Automotive

Caledon Speeding Ticket 45 km/hr over in 60 km/hr zone

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 21st, 2017 4:40 pm
Tags:
None
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
661 upvotes
Shhanada
You lost what little credibility you had left when you said:
vero95 wrote:
May 10th, 2014 11:54 pm
speeding is not a crime.
and you lost all of your dignity when you said this:
vero95 wrote:
May 10th, 2014 11:54 pm
you are just spreading your diarrhea
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
661 upvotes
Shhanada
harpz wrote:
May 10th, 2014 10:41 pm
I've had plenty of experience too, but please tell me what the man up and pay attitude is? You're asking the OP to not bother and just pay...before establishing if the officer even had a clear line or sight
Who cares if had a "clear line of sight"? That's just lying through game playing and obfuscation. OP already admitted to speeding. You know OP was speeding. I know OP was speeding. It doesn't matter if the officer had a "clear line of sight". All of know OP is guilty, including OP himself.

All of these dishonorable tactics to try and suggest the officer is visually impaired, incompetent or corrupt are just sleazy ploys to weasel out of taking mature responsibility. You did the crime, now man up and pay the fine.
harpz wrote:the question then becomes at what point did the officer observe him speeding
No. Through obfuscation and misdirection, you desperately WANT the question to become "at what point did you catch me speeding". But that's not really the essential question. The question is "Do you get caught speeding?" And the unequivocal truthful answer is: "Yes". That's already been established and confessed, because it's true. The only point up for discussion could be "how much over the limit was I speeding?" But the rest, including all of your tricks and traps, are not the essential points.
harpz wrote: However there is nothing wrong with saying I don't remember
It's this kind of lying that earns the anti-ticket gang an even worse reputation. "I don't remember" IS a lie. You DO remember. You're on message boards crowing about all the stuff you remember. Then you stroll into a courtroom and commit perjury by saying "I don't remember". That's cowardice, but more importantly, it's lying.

Will you be caught for it? Probably not. Do other criminals lie? Sure they do. But speaking objectively, when someone goes around telling lies, well that makes you a liar.

By the way, your bits on the right to self-incriminate are embarrassingly inaccurate. You sound like you're regurgitating something you read on a American anti-ticket websites or episodes of Law and Order. Lesson 1: Canada has different Charter of Rights. Lesson 2: a right to not self-incriminate gives you the right to keep your mouth closed, not the right to tell lies. Lesson 3: The officer is not the one charging you, the Crown is.
harpz wrote:now in this situation he did shoot himself in the foot by admitting speeding
Only your kind would considering telling the truth and being self aware as "shooting himself in the foot". The rest of us call it being a grown up and admitting when we make a mistake.
harpz wrote:It really does not help the courts view these tickets as a business transaction.
They don't. That's just more fictional rationalization from the anti-ticket crowd. Saying stuff like that is intended to justify their dishonest tactics as some kind of act of liberty when it's really just an act of selfishness.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Feb 24, 2007
11025 posts
837 upvotes
I think your definition of a someone who may be guilty of a traffic infraction and a criminal are over the top. Are you seriously suggesting that you have never broken a speed limit?
Newbie
User avatar
May 2, 2007
39 posts
7 upvotes
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 11th, 2014 4:50 am
Who cares if had a "clear line of sight"? That's just lying through game playing and obfuscation. OP already admitted to speeding. You know OP was speeding. I know OP was speeding. It doesn't matter if the officer had a "clear line of sight". All of know OP is guilty, including OP himself.

All of these dishonorable tactics to try and suggest the officer is visually impaired, incompetent or corrupt are just sleazy ploys to weasel out of taking mature responsibility. You did the crime, now man up and pay the fine.

No. Through obfuscation and misdirection, you desperately WANT the question to become "at what point did you catch me speeding". But that's not really the essential question. The question is "Do you get caught speeding?" And the unequivocal truthful answer is: "Yes". That's already been established and confessed, because it's true. The only point up for discussion could be "how much over the limit was I speeding?" But the rest, including all of your tricks and traps, are not the essential points.

It's this kind of lying that earns the anti-ticket gang an even worse reputation. "I don't remember" IS a lie. You DO remember. You're on message boards crowing about all the stuff you remember. Then you stroll into a courtroom and commit perjury by saying "I don't remember". That's cowardice, but more importantly, it's lying.

Will you be caught for it? Probably not. Do other criminals lie? Sure they do. But speaking objectively, when someone goes around telling lies, well that makes you a liar.

By the way, your bits on the right to self-incriminate are embarrassingly inaccurate. You sound like you're regurgitating something you read on a American anti-ticket websites or episodes of Law and Order. Lesson 1: Canada has different Charter of Rights. Lesson 2: a right to not self-incriminate gives you the right to keep your mouth closed, not the right to tell lies. Lesson 3: The officer is not the one charging you, the Crown is.

Only your kind would considering telling the truth and being self aware as "shooting himself in the foot". The rest of us call it being a grown up and admitting when we make a mistake.

They don't. That's just more fictional rationalization from the anti-ticket crowd. Saying stuff like that is intended to justify their dishonest tactics as some kind of act of liberty when it's really just an act of selfishness.
Lesson 4, Section 13 of the charter...you really want to argue this? 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Notice i said self incrimination, not plead the fifth lol. It's a god damn ticket not murder. The charges are based on the officer's views and facts at that time...you wish to call it being a weasel. By all means that is a right....and your opinion. Unless you wish to claim he was staring only at his speedo while driving it is quite possible he may have been ticketed when he wasn't breaking that law. It depends on what time the officer believes he was speeding. For all you know he could've been stuck behind a lorry when the officer "observed him speeding".

You wish to change the entire court system because it's a speeding ticket you go right ahead. These traps, these tricks etc as you so call it...all establish whether or not the officer fulfilled his duties. If you are saying he should be charged speeding even if the officer does not know he was in fact the one speeding that implies that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. If he does not have a clear line of sight how can he be sure he was the one specifically speeding? Or if he misuses his equipment, I got a ticket for doing 75 in a 60 on a hill... and the manufacturer states on a hill it can be off by up to 30%... He can't even use lidar sitting in his car, if he did thats another one that gets thrown out the door. As we have to follow rules, officers do as well.

The argument about well he was speeding any ways is dumbfounded, either you believe the moment you speed you should turn yourself in or the question is at what point did the officer in fact see you speeding. Generally in the court room it gets read the officer did in fact observe you speeding at xx amount on xx road at this time. You get charged at the point the officer notices an infraction or has a video. Plain and simple, like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound? Law is very similar, the infraction does not occur until the officer is there to see it or has video evidence. If there is no evidence for it being committed at that time...you're really saying well officer's right no matter what. We'll agree to disagree, but you should never waive your rights. Burden of proof is on prosecution, not the other way around.


OP good luck! You have alot of advice on here
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 21, 2009
12732 posts
1779 upvotes
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 11th, 2014 4:23 am
You lost what little credibility you had left when you said:


and you lost all of your dignity when you said this:

traffic offenses are not criminal offenses :facepalm:
...and do not talk about dignity if you strip other people of it for executing their rights
you do not even understand how offensive you are because in your little world where you are morally superior there is no doubt in your mind that you can be wrong :facepalm:
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 8, 2005
31842 posts
1300 upvotes
c4ndl3burn3r wrote:
May 10th, 2014 10:56 am
Heading south, there is a 60 km/hr sign, but strangely, the "60 km/hr ahead" sign is not very far back. And you are rolling down a large hill into this town. Seen many a vehicle pulled over here. Reminds me of a slot machine.
Well, if a 60 km/hr sign is there and you get caught and ticketed for going substantially over 60 km/hr sign, then you only have yourself to blame - the sign IS there after all.

And while this stunningly simple concept seem lost on many her on RFD, it's worth repeating.

Obey the posted speed limits - and, you don't get tickets. ;)
" The placebo effect is the most powerful supplement of all "
" The pain of discipline weighs ounces, the pain of neglect weighs tons "
" The best training in the world can't overcome a lousy diet "
TRAIN HARD !!!!
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
661 upvotes
Shhanada
harpz wrote:
May 11th, 2014 6:47 am
Lesson 4, Section 13 of the charter...you really want to argue this? 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Notice i said self incrimination, not plead the fifth lol. It's a god damn ticket not murder. The charges are based on the officer's views and facts at that time...you wish to call it being a weasel. By all means that is a right....and your opinion. Unless you wish to claim he was staring only at his speedo while driving it is quite possible he may have been ticketed when he wasn't breaking that law. It depends on what time the officer believes he was speeding. For all you know he could've been stuck behind a lorry when the officer "observed him speeding".

You wish to change the entire court system because it's a speeding ticket you go right ahead. These traps, these tricks etc as you so call it...all establish whether or not the officer fulfilled his duties. If you are saying he should be charged speeding even if the officer does not know he was in fact the one speeding that implies that everyone is guilty until proven innocent. If he does not have a clear line of sight how can he be sure he was the one specifically speeding? Or if he misuses his equipment, I got a ticket for doing 75 in a 60 on a hill... and the manufacturer states on a hill it can be off by up to 30%... He can't even use lidar sitting in his car, if he did thats another one that gets thrown out the door. As we have to follow rules, officers do as well.

The argument about well he was speeding any ways is dumbfounded, either you believe the moment you speed you should turn yourself in or the question is at what point did the officer in fact see you speeding. Generally in the court room it gets read the officer did in fact observe you speeding at xx amount on xx road at this time. You get charged at the point the officer notices an infraction or has a video. Plain and simple, like if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound? Law is very similar, the infraction does not occur until the officer is there to see it or has video evidence. If there is no evidence for it being committed at that time...you're really saying well officer's right no matter what. We'll agree to disagree, but you should never waive your rights. Burden of proof is on prosecution, not the other way around.


OP good luck! You have alot of advice on here
Clearly you don't understand the Charter section you cut and pasted.

You lie when you say I wish to "change the entire court system".

You bizarrely say my argument is "dumbfounded". Do you even understand the words you use?

Your statement that crimes don't occur if they aren't observed or caught on video is patently wrong, and lacks any common sense. Law enforcement needs only reason to believe you committed the offence. Finding a massive skid mark for example can be ample proof that a deceased offender was speeding. No "video evidence", no corrupt police officer watching. You anti-ticket guys are sad.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
661 upvotes
Shhanada
poedua wrote:
May 11th, 2014 7:44 am
Well, if a 60 km/hr sign is there and you get caught and ticketed for going substantially over 60 km/hr sign, then you only have yourself to blame - the sign IS there after all.

And while this stunningly simple concept seem lost on many her on RFD, it's worth repeating.

Obey the posted speed limits - and, you don't get tickets. ;)
In this case the OP claims to have been going "only" 90 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone, but was observed doing 105 km/hr. Either version of events reaches the same conclusion: excessive speed.

Unfortunately this sub forum is a haven for spreading myths about law enforcement officers and tricks about how to lie, cheat, and perjure one's self to avoid consequences.

The mob mentality ignores the offender whose own biased and likely minimized admission confirms they were driving far beyond the limit. Instead they wish to make up imaginary smears about the officer not doing their job properly.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 24, 2012
1673 posts
549 upvotes
MARKHAM
hehe, i drove on the same road everyday to and from work. i knew exactly where would the police hide so i know where to slow down.

have to drive smart =D.

oh...and i share the same last name as OP i suppose. gl on fighting your ticket. =x
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 8, 2005
31842 posts
1300 upvotes
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 11th, 2014 7:56 am
In this case the OP claims to have been going "only" 90 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone, but was observed doing 105 km/hr. Either version of events reaches the same conclusion: excessive speed.

Unfortunately this sub forum is a haven for spreading myths about law enforcement officers and tricks about how to lie, cheat, and perjure one's self to avoid consequences.

The mob mentality ignores the offender whose own biased and likely minimized admission confirms they were driving far beyond the limit. Instead they wish to make up imaginary smears about the officer not doing their job properly.
Bingo ...couldn't of said it better myself. :D

Here on RFD ? No one who get a speeding ticket deserved it / is guilty ! Yeah right :rolleyes:

Reminds me of the quote from Shawshank...

[INDENT]" Everyone in here [ prison ] is innocent, you know that ? "

[/INDENT]
;)
" The placebo effect is the most powerful supplement of all "
" The pain of discipline weighs ounces, the pain of neglect weighs tons "
" The best training in the world can't overcome a lousy diet "
TRAIN HARD !!!!
Deal Addict
Dec 25, 2012
1402 posts
191 upvotes
poedua wrote:
Apr 30th, 2014 7:57 am
Good point ...this sort of advantage shouldn't be downplayed ..it could help .....a lot.



And that's the thing.

The vast majority of drivers don't get ANY tickets for years / decades. And for those who DO get a ticket ? It works - i.e they tend to be A LOT more attentive / mindful drivers going forward as a result. So, I wouldn't be concerned about the whole prospect of getting two more convictions in the ensuing 3 years - very unlikely to get 1 ..let alone 2 IMO.

I could just as easily take the approach to pay the ticket & accept the conviction knowing it'll be off my record in 3 years.
But what if OP is forced to speed again?
Newbie
User avatar
May 2, 2007
39 posts
7 upvotes
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 11th, 2014 7:53 am
Clearly you don't understand the Charter section you cut and pasted.

You lie when you say I wish to "change the entire court system".

You bizarrely say my argument is "dumbfounded". Do you even understand the words you use?

Your statement that crimes don't occur if they aren't observed or caught on video is patently wrong, and lacks any common sense. Law enforcement needs only reason to believe you committed the offence. Finding a massive skid mark for example can be ample proof that a deceased offender was speeding. No "video evidence", no corrupt police officer watching. You anti-ticket guys are sad.
Dumbfounded...meant to say dumbfounding I've been up for 20 hours...and that was for sarcasm.

I'm not going to argue anymore...but end of the day someone either has to witness the crime or have strong evidence of it. If there's no evidence...you're just saying he did something with no proof. I'm not an anti ticket guy, but thank you for lumping me in ;)

I posted the charter because of your law and order argument...

There are rules and procedures on both sides, you may say I lie by wanting to change the court system. But that's how I feel you are coming off, a speeding ticket does not condemn anyone. It's a ticket, you have a legal right to see the evidence against you, and the crown has a legal obligation to prove their case. If you are saying that is wrong...then you feel there is a problem with the system.

I can completely understand what you are saying about the crime is being committed regardless of anyone sees it or not. ...but at the end of the day if an officer does not see it, have strong evidence (generally video rather than hear say...i.e. your neighbor films you drifting around a corner) you shouldn't be charged.

If the only evidence against you is a word of mouth of an officer who he isnt' even sure saw him speeding, and you're saying go ahead pay, you're more than welcome to do so. If someone asks what they can do to fight it...you are condemning the guy without him even establishing any facts that have been entered into the courts. You're saying how dare you question the person charging you for speeding, how dare you ..you are trying to slander or cheat your way out etc...

You keep saying i think all cops are corrupt, I'm saying there could be a variety of reasons one of which people make mistakes, both law enforcement and civilians... mistakes on both sides have consequences. Whether its not paying attention to speed limit or not paying attention to the type of equipment you are using. Aslong as there's no mistake you should pay..simple. If there's a mistake then use it.

There are no imaginary smears if people are first trying to understand and get a statement of facts. The officer has to follow the rules too...not just us. If the officer skips a step and you believe that does not cause reasonable doubt, then please challenge the precedent in court. Till then establishing whether or not the officer is credible is completely acceptable under the eyes of the law. There's no officer maliciously intentionally charged bc i am sleeping with his wife. No one is saying that, first find out if he was doing his job correctly

The OP may well have been speeding, but the rules don't change because of that. Just so you understand my view, you get charged that's fine, it happens. You should still see if the officer charging you he did everything correctly...if you're the only car on the road and he has lidar and is calibrated...you have no cause for reasonable doubt.
Banned
User avatar
Jun 22, 2012
4737 posts
661 upvotes
Shhanada
harpz wrote:
May 11th, 2014 9:20 am
Dumbfounded...meant to say dumbfounding I've been up for 20 hours...and that was for sarcasm.

I'm not going to argue anymore...but end of the day someone either has to witness the crime or have strong evidence of it. If there's no evidence...you're just saying he did something with no proof. I'm not an anti ticket guy, but thank you for lumping me in ;)

I posted the charter because of your law and order argument...

There are rules and procedures on both sides, you may say I lie by wanting to change the court system. But that's how I feel you are coming off, a speeding ticket does not condemn anyone. It's a ticket, you have a legal right to see the evidence against you, and the crown has a legal obligation to prove their case. I can completely understand what you are saying...but at the end of the day if the only evidence against you is a word of mouth of an officer who he isnt' even sure saw him speeding, and you're saying go ahead pay, you're more than welcome to do so. If someone asks what they can do to fight it...you are condemning the guy without him even establishing any facts that have been entered in. You're saying how dare you question the person charging you for speeding, how dare you try slander or cheat your way out etc...

You keep saying i think all cops are corrupt, I'm saying there could be a variety of reasons one of which people make mistakes, both law enforcement and civilians... mistakes on both sides have consequences. Whether its not paying attention to speed limit or not paying attention to the type of equipment you are using.
No. Crimes occur all day every day without direct witnesses. You think a murder isnt a crime just because there's no video evidence? It's the same with speeding. In theory, law enforcement can merely observe you blasting by and swear out a complaint against you. Radar and the like are technical tools intended to make things less subjective.

Read the thread. The guy you're vainly defending already confessed to 90 km in a 60 zone. All your suggestions about dirty cops and cops suddenly not knowing how to use equipment they've used thousand of times before is irrelevant. He already admitted excessive speed.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to help people commit perjury. I'm surprised this kind of facilitation is even allowed here.
Newbie
User avatar
May 2, 2007
39 posts
7 upvotes
SurplusPlus wrote:
May 11th, 2014 9:33 am
No. Crimes occur all day every day without direct witnesses. You think a murder isnt a crime just because there's no video evidence? It's the same with speeding. In theory, law enforcement can merely observe you blasting by and swear out a complaint against you. Radar and the like are technical tools intended to make things less subjective.

Read the thread. The guy you're vainly defending already confessed to 90 km in a 60 zone. All your suggestions about dirty cops and cops suddenly not knowing how to use equipment they've used thousand of times before is irrelevant. He already admitted excessive speed.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to help people commit perjury. I'm surprised this kind of facilitation is even allowed here.

So you will randomly charge someone for murder bc you feel like he did it..right...lol...if someone was murdered there still needs to be evidence to charge someone. Crime may have occurred, but it hasn't under law until it's witness/discovered. You dont charge people based on anticipation.

I wasn't aware the police officers are like judge dredd..never ever make mistakes. If you challenge them you should be hung out to dry. Could be late, skip the calibration, didnt feel like getting out of his car for lidar, etc..officers are people too. It's a couple of questions to establish fact...slander is me saying the officer did not do his job bc he was eating a donut and just didnt' like red cars. Radar is proven to pick up the fastest moving object which is not necessarily what the officer is fixated on.

I'm not defending anyone, he asked what his options are and they were provided. You have a problem with people establishing facts or to ensure those who are charging him followed the rules..that's your problem. End of the day officers need to follow their rules too...is it worth it to check? absolutely...is it your right? absolutely...if there's a way to fight it you should.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top