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 :lol:

[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 :lol:

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.

[Nikita]

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 :lol:

Well I could get very philisophical on those bolded questions, but I can't right now cuz Criminal Minds is on...lol...So maybe tomorrow, I give you my 2 cents (if it matters to you...lol).

[Mattones]

Same thing happend to me. I just bit the bullet. and just a few weeks ago i was given a ticket for going 11 over. paid it. I should have fought the last one

[ygtgxi]

From waht i understand, points do not matter, it is the conviction that matters for your insurance

Also X-copper is out of business

[leon200608]

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 :lol:

There are many ways to get the ticket completely dismissed, cops' absence, using charter of rights etc. In fact if everyone fight his/her tickets the court system will be clogged and then collapse, or, the system will change.

In my opinion, for regular HTA offenses (non criminal code), to challenge police's evidence is not a sin, one should not feel guity about it, this is just to make sure the provincial procecutors do their job.

If you don't agree with this you can always pay your ticket.

[Shaner]

In my opinion, for regular HTA offenses (non criminal code), to challenge police's evidence is not a sin, one should not feel guity about it, this is just to make sure the provincial procecutors do their job.

If you don't agree with this you can always pay your ticket.

But if you know you're guilty (and don't give me this BS that you don't know, that's a lie), why even bother making the prosecutor do his/her job?

The malls in my city all have janitors, should I throw garbage all over the mall in order to make sure the janitors are doing their jobs?

Sure, if everyone fought their ticket, the system would be an absolute mess, but do you not realize that it's a tax payer funded system? They'll just hire more prosecutors, more clerks, more justices, etc. That will easily equal millions of dollars, all because you refused to pay a $100 ticket which you knew damn well you were guilty of.

The right to be innocent until proven guilty wasn't put into place so that people who know they are guilty can try and get the charge dismissed on a technicality, it was to protect those who are truly innocent.

[olddog]

but even if he knows he is guilty, paying the fine will/might raise his rates at the insurance level where i personally think is a drain.
i try in any situation to give the least amount of money to auto-insurance.
My idea of insurance is not paying monthly into a hole that gets deeper and deeper.
i always wonder why insurance companies don't give back a portion of your annual total insurance paid if you dont get into any trouble or claims.
that would make more sense..
the entire insurance scheme to me is a legal scam..

[blahs]

a radical idea but maybe you should pay the ticket. Take some responsibility

[Shaner]

but even if he knows he is guilty, paying the fine will/might raise his rates at the insurance level where i personally think is a drain.
i try in any situation to give the least amount of money to auto-insurance.
My idea of insurance is not paying monthly into a hole that gets deeper and deeper.
i always wonder why insurance companies don't give back a portion of your annual total insurance paid if you dont get into any trouble or claims.
that would make more sense..
the entire insurance scheme to me is a legal scam..

Yeah, admitting guilt could raise his insurance rates, that's one of the consequences of breaking the law. Don't speed and you won't have to worry about higher insurance rates. For those who choose to speed, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and they should be mature enough to accept responsibility and pay the fine.

While I also hate paying insurance premiums and I disagree with many of the practices of insurance companies, it's pretty obvious why they don't give you back your unused premiums every year. Sure, this year you made no claims and you want your insurance premiums refunded to you for that reason. What about next year if you get into a horrible at fault accident and the other driver sues you for $1 million. Lets assume that your insurance company settles for half of that amount. Should you now be responsible for giving your insurance company the difference between that amount and your premiums? Or should your insurance company just eat the loss?

If insurance companies did what you prescribe, they would all be bankrupt within a week. It's not realistic.

[Scott84]

My friend gets a ticket atleast once every year.. and everytime he goes and fights it, it either gets thrown out (officer does not show), or it gets reduced to the lowest possible tier and his rates dont go up for his insurance.

Because of the way he gets away with this, he still always drives 20-30 over the limit all the time.

The amount of times he got caught made me stop speeding. I learned my lesson from another person haha.

[65505201]

But if you know you're guilty (and don't give me this BS that you don't know, that's a lie), why even bother making the prosecutor do his/her job?


Because most, if not all, speeding violations/traps are bull? How often do you see cops out on a day when exceeding the limit is actually unsafe?

If the city wants to make speeding ticket a revenue generating system, then I'm all for making them work for it.


The malls in my city all have janitors, should I throw garbage all over the mall in order to make sure the janitors are doing their jobs?


If the mall fines you for walking in with muddy shoes or dropping your ice cream cone on the floor, you bet I'd be getting my money's worth for the fine.


Sure, if everyone fought their ticket, the system would be an absolute mess, but do you not realize that it's a tax payer funded system? They'll just hire more prosecutors, more clerks, more justices, etc. That will easily equal millions of dollars, all because you refused to pay a $100 ticket which you knew damn well you were guilty of.


They're already backlogged, undermanned, and underfunded now - with a vast minority of people fighting. I say - break the system. If *any* of the counselors vote to increase the budget, vote them out of office. The beauty of a democratic system is that the government serves the people (well, it should anyways), not the other way around.


The right to be innocent until proven guilty wasn't put into place so that people who know they are guilty can try and get the charge dismissed on a technicality, it was to protect those who are truly innocent.

I agree. But if this is a legal avenue to dispute the city's/MOT's policy, then I don't see why it shouldn't be pursued.


For those who choose to speed, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and they should be mature enough to accept responsibility and pay the fine.

HA. Yes, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and accept the consequences (fine/spending time in court). However, if one truly believes a law is bull, there is nothing immature about challenging it (before OR after the fact).

[Shaner]

HA. Yes, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and accept the consequences (fine/spending time in court). However, if one truly believes a law is bull, there is nothing immature about challenging it (before OR after the fact).

Sure, challenge the law all you want, but you don't do that by hoping your ticket gets thrown out on a technicality. That's not challenging a law, you're not going to change anything by doing this, other than by getting your ticket dismissed, so don't act like it's the noble thing to do.

If the law is bull, write your MP and your MPP, run for office yourself, take the provincial government to court, try and get the supreme court to hear your case regarding the legalities of our current traffic laws, etc. There are many ways to challenge a law, but fighting your ticket simply to get it thrown out on a technicality isn't one of those ways. You're simply challenging the ticket, not the law itself.

[leon200608]

Don't speed and you won't have to worry about higher insurance rates. For those who choose to speed, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and they should be mature enough to accept responsibility and pay the fine.


So you are saying you've never been speeding before?! You've never driven 55km/h on a 50km/h zone? That's speeding! 110km/h on a 100km/h highway is speeding! Which means, officially you should never pass any car that's at 100km/h on the highway otherwise you are breaking the law and should be penalized?? I know most of those times you don't get caught by cops, so should you feel guity about it and turn yourself in?

The speed limit in north america are usually set under the worst driving conditions, however most of the time they are refelcted under the best driving conditions. In a nice sunny day driving 60 on a 50 zone, 130 on a 100 zone, with caution is pretty safe. However cops can pull you over for this and grant you a ticket, as a warning "slow down and you'll be safe!" which is meaningless.

[Shaner]

So you are saying you've never been speeding before?! You've never driven 55km/h on a 50km/h zone? That's speeding! 110km/h on a 100km/h highway is speeding! Which means, officially you should never pass any car that's at 100km/h on the highway otherwise you are breaking the law and should be penalized?? I know most of those times you don't get caught by cops, so should you feel guity about it and turn yourself in?

The speed limit in north america are usually set under the worst driving conditions, however most of the time they are refelcted under the best driving conditions. In a nice sunny day driving 60 on a 50 zone, 130 on a 100 zone, with caution is pretty safe. However cops can pull you over for this and grant you a ticket, as a warning "slow down and you'll be safe!" which is meaningless.

Give your head a shake. Of course I speed, and hell no I don't feel guilty about it, nor do I plan on heading down to my local police station and asking them to ticket me. Please understand what you're reading before you respond.

I specifically stated that if you don't want to worry about higher insurance premiums, then don't speed. That's a fact, not an opinion. If you don't speed, you're far less likely to get a speeding ticket. Again, fact! I then went on to say that if you do speed, be prepared to face the reality that you might get a ticket.

At no point have I ever in my life told anyone not to speed. I would be a hypocrite for saying such a thing. I also agree that speed limits are set too low, but there are many avenues available to you to challenge the laws if you so desire. Trying to get your ticket thrown out on a technicality is NOT challenging the law, it's challenging that specific ticket only.

[Whitedart]

Yeah, admitting guilt could raise his insurance rates, that's one of the consequences of breaking the law. Don't speed and you won't have to worry about higher insurance rates. For those who choose to speed, they should be prepared to accept the reality that they might get charged and they should be mature enough to accept responsibility and pay the fine.

Yes, and in almost every case, the matter can be plead down to a lesser charge.



While I also hate paying insurance premiums and I disagree with many of the practices of insurance companies, it's pretty obvious why they don't give you back your unused premiums every year. Sure, this year you made no claims and you want your insurance premiums refunded to you for that reason. What about next year if you get into a horrible at fault accident and the other driver sues you for $1 million. Lets assume that your insurance company settles for half of that amount. Should you now be responsible for giving your insurance company the difference between that amount and your premiums? Or should your insurance company just eat the loss?

If insurance companies did what you prescribe, they would all be bankrupt within a week. It's not realistic.

The worst part of car insurance now is the personal injury claims for minor bumps.

A fellow I work with was rear ended in a plaza parking lot. No visible damage to his car's rear bumper, yet he claimed back injuries, was off work for over a month, and ended up settling for a unspecified amount of $. To me, it almost seemed like fraud, but someone's insurance had to pay.

[braxton]

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.

That's not true at all. The OP knows as well as I do that a 72 in a 50 is a bogus, money grabbing ticket. I'll bet anything the OP was driving safe for conditions on an open stretch of dry road on a clear day. He/she did nothing wrong- just violated an unjustifiably low speed limit.
Fight the ticket ALWAYS as a protest to the cops and municipalities against this 100 billion dollar a year revenue generating system. If they are going to take your hard earned money anyhow, at least make them earn it in court.
The cops should be catching the truly dangerous drivers- instead they go for the low-hanging fruit...

and while I agree that there are possibly other avenues and forms of protest (write a letter to your local politician), these are extremely unlikley to have any positive effect. The police, politicians, municipalities are all in bed together, and running for office is not for everyone. However, everyone CAN and SHOULD fight their speeding ticket in court- it's an easy form of protest and it can be effective.

Further, why can't speeding ticket fines go to fund a charity or education or medicine or...? If they did and you take away the money from the police and municipalities, you can guarantee speed traps would cease to exist. It's not about safety, it's about money and it's totally immoral.

I encourage everyone to see www.motorists.org for info on motorists rights.

[bolton_gal]

Thanks for all of the responses. I guess my question is this: Do I risk fighting it myself? Is there a possibility they can bring the charge back up to 72 in a 50? I heard this can happen.

[baldy73]

But if you know you're guilty (and don't give me this BS that you don't know, that's a lie), why even bother making the prosecutor do his/her job?

The malls in my city all have janitors, should I throw garbage all over the mall in order to make sure the janitors are doing their jobs?

Sure, if everyone fought their ticket, the system would be an absolute mess, but do you not realize that it's a tax payer funded system? They'll just hire more prosecutors, more clerks, more justices, etc. That will easily equal millions of dollars, all because you refused to pay a $100 ticket which you knew damn well you were guilty of.

The right to be innocent until proven guilty wasn't put into place so that people who know they are guilty can try and get the charge dismissed on a technicality, it was to protect those who are truly innocent.

Shaner, your approach here (and in another reply to a post of mine on another thread about flow of traffic and who was the greater hazard) is based on the belief that all the laws on the books in Canada and in each province are all good, right, and just laws. That's the prism that you are looking through, to then decide that people should pay up when they've been ticketed. And I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that. Hell, Henry Morgentaler out-and-out flouted Canadian law on numerous occasions, was convicted, but then later acquitted, which resulted in a change of Canadian law ... and now he's getting the Order of Canada. I won't comment on whether he's deserving of that or not, but the fact is that he realized that laws drafted and deliberated on by humans are not perfect, unassailable laws.

That's what I believe about speed limits. They are in the vast majority of cases set too low. On a road w/o any speed limit signs, the overwhelming majority of people (say 75-85%) will drive at a speed appropriate for the road and weather conditions. It is the other 15% that will either drive too fast or too slow for the particular road, and those are the people that the police should be targeting. It's fine to say that the speed limit on the 400-series of highways is 100 kph, and if everyone drove that we'd all be fine. But to say that is to totally deny REALITY. The normal flow of traffic on those highways is regularly 110-120 kph, and we have some of the safest highways in North America.

Now what the OPP SHOULD be doing is using their new spiffy plane to search out and find the people weaving in and out of lanes on the 400 while speeding excessively. Having ticketed those people, they should expedite those prosecutions so that those dangerous drivers are removed from our roads. But why is that not the priority? Because the OPP knows that it's much harder to prosecute for dangerous or reckless driving (a strict liability offence) than it is for a simple speeding charge (absolute liability), so instead they rack up the easier tickets to prosecute. Sorry, but that approach doesn't do anything to improve the safety of our highways.

What can be said about Ontario's provincial offences court system is that it's not anything like those crazy backward towns in the States, such as Summersville WV (pop'n 3,194) that wrote over 18,000 speeding tickets in one year! And it's not Mexico! But that's not saying much. Frankly, in many ways, it's not as predictable a court as a court of law should be. I get the sense that it's largely an afterthought to the higher courts and the criminal and family law divisions of the Ont. Court of Justice. Of course the stakes are (most times) not as high in POA court as in criminal court - although some POA cases involving offences to the environment carry very steep fines (I saw one caselaw that had a fine of $50,000 and jail time if the accused were convicted) - but it has to be recognized that most charges laid in Ontario go through the POA courts, and so that is the side of the court that most Ontarians ever see. As such, the AG and others should strive to do all they can to assist that court in being as fair and just as possible. Any court needs and should desire to have the confidence of the greater public. I don't know if that could be said to be the case now, of the average Ontarian vis-a-vis the POA courts.

[tjayl]

The OP knows as well as I do that a 72 in a 50 is a bogus, money grabbing ticket. I'll bet anything the OP was driving safe for conditions on an open stretch of dry road on a clear day. He/she did nothing wrong- just violated an unjustifiably low speed limit.

I don't know about Toronto, but in KW, areas that have a 50 km/h limit are either residential, or have a lot of foot traffic (ie downtown areas). If anyone thinks they can safely drive through a residential area at 72, they should not be driving. Of course, I don't know what street the ticket was issued on, so this argument may not apply.

[baldy73]

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.

Huh, what? The OP stated that the two officers were operating a radar trap. I take that to mean that the one was operating the radar, while the other was pulling cars over and writing out the tickets. In such a scenario, both cops simply must show or there's no chance of a conviction. The one who pulled the car over did not form an opinion on speed, or after having done so, use a radar gun to confirm it. They went off the suggestion of their fellow officer.

If only one officer were at trial, they could not lead evidence about the other's thoughts or beliefs, as it would be mere hearsay.

Bottom line, both officers have to show up for OP's trial. If it were 2 officer's riding in a cruiser and they pulled over a speeder, and the driving officer was the one who formed an opinion, used the radar gun, and who served the notice on the speeder, and the other officer had no hand in any of the officer's judgments and had no contact whatsoever with the accused, then only the 1 officer would be necessary. Still, if I were such a defendant, I would ask for the field notes of each officer for around the time of that particular offence.

[baldy73]

Here's a case about a reduced fine for speeding. I'll search more after, as I think that one might not have been like your case, but a JP imposing a lesser fine than the set fine for the offence. I have seen a case like yours on CanLii though. Just gotta dig it up again. ;-)

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2004/2004oncj269/2004oncj269.html

[Nraja]

From what I've heard..the best method is to FIGHT EVERY TICKET (as most people are saying)...but i've also been told to never be present at the first appearance...get someone to go in your absence and act as your agent..and say that you would have liked to have been there but fell sick (and you'll need a doctors note)....and would like to reschedule

this way..if the cop decides to show up for your first date..and you dont attend..the likeliness of him attending the 2nd one is a lot less

I've only ever fought the 1 ticket that i got..but the cop didnt show up..so i didnt have to do anything.it was dismissed on the spot

goodluck

[baldy73]

From what I've heard..the best method is to FIGHT EVERY TICKET (as most people are saying)...but i've also been told to never be present at the first appearance...get someone to go in your absence and act as your agent..and say that you would have liked to have been there but fell sick (and you'll need a doctors note)....and would like to reschedule

this way..if the cop decides to show up for your first date..and you dont attend..the likeliness of him attending the 2nd one is a lot less

I've only ever fought the 1 ticket that i got..but the cop didnt show up..so i didnt have to do anything.it was dismissed on the spot

goodluck

Dunno where you got that advice, about not going to the first trial date. I wouldn't recommend it. But yeah, there's not much to lose in fighting your tickets. Yeah, you have to take time off work, and have to have it in the back of your mind for awhile, but if you've already got 2 tickets on your abstract then I would always recommend fighting your ticket. Some insurance co.'s will now raise your rates after 2 minor tickets even. It's the insurance penalty that is the real hurt you're trying to avoid.

The prosecutor will 99% of the time offer you a reduced charge, in a tradeoff for certainty of outcome (your conviction). JP's can't even do that when people go the Option 2 route.

If they can't get your trial set within a reasonable amount of time, then s. 11(b) enters the picture, and you can get a ticket thrown out that way. This is a fully legitimate assertion of your rights, and it would be silly not to assert them when the State has failed to live up to its obligations.

I suspect if the Ontario government only allowed insurance companies to see any major tickets on an abstract, or only the 4th or more minor ticket in the past three years, that many more people would plea guilty to a reduced charge (the 15 kph over with no demerit points) than take it fully to trial. Perhaps that would be something for them to look into, if they want to lessen the backlog in the POA courts across the land.

[65505201]

Sure, challenge the law all you want, but you don't do that by hoping your ticket gets thrown out on a technicality. That's not challenging a law, you're not going to change anything by doing this, other than by getting your ticket dismissed, so don't act like it's the noble thing to do.

If the law is bull, write your MP and your MPP, run for office yourself, take the provincial government to court, try and get the supreme court to hear your case regarding the legalities of our current traffic laws, etc. There are many ways to challenge a law, but fighting your ticket simply to get it thrown out on a technicality isn't one of those ways. You're simply challenging the ticket, not the law itself.

You don't think that if everyone challenged speed trap tickets, the law isn't challenged?

[tracks]

i've actually heard from officers that your insurance rates can be affected by both your demerit points and number of convictions. There are so many views on this issue that it seems like its been made foggy on purpose...knowledge is power after all.

[baldy73]

Ok, bolton_gal, I found the case I remembered from before, and even better for you, it hails from the court in Newmarket.

R. v. Aristidou, 2007 ONCJ 250
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2007/2007oncj250/2007oncj250.html

In that case, the officer had even amended it higher before even filing the Certificate of Offence (the pink and white carbon copies of the ticket are the Cert. of Offence, while the yellow copy that you get is called the Offence Notice), and the JP made a point to convict at the original fine level. You can bet your bottom dollar that all the JP's in Newmarket (and there are around 27 of them) will know about this appeal case and what was decided by Justice Lampkin.

So while I cannot be 100% sure, I would say it would be mighty hard for any prosecutor to suggest amending a charge higher than the one the officer felt fully justified in filing the ticket as.

The JP's in Newmarket (warning! old report from 2005):

http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/en/annualreport/2005.pdf (page 80)

[baldy73]

So while I cannot be 100% sure, I would say it would be mighty hard for any prosecutor to suggest amending a charge higher than the one the officer felt fully justified in filing the ticket as.

One last thing ... file your ticket to dispute on the 8th day after you got your ticket (and of course make sure to say you will challenge the evidence of the officer, checking both that box and the superfluous Yes box beneath it), and also ask to see a copy of the filed Certificate of Offence.

By regulation (http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/5db64593-59db-4fa0-8752-48d8a3db4d7c/1/frame/?search=browseStatutes&context=) (Reg. 200 of the Courts of Justice Act, section 11) the clerk of the court will refuse any attempt to file a Certificate of Offence if it is more than 7 days after the day the Offence Notice was served. So it will have to have been filed by the 8th day after, and you should be able to see it, and ask for a copy from the clerk. Thereafter, it can only be amended by the Court, in court.

[OldFortYork]

Fight the ticket.

Chances are the cop won't show anyways. What have you got to lose?

[braxton]

I don't know about Toronto, but in KW, areas that have a 50 km/h limit are either residential, or have a lot of foot traffic (ie downtown areas). If anyone thinks they can safely drive through a residential area at 72, they should not be driving. Of course, I don't know what street the ticket was issued on, so this argument may not apply.

In the city where I'm from, there are a number of stretches of roads with 50km/hr limits that are in in industrial areas or on open roads or down big hills and that is where the cops set their traps. I never see them set up traps in residential areas because, as you stated, it's not safe and most people are not stupid enough to speed where there can be children or pedestrians.
They wouldn't generate enough revenue if they set up in a residential area, but in my opinion, that is where they should be catching the odd idiot that is driving too fast for conditions or circumstances.

[bolton_gal]

Thanks everyone for the responses.

My thought always was to fight it, however several traffic ticket agents have warned me that if I lose the JP can raise the charge back up to the original speed. Others agents claim that it never happens.

I think I will request a trial date and look over the disclosure. If I think there might be an arguement, I will seek help from a ticket agent to go to trial. Or, I may just show up on my own. If cop doesn't show, great. If she does show up, I'll plead guilty so I can save the embaressment of going to trial on my own.

I'm not full of BS when I say that for the most part I always abide by the speed limits or stay within 10km of them. This really was a rare occurance for me. It is just so frustrating that something this minor could cost me hundreds of dollars over the next three years!

[braxton]

It is just so frustrating that something this minor could cost me hundreds of dollars over the next three years!

I think you summarized the way the vast majority of people feel when they get speeding tickets. Some deserve them, but most do not.
Fighting speeding tickets in court is the only way to go.

For prep work, see:

http://www.motorists.org

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/

[iluvmikeharris]

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.

http://www.jazz-styles.com/htm/scores/CRY-ME-A-RIVER.gif

[Whitedart]

I'm not full of BS when I say that for the most part I always abide by the speed limits or stay within 10km of them. This really was a rare occurance for me. It is just so frustrating that something this minor could cost me hundreds of dollars over the next three years!

Then you probably do not have much to worry about. Most insurance policies will forgive a first conviction. Get a second one, and rates will rise.

[Ebola]

So we are in agreement then,

No one denies they are breaking the law, everyone claims this is because they are opposed to the current speed limits.

So instead of petitioning and lobbying, you are fighting the enforcement of the law you admittedly are breaking to prove a point.

[iluvmikeharris]

So we are in agreement then,

No one denies they are breaking the law, everyone claims this is because they are opposed to the current speed limits.

So instead of petitioning and lobbying, you are fighting the enforcement of the law you admittedly are breaking to prove a point.

I could care less about proving a point than saving a buck.

It's all about 'da money.

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb164/el_kungfu_monkey/Vince-McMahon.jpg