Speeding 15km over (reduced from 22km over) - Should I fight it?

[bolton_gal]

Hi everyone,

I just want to say that I have done a search and have read through the other posts on this topic, but was hoping for some advise on my specific situation.

I was pulled over for speeding 72 in a 50 by two cops operating a radar trap. The ticketing officer reduced it to 65 ($53 and no points) and marked my ticket with a code "R72" which I have now learned means reduced from 72.

Problem is, I have never had a ticket or accident, and have a high star rating on my insurance that does not allow any minor HTA violations. One ticket, regardless of points, will drop me down a level and my rates will go up.

Should I try to fight this? Do I have a shot? The court is near my work in Newmarket so it would not be a bother for me to attend, but I have been warned by some traffic ticket agents that if I try to fight it myself they could bring the charge back up to 72 in a 50.

Any opinions? Thanks.

[Sheek]

the title of your thread is misleading. it makes it seem like you were doing 72 over the speed limit

[spf1971]

the title of your thread is misleading. it makes it seem like you were doing 72 over the speed limit

That's what I thought as well.

[dmdsoftware2]

I think this is a no brainer. If you pay the $53 fine, you get no point deductions and you get no risk of insurance increases (correct me if I'm wrong). I know the cops are treating this as a cash grab (knowing that you will most definitely just pay the fine), but they might get ticked if you try to fight the ticket by reinstating the 72 (and any point penalties associated with that). Then again, you might get lucky and get it thrown out.

Honestly, to me, $53 is a bargain if it entails not losing points and not having to take time off work and waste gas driving to the court house to fight the ticket.

That's just me. What can I say.

[Nikita]

I think this is a no brainer. If you pay the $53 fine, you get no point deductions and you get no risk of insurance increases (correct me if I'm wrong). I know the cops are treating this as a cash grab (knowing that you will most definitely just pay the fine), but they might get ticked if you try to fight the ticket by reinstating the 72 (and any point penalties associated with that). Then again, you might get lucky and get it thrown out.

Honestly, to me, $53 is a bargain if it entails not losing points and not having to take time off work and waste gas driving to the court house to fight the ticket.

That's just me. What can I say.

Guess I'll beat Shaner to this one. Points mean nothing (well unless you're already up around the 15 point mark and even then you only need to get retested). Insurance goes by convictions, not points. In fact your insurer probably isn't even privy to your point status (I believe...and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)

[m4gician]

I think this is a no brainer. If you pay the $53 fine, you get no point deductions and you get no risk of insurance increases (correct me if I'm wrong). I know the cops are treating this as a cash grab (knowing that you will most definitely just pay the fine), but they might get ticked if you try to fight the ticket by reinstating the 72 (and any point penalties associated with that). Then again, you might get lucky and get it thrown out.

Honestly, to me, $53 is a bargain if it entails not losing points and not having to take time off work and waste gas driving to the court house to fight the ticket.

That's just me. What can I say.

You are wrong.

ANY MOVING VIOLATION is a crappy (though valid) excuse for an insurance company to raise your premiums (come renewal time) as your risk has gone up. Contest the ticket, contest each and every traffic ticket. I know it's counter-productive and doesn't help the city collect it's revenue faster, but it's better you contest it.

[DaVibe]

X-Coppers?

[Whitedart]

You are wrong.

ANY MOVING VIOLATION is a crappy (though valid) excuse for an insurance company to raise your premiums (come renewal time) as your risk has gone up. Contest the ticket, contest each and every traffic ticket. I know it's counter-productive and doesn't help the city collect it's revenue faster, but it's better you contest it.

Are you going to defend her? I hope you have a very good defence.

She had the ticket reduced to a minimal fine with no points. As discussed in a couple of other threads here today, she will very likely be convicted during a trial, and may face a higher penalty as well.

[baldy73]

Insurance goes by convictions, not points.

Exactly right. So if you want to keep that high star rating, you have to fight the ticket. I don't believe they can raise the rate back up, at least not unilaterally. They would have to get the consent of the Court (the JP), and I doubt they would get it. They have to file the ticket within 7 days, so it will be filed with the reduced speed on it.

You have to remember also that you said it was two officers who pulled you over. BOTH will have to show up for trial for the Crown to prove the case against you. If neither or only 1 show up, your charge will be dropped.

The difference between 15 over and 22 over is minimal ... a few extra $'s and 3 points. It will cost you way more if your insurance rates go up after only 1 recorded conviction.

[Shaner]

Both officers present do not need to show up for the trial. Only one officer is required to be there. In fact, if the OP decides not to challenge the evidence presented by the officer, then neither officer has to be there.

[Nikita]

Exactly right. So if you want to keep that high star rating, you have to fight the ticket. I don't believe they can raise the rate back up, at least not unilaterally. They would have to get the consent of the Court (the JP), and I doubt they would get it. They have to file the ticket within 7 days, so it will be filed with the reduced speed on it.

You have to remember also that you said it was two officers who pulled you over. BOTH will have to show up for trial for the Crown to prove the case against you. If neither or only 1 show up, your charge will be dropped.

The difference between 15 over and 22 over is minimal ... a few extra $'s and 3 points. It will cost you way more if your insurance rates go up after only 1 recorded conviction.

Actually, that's a myth. If one officer can give sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the offence, a conviction can indeed be had. In fact, there are often more witnesses to a case (of all kinds, not just HT) than are called. The Crown only needs to meet its burden and if it can do that with one witness, there's absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that. In the normal course, the only reason a trial gets dismissed if a cop doesn't show up is because that means there is no evidence to prove the case.

Both officers present do not need to show up for the trial. Only one officer is required to be there. In fact, if the OP decides not to challenge the evidence presented by the officer, then neither officer has to be there.

Oops, guess we were posting at the same time!

[leon200608]

Hi everyone,

I just want to say that I have done a search and have read through the other posts on this topic, but was hoping for some advise on my specific situation.

I was pulled over for speeding 72 in a 50 by two cops operating a radar trap. The ticketing officer reduced it to 65 ($53 and no points) and marked my ticket with a code "R72" which I have now learned means reduced from 72.

Problem is, I have never had a ticket or accident, and have a high star rating on my insurance that does not allow any minor HTA violations. One ticket, regardless of points, will drop me down a level and my rates will go up.

Should I try to fight this? Do I have a shot? The court is near my work in Newmarket so it would not be a bother for me to attend, but I have been warned by some traffic ticket agents that if I try to fight it myself they could bring the charge back up to 72 in a 50.

Any opinions? Thanks.

You should always fight it. FIGHT EVERY TICKET IN YOUR LIFE!!!

[gilboman]

Are you going to defend her? I hope you have a very good defence.

She had the ticket reduced to a minimal fine with no points. As discussed in a couple of other threads here today, she will very likely be convicted during a trial, and may face a higher penalty as well.

uh..all she has to do is request a trial and see if cop shows up on the court date. if she doesnt see the cop, she will get off. if cop is there, she can decide then if she will take the reduced charge or choose to goto trial

its a no brainer and can't lose situation by going to court (unless you cant take the time off from work)

[Dealz-4-U]

i always see people recommending to fight every ticket. But if someone can enlighten me please what im missing, what exactly are we gonna fight? I mean, if I got caught speeding 72 in a 50 zone, and the cop has evidence, what exactly do we do at the court trial to try and prove otherwise? As others have mentioned, insurance companies dont care about points they just look at convictions... so... what do you guys do to not get those convictions by going to court?

Im so lost its not even funny

[Whitedart]

i always see people recommending to fight every ticket. But if someone can enlighten me please what im missing, what exactly are we gonna fight? I mean, if I got caught speeding 72 in a 50 zone, and the cop has evidence, what exactly do we do at the court trial to try and prove otherwise? As others have mentioned, insurance companies dont care about points they just look at convictions... so... what do you guys do to not get those convictions by going to court?

Im so lost its not even funny

They are hoping the trial will be delayed well in excess of a year due to court backlogs, and use a Charter argument that they failed to receive a trial date within a reasonable time period, or counting on the officer no showing up to give evidence.

But more to the point, it is avoiding the act of taking responsbility for one's actions by trying to weasel out of a traffic offence.