Careless Driving

[nazawale]

I had an accident last night as it was considered the worst snow storm in 60 years. My van start skidding when I try to change lane and then the car spin and I hit the guard rail. No other cars or anybody injured including me. I was about 55-60 km in 90 zone.

Now when cops come and asked how it happen, so finally she grab me a ticket for careless driving....My question is how can she said I am careless when I am going 60 in 90 zone, she wasn't there when I had accident. Then it was the worst storm. Guys tell me how do deal with this ticket and how much chance I have?

Also any good lawyer or expert who can deal with these kind of tickets.

[gherikill]

Were there other witnesses? Were you an ahole to the cop? It does not seem plausible that a cop would give you a ticket if you did nothing wrong.

[blue mountain raider]

the LEO could say OP changed lane "too fast" given the conditions which caused OP to spin out.

[Octavius]

the LEO could say OP changed lane "too fast" given the conditions which caused OP to spin out.

+1

I was going 30-40 on the roads yesterday and I still felt it was a bit fast but I was able to keep it under control.

Going 60 in a 90 is crazy, you should have been going 40 MAX :|

In either case call Pointts or XCopper or whoever and discuss the matter with them. You can also try defending yourself and talk to the Crown attorney yourself and try to convince them to bump it down to following too closely.

[nazawale]

No witness, Snow plow truck driver called police and also called one of his towing buddy, which that ahole charged me 200, cause I couldnt get to use my CAA plus member cause they were so busy and I was on hold for 45 min.

[Sylvestre]

Just because you were 30 below the speed limit doesn't mean you were safe. You spun out - so obviously you weren't safe.

In addition, in most roads, between the lanes is where the danger lies as the snow piles up there. You should have slowed down even further knowing it was a dangerous situation and the risk of spinning out was higher. As you said, there were no other cars around so no reason not to slow down to a crawl.

[blue mountain raider]

oh yeah by changing lane "too fast" i was NOT refering to vehicle speed, i was refering too the amount of time it took for OP to complete the lane change. the quicker the lane change, you turn the wheel "more" which can cause the fishtail, just change lane slower and you will be ok.

[nazawale]

No witness, Snow plow truck driver called police and also called one of his towing buddy, which that ahole charged me 200, cause I couldnt get to use my CAA plus member cause they were so busy and I was on hold for 45 min.

[weedb0y]

You will be fine. For Careless charge to stick, she needs more than her 'imagination'. I was once given this ticket and I fought it off without needing anyones help. Lack of evidence from the JP.

Just go to trial and fight it. Dont comprimise and settle for a lower charge. She gave the highest because 99% of times, people will plead to lower charge. At the same time, charge as high as 'careless' driving requires extensive proof beyond doubt. I have had my car spin out at 20km/h. Anyone can say anything to blame after the fact.

[romsan04]

+1

I was going 30-40 on the roads yesterday and I still felt it was a bit fast but I was able to keep it under control.

Going 60 in a 90 is crazy, you should have been going 40 MAX :|

In either case call Pointts or XCopper or whoever and discuss the matter with them. You can also try defending yourself and talk to the Crown attorney yourself and try to convince them to bump it down to following too closely.

Thats not crazy, thats almost 30% under the speed limit. I was going 60 in 60 zone, with no cars around. Plus I do have winter tires which help a lot.

[feet_]

remember when you fight it.

keep in mind your insurance rates ++++++++.

that will give you the extra ommpphh to fight it.

[nazawale]

another thing i forgot to mention, she wrote down 80km, I didnt check the ticket that time cause I was cold and mad about my accident. Why would she jack the speed. Does police tape the conversation? so I can prove that I told her 60.

[weedb0y]

another thing i forgot to mention, she wrote down 80km, I didnt check the ticket that time cause I was cold and mad about my accident. Why would she jack the speed. Does police tape the conversation? so I can prove that I told her 60.

Well since she wasn't at the scene of the accident and it is a well documented fact that Ontario had the worst storm in 60 years, you can just challenge her evidence to justify careless driving charge.

People get careless charge for driving like idiots, hitting pedestrians, cars, property without concern for anything. Not in case like this.

[nazawale]

My company let me go off from work 4 hr early yesterday, then Y would I be speeding.

[dunderwood]

I agree it is hard to prove careless driving in that case.
You should be able to to argue the car lost control in server weather.

I don't think the posted limit should justify your speed. We all have to drive to the conditions and slow down when weather or conditions dictate it.

I hate the people who feel invinsible and tailagte under bad conditions like yesterday.

[a4syed]

Hey sorry to steal the thread but I god a careless driving ticket (summons) 2 weeks ago as well for speeding (56km/h over limit).... The officer was trying to give me a break for not impounding my car and told me its a lesser charge. Is there anything I can do to win this one.... If i lose this, I am screwed cuz Its my first year of insurance :*(

[blue mountain raider]

Hey sorry to steal the thread but I god a careless driving ticket (summons) 2 weeks ago as well for speeding (56km/h over limit).... The officer was trying to give me a break for not impounding my car and told me its a lesser charge. Is there anything I can do to win this one.... If i lose this, I am screwed cuz Its my first year of insurance :*(

wow u got really lucky for not having the car impounded. where were you when going 50 over?

[malaco0219]

gather what evidence you have.. if any.. and fight it..

[pintobean]

nazawale - The first thing you need to do is file for a court date. Once you get your Notice of Trial, fill out a request for Disclosure (the cop's notes). You can then review the notes and see what notes the cop wrote down from your conversation. It is likely that she never wrote down very much and therefore that should bolster your case, because it will be hard for her to remember exactly what happened without good notes to rely upon.

I agree that the prosecutor will have a very hard time making this charge stick. If the cop wasn't there to actually see the accident happen, then it should be a slam-dunk victory for you as there is no evidence other than the cop's imagination as to what happened.

You may also want to keep some newspaper clippings that talk about how this was the worst storm in years...they probably won't be admissable in court, but if you show them to the prosecutor before trial, it will refresh his memory as to what the conditions were like yesterday and he will likely withdraw the charge.

If I were you, I wouldn't accept a plea to a lesser charge, as that is still considered a conviction to your insurance company - you shouldn't have any problems winning this case, so don't get bullied into pleading guilty.

Good luck and remember to be professional when speaking to the prosecutor and the cop...it will go a long way towards ensuring your vistory.

[Robmic]

Looks to me like you have a solid argument in defense,


More than a momentary lapse
--------------------------------------------------

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.

Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.

Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.

from
http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html

[wylie]

Just curious, did you have winter tires on?

[nazawale]

nazawale - Once you get your Notice of Trial, fill out a request for Disclosure (the cop's notes). You can then review the notes and see what notes the cop wrote down from your conversation.

How to request for a Disclosure? Should I call police or go to court? Sounds like it will help me alot..

[YYZFA]

No witness, Snow plow truck driver called police and also called one of his towing buddy, which that ahole charged me 200, cause I couldnt get to use my CAA plus member cause they were so busy and I was on hold for 45 min.

This doesn't make too much sense to me. Why didn't you call CAA yourself? You wouldn't have had to pay extra, but you probably would have had to wait longer. That wouldn't have been a big deal for you, because you were not in any rush.

[nazawale]

This doesn't make too much sense to me. Why didn't you call CAA yourself? You wouldn't have had to pay extra, but you probably would have had to wait longer. That wouldn't have been a big deal for you, because you were not in any rush.

But police say has to clear the hwy...I did call CAA, and finally the lady from CAA told me to go ahead then mail the towing reciept and they will reimburse it for me...

[65505201]

Looks to me like you have a solid argument in defense,


More than a momentary lapse
--------------------------------------------------

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.

Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.

Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.

from
http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html

Aren't you glad that officers have such discretion/accountability when handing out tickets?

[YYZFA]

But police say has to clear the hwy...I did call CAA, and finally the lady from CAA told me to go ahead then mail the towing reciept and they will reimburse it for me...

Okay, that makes more sense to me. If CAA told you to do this then I don't think you should be out of the pocket though any more than you would be otherwise. I think CAA should fully reimburse you up to 200 kilomtetres.

[l69norm]

How to request for a Disclosure? Should I call police or go to court? Sounds like it will help me alot..

If you have CAA, try their legal advisory service:
http://www.caasco.com/automotive/morebenefits/legal.jsp

[YYZFA]

If you have CAA, try their legal advisory service:
http://www.caasco.com/automotive/morebenefits/legal.jsp

Wow, I've said CAA for years, and I was unaware of this service. Thanks for pointing it out!

[CatDog]

is it just me, or is this thread pure comedy?

[ES_Revenge]

Looks to me like you have a solid argument in defense,


More than a momentary lapse
--------------------------------------------------

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.
Momentary lapse is probably pretty well understood by courts but I doubt it means momentary lapse in the sense of any lapse. I'm sure if you say "oh I rear ended this guy and caused a multi-car accident because I was just momentarily daydreaming" the charge is still going to stick, lol.

Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.
Ahh this is the ol' consequences don't make the law bit which is totally not what happens in the real world, from what I've seen. Because in reality if serious injury or death occured and it was clearly your fault? The police officer would more than likely not charge you with Careless Driving, they would charge you with Dangerous Driving instead.

Even going from a more minor offence to a more severe one, it's the same story. Roll right on through a stop sign when no one's around and no one gets hurt, and most police officers would only charge you with failure to obey the stop sign. However if you caused personal injury or property damage to someone, then you'll probably get charged with Careless Driving.

Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.
Perhaps, but it's not always so easy to defend the driving behaviour as "mere inadvertent negligence". For one thing any evidence where it's the officer's word v. the accused, it's the accused that will get screwed there in most situations. Furthermore there may be other witnesses with their own view of what happened.

It's better not to get charged in the first place, than to have to defend later on saying "oh it was just negligence" LOL. Oh really? Just negligence? Jokes. That's the whole reason the person got charged in the first place. That information kind of makes it seem that driving should be taken in laissez-faire style and that "just negligence" is a fine way to drive and you could defend from any charge just based on that, which is pure nonsense! "It wasn't careless driving your Worship, it was just that I was merely not paying any attention whatsoever, I was just you know being negligent"...



from
http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html
What's interesting about that link is where it talks about a good lawyer being able to have a Dangerous Driving charge dropped to Careless Driving. I disagree. A good lawyer will be able to have the Dangerous charge dropped and a lesser-included like Careless not implemented at all, meaning no record at all, no conviction at all and no insurance increases either ;)

But again, that lawyer ain't going to be able to do that by saying "uh my client was just being negligent" LMAO. The only thing that's going to guarantee is a conviction!

Going back on topic... For the OP, I do think that they should be able to get the Careless charge tossed because I don't think the officer really does have much to support it. Furthermore I think it was a rather underhanded and sneaky thing to do, I think the officer just thinks the OP is going to pay the ticket or just had something against the OP so as to give them a ticket like that. Like give me a break. Weather and road conditions like they were, no one else involved in the accident, nobody hurt, no property really destroyed other than the OP's own property (unless that guard rail was really messed up or something)... And the officer gives a ticket of Careless Driving without even witnessing the acciident? Get real.

[Robmic]

^^^

So you're basically saying that you know better than the criminal defense lawyer that wrote the article based on precedent in Ontario?

[ygtgxi]

On this topic I have to say I must be thankful. I got into a car accident in january this year. THe lady that T-bone me was speeding 100 in a 80 zone on a country road highway. I was going at 80km/hour and it was a snowy day. She lost control of her car and t-bone me.

Thank god no charges were filed against either one of us.

[kleptodathief]

just take it to court...u'll win or the popo will NOT show up! GL

[RRKnight]

Careless Driving is consider a major offence in the Insurance rule book (My wife is an insurance analyst) which will definitely increase your insurance or cancel your renewal policy. Then every other company you call for a quote, they will reject you or offer you a high risk driver rate. Definitely go fight it. I have a friend who fights these tickets on a regular basis and he have gotten me off 4 of 5 tickets in one year. I can give you his contact info if you PM me.

[RRKnight]

just take it to court...u'll win or the popo will NOT show up! GL

That rule doesn't apply anymore, also the cops get paid over time to show up for court. There will be a good chance he/she will show up.

[nazawale]

Going back on topic... For the OP, I do think that they should be able to get the Careless charge tossed because I don't think the officer really does have much to support it. Furthermore I think it was a rather underhanded and sneaky thing to do, I think the officer just thinks the OP is going to pay the ticket or just had something against the OP so as to give them a ticket like that. Like give me a break. Weather and road conditions like they were, no one else involved in the accident, nobody hurt, no property really destroyed other than the OP's own property (unless that guard rail was really messed up or something)... And the officer gives a ticket of Careless Driving without even witnessing the acciident? Get real.

The officer told me that I have damaged the guard rail because of that I got ticket.

She could just say that I just have to pay for the guard rail, and watch carefully in snow time.

[2k4accord]

Isn't guard rail supposed to protect (guard) drivers and not to use it against driver because simply they loose control and hit it. Unless you drive directly into it on a nice weather day then that is another story.

So why do drivers pay plate sticker and driver licence?

Man that police lady must not be having a good day...or season to give you a ticket like that.

[nalababe]

I think the point is that the driver was not using suitable caution by driving at a speed that was not appropriate for the conditions. That is the careless driving. Knowing that you were traveling 60 indicates that you were aware of your speed....

[weedb0y]

I think the point is that the driver was not using suitable caution by driving at a speed that was not appropriate for the conditions. That is the careless driving. Knowing that you were traveling 60 indicates that you were aware of your speed....

That is not careless driving as indicated by law. Otherwise, every accident and I mean little bump would be categorized as 'careless'.

[weedb0y]

The officer told me that I have damaged the guard rail because of that I got ticket.

She could just say that I just have to pay for the guard rail, and watch carefully in snow time.

I got my careless 5 yrs ago for an accident that didnt damage anything. Trust me, you will have it dropped. I know what I am talking about. They need to provide proof for their justification as well. Its just that 99% of the people will plead to a lower charge.

[boxingday]

I had an accident last night as it was considered the worst snow storm in 60 years. My van start skidding when I try to change lane and then the car spin and I hit the guard rail. No other cars or anybody injured including me. I was about 55-60 km in 90 zone.

Now when cops come and asked how it happen, so finally she grab me a ticket for careless driving....My question is how can she said I am careless when I am going 60 in 90 zone, she was there when I had accident. Then it was the worst storm. Guys tell me how do deal with this ticket and how much chance I have?

Also any good lawyer or expert who can deal with these kind of tickets.

Careless driving does not alwas mean speed.I have found the most careless people are the ones doing stupid things in bad weather.

[AudiDude]

I wouldn't worry about it, the officer needs to have documented proof that careless driving occurred. I had a similar sitution and paid someone for advice. The first thing they asked me if the officer was there during the accident, I said no. They then asked if when the officer arrived, they took measurements of the scene and if they looked for and measured any skid marks, to which I said no. They laughed and said "don't worry, you aren't getting charged with anything", and I didn't.

[Frankie3s]

If you misjudged the driving conditions then it could be considered careless driving because you didn't adapt to the road and weather conditions at the time. Careless driving is quickly becoming a regular driving charge nowadays.

A long time ago my dad went through a yellow/red light because he couldn't stop his truck going down the other side of the bridge (bad weather) and the officer told him that he is supposed to have control over his vehicle at all times. He hired one of those traffic ticket fighting places and they did manage to get the charge downgraded and I believe he only lost 2 points.

[nalababe]

That is not careless driving as indicated by law. Otherwise, every accident and I mean little bump would be categorized as 'careless'.

No...the point was that the driver was not driving with respect to the conditions...and then hit a bump......not that they hit a bump....

[Shaner]

As far as I'm concerned, if you spin out in the middle of the road, you're a bad and/or careless driver.

It shouldn't matter what the conditions are like. I drive a RWD sports car with plenty of horsepower that slides everywhere, yet I can still maintain complete control.

If you can't maintain control of your vehicle in bad weather, stay off the roads in the winter. I don't need someone like you slamming into me because you don't know how to drive in snow.

[totech]

As far as I'm concerned, if you spin out in the middle of the road, you're a bad and/or careless driver.

It shouldn't matter what the conditions are like. I drive a RWD sports car with plenty of horsepower that slides everywhere, yet I can still maintain complete control.

If you can't maintain control of your vehicle in bad weather, stay off the roads in the winter. I don't need someone like you slamming into me because you don't know how to drive in snow.

Ditto.

Stay home next time it snows.

[ES_Revenge]

^^^

So you're basically saying that you know better than the criminal defense lawyer that wrote the article based on precedent in Ontario?
:rolleyes: Yeah that's what I'm saying :rolleyes:

What's funny is if you told the same lawyer exactly what I wrote he'd probably agree with most of it.

One is that if the lawyer did a really good job (or had a very good case), they'd get a Dangerous charge thrown out and prevent a lesser included from occuring.

Two is that while the lawyer knows exactly what he's talking about there speaking of "mere inadvertent negligence" many laypersons may take this as meaning any negligence and think that means having a carefree approach to driving is fine.

Three is that it's better to not get charged in the first place because then you don't need any defence at all.

All of what I said is true. And all of what I said I just repeated. It amazes me how people don't bother reading something and then accuse you of this and that :rolleyes: Nowhere did I say anything about "knowing better" than the criminal defence lawyer that put the page up. What I did was just expand on some of the little things people might read wrong (as clearly people just don't read) and add a couple things.

The officer told me that I have damaged the guard rail because of that I got ticket.

She could just say that I just have to pay for the guard rail, and watch carefully in snow time.
Ah yes, so the guard ail is indeed the trigger here, as I suspected it might be.

As for her telling you that you have to pay for it, she can't. The damage to the guard rail would have to be claimed by whomever owns it (the city or province for example) and that would be a claim against your insurance (or yourself if you didn't have any). While this is usually settled by the insurance company, if it had to go to court it would be a civil matter not a regulatory or criminal one.

Police officers can't tell you to pay for anything. They can fine you as per provincial offences for example, but they can't order you to pay for any damages--that can only be done in a civil proceeding against you.

But again, consequences do often determine what you'll get charged with. Anyone that wants to deny this can go to court for a few days and watch all the charges and pay attention to the details in the cases and it should become clear that is the reality.

In court the consequences (the damage to the guard rail) may become unimportant though, in absence of evidence to convict you which is why it's a good idea to fight this one. However once more if you didn't get charged in the first place that would make it all the more easy, right?

I wouldn't worry about it, the officer needs to have documented proof that careless driving occurred. I had a similar sitution and paid someone for advice. The first thing they asked me if the officer was there during the accident, I said no. They then asked if when the officer arrived, they took measurements of the scene and if they looked for and measured any skid marks, to which I said no. They laughed and said "don't worry, you aren't getting charged with anything", and I didn't.

If you had a similar situation and didn't get charged with anything why would you need to pay anyone for advice? Did the officer say they might charge you later based on evidence from other parties or evidence not yet collected? Just seems kind of strange that if you didn't get charged with anything you'd just up and pay someone money to find out you weren't going to get charged...

[AudiDude]

If you had a similar situation and didn't get charged with anything why would you need to pay anyone for advice? Did the officer say they might charge you later based on evidence from other parties or evidence not yet collected? Just seems kind of strange that if you didn't get charged with anything you'd just up and pay someone money to find out you weren't going to get charged...

Does it still seem kind of strange if I was leaving the country the next day,and would be gone for a while?? The officer didn't really care much about anything as he showed up waaay after the incident. He was very polite and just informed me of my options and left. Money wasn't an issue. If I kept whatever I paid out for myself, I wouldn't be in any better financial position in life, so it was and is irrelevant to me. I'd done some telecommunications work for the people that provided counsel and observed their success while I was there for the day, so I called them first.

[ES_Revenge]

Does it still seem kind of strange if I was leaving the country the next day,and would be gone for a while?? The officer didn't really care much about anything as he showed up waaay after the incident. He was very polite and just informed me of my options and left.

Options for what? So you were charged or not? Or was he giving you options on how to repair your car or something?

Because you said you paid someone for advice and they told you "don't worry you won't be getting charged with anything" which clearly implies that you hadn't been charged with anything to that point. Now from assumption I would not think that you had paid someone for advice between the time of the accident and the officer getting there (and that was done at some point later on), so you weren't really in the same position as the OP.

What I'm getting at is whether you were charged or not, regardless of the outcome (convicted or not). Part of the point I was making before was if you don't get charged with something, it's a heck of a lot easier because there's nothing to worry about except the car, damages, and insurance.

You said your situation was like the OPs but the OP got charged already. From what you said yourself it sounds like you weren't charged.

[AudiDude]

Options for what? So you were charged or not? Or was he giving you options on how to repair your car or something?

Because you said you paid someone for advice and they told you "don't worry you won't be getting charged with anything" which clearly implies that you hadn't been charged with anything to that point. Now from assumption I would not think that you had paid someone for advice between the time of the accident and the officer getting there (and that was done at some point later on), so you weren't really in the same position as the OP.

What I'm getting at is whether you were charged or not, regardless of the outcome (convicted or not). Part of the point I was making before was if you don't get charged with something, it's a heck of a lot easier because there's nothing to worry about except the car, damages, and insurance.

You said your situation was like the OPs but the OP got charged already. From what you said yourself it sounds like you weren't charged.

My situation was definitely like the OP's. The police showed up after the accident and charged me with following too closely. How is this different from the OP's? In both instances the officer did not see any accident, just the aftermath and made an assumption on what the cause was and charged accordingly to what they believed the cause was without collecting any substantial evidence that would allow the charge to stand in court. So to me that sounds the same, no??
So having to leave the country for a while and having to deal with this situation and also knowing the success rate of the counsel I chose was higher than average, I made the decision to spend a little to make sure the situation was taken care of. This way, I could get on with my vacation, and not have to deal with any backlash from any loose ends. I had 36 hrs. between the accident and my flight out of the country.

[ES_Revenge]

My situation was definitely like the OP's. The police showed up after the accident and charged me with following too closely. How is this different from the OP's?
It's similar but only since you've changed your story. Again I was looking to see whether you were charged or not, which you were despite the fact that you seemed to say you weren't initially.

Again...
They laughed and said "don't worry, you aren't getting charged with anything", and I didn't.
[Emphasis added.] ^This implies you were not charged with anything. Anyone who was getting paid to give legal advice would not tell you "don't worry you aren't getting charged with anything" when you were clearly already charged as per your second story. Again which is it, were you charged or weren't you?

Assuming now that you were charged, the paid-for-legal-advice person wouldn't have said something like "don't worry you aren't getting charged" when in fact you were already charged. That would be like them saying "don't worry you're not getting into an accident" when in fact the accident already happened. They might have said "don't worry you aren't getting convicted of anything" but not charged, if you were in fact already charged.


In both instances the officer did not see any accident, just the aftermath and made an assumption on what the cause was and charged accordingly to what they believed the cause was without collecting any substantial evidence that would allow the charge to stand in court. So to me that sounds the same, no??
Yep it sounds similar, but again that's now after you changed the story (first you weren't charged now you were).

So having to leave the country for a while and having to deal with this situation and also knowing the success rate of the counsel I chose was higher than average, I made the decision to spend a little to make sure the situation was taken care of. This way, I could get on with my vacation, and not have to deal with any backlash from any loose ends. I had 36 hrs. between the accident and my flight out of the country.
Right so again since you're really being vague here, I assume that what ended up happening is your representation showed up (you didn't have to) and got the entire matter dropped/you found not guilty. Correct?

But you see if you had never been charged in the first place you never would have had to pay someone to represent you, which is why I asked you in the beginning why you would pay someone at all if you hadn't been charged (at which point you should have said you were charged, but instead you went off into some other irrelevant jibber-jabber about leaving the country making things even more confusing).

I agree that the OP has a good chance of getting the charges dropped particularly if they hire someone, as you did, but again it would be an easier time if they weren't charged in the first place ;)

[AudiDude]

It's similar but only since you've changed your story. Again I was looking to see whether you were charged or not, which you were despite the fact that you seemed to say you weren't initially.

You see if I seek legal counsel and I say "I am getting charged with xxx" and the legal counsel asks me "was the officer there during the incident" and "if not, did he attemt to measure skid marks, if there were any" and I reply "no". Why wouldn't he say "you aren't getting charged with anything". I can see from your posts your having some difficulty dealing with the reality of how to deal with other people.
As a technical person who deals with IT/Telecommunications, what you are saying is when something breaks and my customer/client says "why did my backup link not come up when may main service was cut", I should explain to him that his onsite IT guy programmed his router incorrectly and actually explain to the customer in detail (which he has no hope in hell of understanding) what happened and what should of happened. In reality you deal with clients as they speak to you and don't get technical. The counsel was there to help, not try to twist my words and end up helping less.

If you want to get technical, fine. My response was to the OP, not your "Jibber Jabber". If I said we were in the same situation, that would mean that the officer showed up afterwards and laid charges and didn't see the accident, understand?? The OP wanted to know the likelihood of the charges remaining on his record (of course he would have to be convicted, before you bother saying it ) and was asking how do deal with this ticket. I told him I sought legal counsel (telling him how to deal with the ticket) and told him the very words the legal counsel said to me.

You decided to make the assumption that I was not charged. If I said were were in the same situation, that indicates that we both were charged (see how that works?). Just because I left out every detail of the flow of the conversation between me and the legal counsel to try to be less technical doesn't mean the situation when down as you wanted to imagine. I just wanted to let the OP know he should be OK by using my very similar as an example why and explaining to him the key reasons my counsel gave as why the charges would not go through (yes, your favourite word I wouldn't be "convicted").

If you think I don't stand a chance in court because you think I don't know how to defend myself when I have made an appearance in court, I can tell you, the lying police officer and the nitpicking prosecutor (like yourself, who tried to convict me with some BS he tried to fabricate) went down quickly.

I could spend the whole day combing through technical websites looking for minor and major inconsistencies in forums and tell people that they are changing their stories or try to make them look stupid, but instead I try to help if I feel they are REALLY misdirected.I don't want to be come a "Technicality Troll" like yourself who likes to cut snippets of everyone's converstation to construct and construe your own story. Not saying you aren't trying to help, but they way you are doing it is destructive, not constructive. I hope I have made myself clear enough for you to understand.

If the OP doesn't get it, or wants more info, he can easily ask me by responding in the thread or PMing me. I only responded to your posts, because I wasn't sure you understood, not to engage in a pi$$ing competition. I assume the OP did understand, as he didn't respond in the same manner (not at all actually).

I apologize to all for the interruption to the flow of this thread, but I can only take so much...

[nazawale]

bump

[johnsa]

nazawale - The first thing you need to do is file for a court date. Once you get your Notice of Trial, fill out a request for Disclosure (the cop's notes). You can then review the notes and see what notes the cop wrote down from your conversation. It is likely that she never wrote down very much and therefore that should bolster your case, because it will be hard for her to remember exactly what happened without good notes to rely upon.

I agree that the prosecutor will have a very hard time making this charge stick. If the cop wasn't there to actually see the accident happen, then it should be a slam-dunk victory for you as there is no evidence other than the cop's imagination as to what happened.

You may also want to keep some newspaper clippings that talk about how this was the worst storm in years...they probably won't be admissable in court, but if you show them to the prosecutor before trial, it will refresh his memory as to what the conditions were like yesterday and he will likely withdraw the charge.

If I were you, I wouldn't accept a plea to a lesser charge, as that is still considered a conviction to your insurance company - you shouldn't have any problems winning this case, so don't get bullied into pleading guilty.

Good luck and remember to be professional when speaking to the prosecutor and the cop...it will go a long way towards ensuring your vistory.


+1..Based on the info you have provided, sounds like another case of the police handing out a "careless" charge when there were no witnesses and they know you will be happy settling for any lesser charge.. An OPP friend once told me they are trained to this now....if no witnesses..just charge with careless.

In this case I would fight it yourself and not accept a lesser charge....you still have the ins claim to deal with but when it is due to driving conditions, careless is silly. Sure, you should have been going slower due to the conditions, but this has happened to so many people before...It is nice that no one, including yourself was hurt..

Good luck.

[johnsa]

The officer told me that I have damaged the guard rail because of that I got ticket.

She could just say that I just have to pay for the guard rail, and watch carefully in snow time.


What a crock..my wife wrote offf our new van Feb 2006 after losing control on a corner under very icy conditions..she hit and destroyed a road sign which is Public property and she was not charged with anything.

Just ins claim...

[johnsa]

As far as I'm concerned, if you spin out in the middle of the road, you're a bad and/or careless driver.

It shouldn't matter what the conditions are like. I drive a RWD sports car with plenty of horsepower that slides everywhere, yet I can still maintain complete control.

If you can't maintain control of your vehicle in bad weather, stay off the roads in the winter. I don't need someone like you slamming into me because you don't know how to drive in snow.

:D That's pretty funny..you slide everywhere but still maintain complete control..sounds like an oxymoron to me...Hey..I think I just made that exact statement to my lovely wife in bed last night...:D sorry..couldn't help myself..

[gman]

:D That's pretty funny..you slide everywhere but still maintain complete control..sounds like an oxymoron to me...Hey..I think I just made that exact statement to my lovely wife in bed last night...:D sorry..couldn't help myself..

Sliding does not mean you lose control. You can control your sliding. You should know you are going to slide based on the road condition and factor that in your driving. Sliding is part of the winter driving. If you don't know that by now, you should know it now. If you spin during lane change, you are either careless or do not know how to drive in that condition.

[johnsa]

Sliding does not mean you lose control. You can control your sliding. You should know you are going to slide based on the road condition and factor that in your driving. Sliding is part of the winter driving. If you don't know that by now, you should know it now. If you spin during lane change, you are either careless or do not know how to drive in that condition.

I wasn't being serious, but don't entirely agree..

I have no doubt that you are always in complete control, obviously your driving skills are much higher than the average driver..;)

[nazawale]

b.u.m.p

[gerbil]

yesterday is biggie when it comes to you as a driver not taking care of your vehicle ... saw some major cars not being able to climb up the hill ... slip n sliding and burning rubber!!

good thing i was walking ..

[gman]

yesterday is biggie when it comes to you as a driver not taking care of your vehicle ... saw some major cars not being able to climb up the hill ... slip n sliding and burning rubber!!

good thing i was walking ..

It was fun driving last night. Pretty safe too because there were only few cars. Chinese restaurant was supposed to be busy for Chinese New Year Eve dinner but because of the obvious reason, it was not. Hence, it was all good for me. Slip and slide were part of the fun. However, I cannot say it was fun walking last night though.

[pintobean]

It was fun driving last night... Slip and slide were part of the fun...
Are you serious?!
How old are you?

I was driving north on Warden between Highway 7 and 16th Avenue last night, and it wasn't fun at all with all the idiots slipping and sliding their way up the icy hill.

I'm not referring to you specifically OP, but I just don't understand how people think it's OK to drive a car on an icy road with 10-year-old bald tires. One idiot in an old Honda Civic with manual transmission kept trying and trying to climb the hill but instead would just stall his car and roll it backwards towards everyone unlucky enough to be caught behind him. After about 20 minutes of being caught in traffic with cars fish-tailing and slip-sliding in front of me, or rolling backwards down the hill towards me, I made a U-turn and went through on the side streets.

It was nightmarish...definitely not a fun drive.

[nazawale]

Well I got the court date for this ticket, now someone tell me whats the best way to go?

1. Should I fight this ticket myself with some supporting document like weather report and avarage accident on that particular day (Dec 16 2007)
2. Should I hire a lawyer and let him decide and pay like 500?

I know this could be easy one or become a unsolved issue..in anycase I need some advice, so please share it with me

Thanks

[gman]

Are you serious?!
How old are you?

I was driving north on Warden between Highway 7 and 16th Avenue last night, and it wasn't fun at all with all the idiots slipping and sliding their way up the icy hill.

I'm not referring to you specifically OP, but I just don't understand how people think it's OK to drive a car on an icy road with 10-year-old bald tires. One idiot in an old Honda Civic with manual transmission kept trying and trying to climb the hill but instead would just stall his car and roll it backwards towards everyone unlucky enough to be caught behind him. After about 20 minutes of being caught in traffic with cars fish-tailing and slip-sliding in front of me, or rolling backwards down the hill towards me, I made a U-turn and went through on the side streets.

It was nightmarish...definitely not a fun drive.

Yes, I was serious. I am 44. I had my license since I was 16.
On that night (last month), I was actually in the area you mentioned. Yes, it was fun. It was Chinese New Year eve and I purposely chose a restaurant which was far away from my home. I can't even say that night was bad at all.

[nazawale]

I am still waiting for my last question. Anyone has an answer.

[Shaner]

I am still waiting for my last question. Anyone has an answer.

Go ahead, bring with you a weather report for that day and numerous newspaper articles showing that there were lots of accidents. Tell me though, how does that disprove that you were driving carelessly? Or are you trying to imply that it's impossible to drive carelessly if the weather is bad?

If you do that, you're going to be convicted pretty damn quickly. If you're hell bent on fighting this ticket, I suggest a lawyer. You are just going to get yourself into trouble in the court room.

[AudiDude]

Go ahead, bring with you a weather report for that day and numerous newspaper articles showing that there were lots of accidents. Tell me though, how does that disprove that you were driving carelessly? Or are you trying to imply that it's impossible to drive carelessly if the weather is bad?

If you do that, you're going to be convicted pretty damn quickly. If you're hell bent on fighting this ticket, I suggest a lawyer. You are just going to get yourself into trouble in the court room.

+1.

You were obviously not "driving according to conditions" is what you will be told, and there is no denying that. Bringing articles on how others did the same will not help. You are expected to drive as slow and carefully as needed to avoid an accident. Again, since no officer saw you driving in such a manner, I don't see how they can charge you with such an offence.

"Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:

The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.

A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving.

Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.

Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven."

http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html

Since I was leaving the country and didn't want to wreck my vacation worrying, I paid someone else to worry about it. Did they take it to court? I really don't know, all I can tell you is I didn't get charged. You make the final call on this.

[RenegadeX]

Well I got the court date for this ticket, now someone tell me whats the best way to go?

1. Should I fight this ticket myself with some supporting document like weather report and avarage accident on that particular day (Dec 16 2007)
2. Should I hire a lawyer and let him decide and pay like 500?Answers:
1. No.
2. Yes.

Should you represent yourself and fail to get the charge lowered to something else or dismissed outright, you will have a Careless Driving infraction on your record. This infraction is considered "Major" by insurance companies. What would this mean to you?
- a sizable $fine$ + 6 Demerit Points
- your current insurance policy might be cancelled for having a Major infraction on it
- if that happens you may find yourself suddenly in the 'Facility'(high-risk) insurance category which means insanely-high insurance rates(3-4x current) for the next 3-5 years.
- taking the bus for the next 3-5 years.

Even if there was a 60% chance you could get off the Careless charge, there would be a 40% chance you wouldn't -- would you risk all of the above for that?

And if your insurance were to go from $2500/yr to $6000/year or even $9000/yr *for the next 3-5 years*, would paying a 'traffic ticket specialist'(paralegal) $500 or $1000 or even $2000 now to get the ticket tossed be worth it? Absolutely. I don't know how they do it but those guys have a pretty good track record.

Bottom line: you absolutely do not want this charge on your record, so you must do everything in your power to ensure it doesn't stick.

[l69norm]

...2. Should I hire a lawyer and let him decide and pay like 500?...

What advice did you get from the CAA?

[at1212b]

A buddy of mine in Dec 2005 was driving east on the 401 at around 3 am. It was on a Tuesday night or something. It just started snowing around 1am, so there was a thin blanket of snow around the time, around 1 cm probably and was just below zero which can actually be more dangerous sometimes due to the slushiness of it and underestimation of its effect.

Around Brimley, he just lost control. I believe he was in the middle lane, but then went and hit the left barrier. Like a pin ball, he then went across all 4 lanes of the 401 to the right guard rail (so lucky that there were no cars behind him) then went back into the middle somewhere. He said pretty much before he knew it, somehow a cop was on the scene. The cop did not see what happened but was concerned about what happened.

My friend told him he was just driving, and just lost control so he wasn't trying to change lanes or anything. The officer did not charge him for anything regarding that accident and was more concerned about the overall safety of the situation. His car was a writeoff. The insurance company told him based on the situation, there is a actually situation that is entitled 'act of God' and that he was not at fault.

The next car he purchased, there was a very neglible increase on his rates (though it was a older model of his former car).

I know in recent times, within the past year, the order from the top (Fantino) and maybe even the Toronto Police, that weather is no longer to be used as a excuse for a accident is here which explains the above situation and the OP.

[Shaner]

I know in recent times, within the past year, the order from the top (Fantino) and maybe even the Toronto Police, that weather is no longer to be used as a excuse for a accident is here which explains the above situation and the OP.

I'd like to know where you're getting this information?

[RenegadeX]

I'd like to know where you're getting this information?What 'at1212b' said *ISN'T* actually law yet, but a few months ago, Fantino was pushing it on radio and tv interviews, and was quoted about it in print online and in the newspapers.

"TheRecord.com - Local - Slippery conditions no excuse, police say", January 2, 2008
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/289802
Even in the worst winter blizzard, vehicle collisions are rarely accidents in the true sense of the word, police have long said.

That's why many local traffic officers would welcome laws proposed by OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino that would target those who drive too fast in bad weather.

"Accidents aren't 'accidents.' They don't just happen," says veteran Waterloo regional traffic sergeant Fred Gregory.

"They're caused by human error, be it driving too fast, not wearing a seatbelt or disobeying a traffic signal."

It's this belief that heavy feet, not slippery streets, are to blame for most traffic problems during storms that has prompted the proposed traffic law changes. If Fantino gets his wish, drivers couldn't simply blame bad weather for their collision.

Most of the 27,000 motorists who lost control on Ontario highways last year did so because of poor weather conditions -- but many of those accidents could have been prevented if the driver had slowed down, OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley said this week.

"Too many drivers still don't adjust their driving habits for the wide range of weather conditions that we experience in Ontario," Commissioner Fantino said.

The proposed change to the Highway Traffic Act would mean drivers who get into accidents while it's raining or snowing should be prepared to explain themselves, Woolley said.

"And if it's just the weather, that's not good enough," he said.

[at1212b]

^^^

Thanks for the follow-up. I remember it was all on the news/sound bytes and although it isn't law, it likely seems there is additional pressure to use the discretion empowered by a Officer in situations, with a weight more towards proving yourself on why you should be innocent.

[ES_Revenge]

2. Should I hire a lawyer and let him decide and pay like 500?

For $500 you will not be getting a lawyer unless this is a friend/family member of yours doing you a favour. $500 will buy you a paralegal, and this will be made known when you hire one... In ON you have to sign a declaration/waiver saying you know you're not being represented by lawyer but rather are being represented by a paralegal and you cannot appeal later, on the basis that you weren't properly represented by a lawyer.

For a non-criminal matter there is no need for a lawyer, you'll only really need a paralegal but just pointing that out as lawyers aren't cheap ;)