[sjc752]

Hey guys,

I don't post much, but thought it was worthwhile sharing this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1687599/

I just got a ticket going from the GTA to Turkey Point beach at around the Caledonia area going 25 over (3 points). I'm fighting with the help of a paralegal and am not going to accept anything less than a complete wipe off the record. I had a ticket last year going 38 over on the way to Grand Bend. Was caught by the plane. Good thing I won that one. Would have been 4 points.

I have to stop going to beaches.

[BRAISKI]

Originally Posted by sjc752

Hey guys,

I don't post much, but thought it was worthwhile sharing this article.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1687599/

I just got a ticket going from the GTA to Turkey Point beach at around the Caledonia area going 25 over (3 points). I'm fighting with the help of a paralegal and am not going to accept anything less than a complete wipe off the record. I had a ticket last year going 38 over on the way to Grand Bend. Was caught by the plane. Good thing I won that one. Would have been 4 points.

I have to stop going to beaches.

Actually you have to stop speeding, plain and simple...

[w2]

Originally Posted by BRAISKI

Actually you have to stop speeding, plain and simple...

There is a big difference between being ticketed for (charged with) speeding and actually speeding.

Furthermore, very few drivers actually obey the speed limits at all times, or for that matter obey all of the laws (traffic or otherwise) at all times. People generally don't realize how broadly-worded the laws are, and how often their everyday actions fall within the definition of even serious criminal offences. Police and prosecutors are supposed to use their discretion in laying charges; they're supposed to only do so in cases where it is in the public interest, and not just every time they think someone has technically violated the law.

Most people who are speeding do not actually pose a threat to public safety and should not be charged. But because people generally do not contest traffic tickets, police and prosecutors are easily tempted to laying large numbers of charges without worrying too much about whether it is in the public interest, especially because guilty pleas bring in a lot of revenue. As long as they don't ticket too many people too often, people just pay the fine, and the laws become subverted into a tax collecting scheme. This leads to the familiar scenario of police setting up traps to catch unwary motorists--not in areas which speeding or stop sign running pose the greatest safety risk, but in areas where violators are easier to catch--and where motorists are charged with little or no regard as to whether their actions actually posed a danger to anyone.

People should drive safely with with care and consideration for others, and should be charged if they don't. But safe driving and legal driving aren't the same thing (and sometimes they are incompatible). Furthermore, anyone who is charged should defend themselves, in part to force our government to exercise restraint and judgment when deciding whom to charge, and in part to ensure that they are not penalized more than they should. Even if you're guilty, that doesn't mean that you should automatically face the maximum penalty, since the maximum is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious cases; not for normal cases and certainly not for purely technical violations that don't involve any significant harm.

[catch]

well put!!

Originally Posted by w2

There is a big difference between being ticketed for (charged with) speeding and actually speeding.

Furthermore, very few drivers actually obey the speed limits at all times, or for that matter obey all of the laws (traffic or otherwise) at all times. People generally don't realize how broadly-worded the laws are, and how often their everyday actions fall within the definition of even serious criminal offences. Police and prosecutors are supposed to use their discretion in laying charges; they're supposed to only do so in cases where it is in the public interest, and not just every time they think someone has technically violated the law.

Most people who are speeding do not actually pose a threat to public safety and should not be charged. But because people generally do not contest traffic tickets, police and prosecutors are easily tempted to laying large numbers of charges without worrying too much about whether it is in the public interest, especially because guilty pleas bring in a lot of revenue. As long as they don't ticket too many people too often, people just pay the fine, and the laws become subverted into a tax collecting scheme. This leads to the familiar scenario of police setting up traps to catch unwary motorists--not in areas which speeding or stop sign running pose the greatest safety risk, but in areas where violators are easier to catch--and where motorists are charged with little or no regard as to whether their actions actually posed a danger to anyone.

People should drive safely with with care and consideration for others, and should be charged if they don't. But safe driving and legal driving aren't the same thing (and sometimes they are incompatible). Furthermore, anyone who is charged should defend themselves, in part to force our government to exercise restraint and judgment when deciding whom to charge, and in part to ensure that they are not penalized more than they should. Even if you're guilty, that doesn't mean that you should automatically face the maximum penalty, since the maximum is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious cases; not for normal cases and certainly not for purely technical violations that don't involve any significant harm.

[Noxious_]

Originally Posted by BRAISKI

Actually you have to stop speeding, plain and simple...

Isnt your speed well over 170km/h in your profile pic? You really only see that magnitude of hipocracy from cops...

[sjc752]

Originally Posted by BRAISKI

Actually you have to stop speeding, plain and simple...

In my own defense, on both of those occasions, I was caught after the posted speed limit changed from 80 down to 50 km/h. And when you are not familiar with the area, it's very easy to conitnue on. Conveniently, there always seems to be a cop sitting right at the perfect spot.

[BavFan_08]

Originally Posted by sjc752

In my own defense, on both of those occasions, I was caught after the posted speed limit changed from 80 down to 50 km/h. And when you are not familiar with the area, it's very easy to conitnue on. Conveniently, there always seems to be a cop sitting right at the perfect spot.

Well just remember you're not always going to win. In fact most of the time you don't.

In York Region, COPS are PAID to show up to court. 99% of the COPS do not miss their court dates unless you are lucky.

I know this because I know two officers who are currently in York.

In addition, if the officer gives you a reduced ticket, they mark it down in their notes and submit that to the prosecutor (at trial time.) If you fight and take it to court, then prosecutor will try you on your ORIGINAL offense....

[roman_s]

Usually meeting with the prosecutor before hand is the best bet... They usually don't try to threaten you with the original fine as the officer usually gives you fine based on speed range and will bump you down .. the prosecutor can't just bump you up to another range.

I have successfully gone to court met with the prosecutor and worked out a deal.. tell them your on a tight budget (driving a bmw?!?) and that your ging to school or any sympathy argument. They most likely will cut your ticket price drop the points etc.

[Universal_Magnetic]

how were you caught by a plane? recorded your speed from the air and then informed the police on the road?

[CHCCubs]

Originally Posted by Universal_Magnetic

how were you caught by a plane? recorded your speed from the air and then informed the police on the road?

Many roads have markings on the shoulder and the officer in the plane times your car between the markings to determine your speed. They then radio down to a patrol car to pull you over.

[BavFan_08]

Originally Posted by roman_s

Usually meeting with the prosecutor before hand is the best bet... They usually don't try to threaten you with the original fine as the officer usually gives you fine based on speed range and will bump you down .. the prosecutor can't just bump you up to another range.

I have successfully gone to court met with the prosecutor and worked out a deal.. tell them your on a tight budget (driving a bmw?!?) and that your ging to school or any sympathy argument. They most likely will cut your ticket price drop the points etc.

Well the prosecutor indirectly does threaten you when making the deal.

If you fight it, you could be tried for the orginal infraction. So they make you make a deal.

Also, in Ontario, remember, insurance is based on HOW MANY infractions you get. For some people, like myself, a reduction in points/fines is not enough.

[Delta0311]

Originally Posted by w2

There is a big difference between being ticketed for (charged with) speeding and actually speeding.

Furthermore, very few drivers actually obey the speed limits at all times, or for that matter obey all of the laws (traffic or otherwise) at all times. People generally don't realize how broadly-worded the laws are, and how often their everyday actions fall within the definition of even serious criminal offences. Police and prosecutors are supposed to use their discretion in laying charges; they're supposed to only do so in cases where it is in the public interest, and not just every time they think someone has technically violated the law.

Most people who are speeding do not actually pose a threat to public safety and should not be charged. But because people generally do not contest traffic tickets, police and prosecutors are easily tempted to laying large numbers of charges without worrying too much about whether it is in the public interest, especially because guilty pleas bring in a lot of revenue. As long as they don't ticket too many people too often, people just pay the fine, and the laws become subverted into a tax collecting scheme. This leads to the familiar scenario of police setting up traps to catch unwary motorists--not in areas which speeding or stop sign running pose the greatest safety risk, but in areas where violators are easier to catch--and where motorists are charged with little or no regard as to whether their actions actually posed a danger to anyone.

People should drive safely with with care and consideration for others, and should be charged if they don't. But safe driving and legal driving aren't the same thing (and sometimes they are incompatible). Furthermore, anyone who is charged should defend themselves, in part to force our government to exercise restraint and judgment when deciding whom to charge, and in part to ensure that they are not penalized more than they should. Even if you're guilty, that doesn't mean that you should automatically face the maximum penalty, since the maximum is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious cases; not for normal cases and certainly not for purely technical violations that don't involve any significant harm.

Holy shit that was well put!!!