trial date and tell prosecutor you are ready to proceed to trial. If officer or witness are not there, they will drop it. If they are both there and prosecutor is ready to proceed as well, then you can change your mind anytime and choose to plead guilty instead or continue with the trial.
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Sr. Member
Jun 15, 2017
736 posts
164 upvotes
Ontario, Canada
Phillipspastamaker wrote:
Feb 9th, 2018 8:37 pm
He threatened to arrest her (which he can) because she refused to surrender her ID. I'm not sure why you think he did anything illegal. He did his due diligence to find this person who made a major driving infraction and rightly so - she still has absolutely no idea that what she did violates the HTA and kills hundreds of people each year.
The law in Canada is that you must identify yourself IF you are being charged with something. Failure to identify yourself means they can arrest you under the Criminal Code.

But note that identifying yourself only needs to be a verbal identifiction and you are not required to provide any kind of card/paper id... verbally giving name, address and date of birth is sufficient.

In Ontario you are required to provide proof of licensing when asked. So in when driving a vehicle and asked for your drivers license by officer, you are required to provide, otherwise you can be charged with failing to provide the license.

Notice that these are two different things... is the officer asking for proof of license or asking you to identify yourself? If asking for a license and you fail to provide it, you can be charged with failing to provide it. If the officer says they will arrest you for failing to identify yourself, you can clarify and say "I thought you were asking for my proof of license to drive under Provinicila Offense. Are you are asking me to identify myself (which I am willing do) under the Criminal Code instead? "

Note that threat to arrest you for not identifying yourself because you did not provide your license is incorrect. Failing to provide license means they can then charge you failing to provide the license. Then, because they are going to charge you, they can request you identify yourself, which you must do verbally.

This article talks about it:
https://shrektek.ca/speeding/44-what-to ... -or-canada
--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
Deal Addict
Oct 13, 2014
1711 posts
1009 upvotes
Just Moved To Somewh…
ShrekTek wrote:
Feb 11th, 2018 8:45 am
The law in Canada is that you must identify yourself IF you are being charged with something. Failure to identify yourself means they can arrest you under the Criminal Code.

But note that identifying yourself only needs to be a verbal identifiction and you are not required to provide any kind of card/paper id... verbally giving name, address and date of birth is sufficient.

In Ontario you are required to provide proof of licensing when asked. So in when driving a vehicle and asked for your drivers license by officer, you are required to provide, otherwise you can be charged with failing to provide the license.

Notice that these are two different things... is the officer asking for proof of license or asking you to identify yourself? If asking for a license and you fail to provide it, you can be charged with failing to provide it. If the officer says they will arrest you for failing to identify yourself, you can clarify and say "I thought you were asking for my proof of license to drive under Provinicila Offense. Are you are asking me to identify myself (which I am willing do) under the Criminal Code instead? "

Note that threat to arrest you for not identifying yourself because you did not provide your license is incorrect. Failing to provide license means they can then charge you failing to provide the license. Then, because they are going to charge you, they can request you identify yourself, which you must do verbally.
I have bolded the applicable statement you have made.

That statement has no bearing on an Ontario H.T.A. matter, however it would have bearing on other Provincial Offence matters, such as the Trespass to Properties Act or the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Your answer is very confusing, with respect to an Ontario HTA matter. The C.C. provisions state that identification can be established by providing documentation, such as a Driver's Licence (the police do not have to accept a verbal declaration), however it is not applicable to the HTA.

The HTA specifically states that identification can be accomplished by providing name and address, that is it and that is all, the C.C. has no bearing.

Otherwise your response is good, just leave out the C.C. reference to Ontario H.T.A. matters. Unless of course, in this matter, they were to arrest for H&R or Dangerous Driving pursuant to the C.C.
“Before one can have a Clue they must first accumulate 10 Inklings. That said, all it takes is one bad post and you erase all Clues accumulated'"

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (1 member and 0 guests)

poke123