“Forced To Speed Up 111 On 90.”

Hi, everyone

I was on the highway early morning. I saw the car going behind me in a good distance. Than he came close to me. I dont like if somebody tailgating after me. It was very close to me, too close. Car was black with dark windows. I become a bit scared of this guy. There were some cars on lane beside me, so I couldnt change the lane right away. To let him go I increased speed to pass the cars beside me. When I made clearance he quickly changed the lane and was going just beside me. These make me sure he is some crazy hyper driver with whom nobody wants to deal. I was sure he is now swearing at me, showing "f" finger etc., so I even dont look at him, trying to avoid arguments. Than he put lights, stopped me and I got ticket 111km/h on 90. I really was scared of his behavior on the road, and forced to speed up.

I am really careful driver, and I can easy prove this.

For two years on both my cars I have installed recording devices. According to the data from them I can have some discount from my insurance. Between other parameters it is recording how many km you going above 120km/h. In that time we (with my wife, but about 90% mileage is mine) made more then 3 thousand trips, and 50 thousand km. Speed above 120km/h =0 (ZERO)! For person who drives 80km everyday to work (70 on highways) is not bad, right?

I also requested disclosure, but still didnt get it.

What should I do if I will not get disclosure, or if they give it to me in the court just before my case?

Should I ask for another trial, to have time to read it, or I shouldnt worry about the disclosure, assuming I have well enough foundation to win the case.

Any advice will be much appreciated.

Because you did not speed in the past has no bearing on your speeding now. You admit here you were speeding. No where in the HTA does it say you can speed. IF you think someone is to close slow down and pull right and let the car go by.

Get disclosure and go from there.

ops

Should have break checked him. That would have been awesome if a cop rear ended you. He would have fun explaining that to his superiors.

I usualy like to tap the breaks a few times as a warning (just drop a few kph) when I get tailgaters behind me, if they keep it up I just slow down to the speed limit (Im usualy am 15 above on hwy) I dont do a full on hard break check, but theres no law against doing it. But someone may get injured.

I do not beleve the "I was forced to speed" arguement, unless someone has you hostage and a gun to your head. The judge wont either. Just handle this like any other typical speeding ticket. pick option for trial and ask for disclosure, and hope for the best.

If you do not get disclosure, request again. Have proof of several attempts by the time you go to court. Do not accept disclosure at the court on your court day. If they try this you need to ask the judge for an ajournment due to the late disclosure. so you need time to prepare your case. If none at all present proof that you requested it and ask for the charges to be dismissed.

beleafer81 wrote: I dont do a full on hard break check, but theres no law against doing it. But someone may get injured..

HTA - there is a charge if no brake lights

CC - dangerous driving (situational pending)

beleafer81 wrote:Should have break checked him.

That's also stunt driving per O. Reg 455/07:

Definition, "stunt"

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the drivers sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

beleafer81 wrote:I do not beleve the "I was forced to speed" arguement, unless someone has you hostage and a gun to your head.

Either that or someone is suffering a life-threatening emergency, e.g. one of your passengers is having a heart attack.

Atos wrote:What should I do if I will not get disclosure, or if they give it to me in the court just before my case?

If you've made a couple of attempts to get disclosure, as beleafer81 indicates, if they still haven't given it to you, at least 20 days in advance of the trial, file for a stay.

Forced to speed?

That's hilarious...I wouldn't try that in court, unless you have Sandra Bullock with you and photos of the bus and the bomb strapped underneath it!

Sorry man, but forced to speed made me burst out loud...

Radar Identified wrote:

beleafer81 wrote:Should have break checked him.

That's also stunt driving per O. Reg 455/07:

True but its not what you know its what you can prove. It would be hard to prove intent. lets think about this....It would be the word of one against the other. We know all drivers must be in control of thir car at all times including leaving enough distance in front of you so if some guy slams on the brakes for ANY reason you will not rear end them. What will any witnesses have seen? one guy tailgating and then he hit the car he was following. Witnesses can not say they know the drivers intentions. As long as the guy that was hit doesn't say he slammed on his breaks just to piss the other guy off how could you prove anything?

And anyways lets all remember I said Its not like i ever do a full hard break check, Someone could get hurt. Not having others injured is the only reason I dont sometimes. because if some guy is seriously tailgaing your vehicle and you do a full on hard stop there will be a colision, and someone will likely be hurt.

beleafer81 wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

beleafer81 wrote:Should have break checked him.

That's also stunt driving per O. Reg 455/07:

True but its not what you know its what you can prove. It would be hard to prove intent.

Very true, it's probably harder to prove in court. That said, I still find it scary that my car can get impounded and I'd have to pay towing + impound fees even if intent can't be proven.

Someone Brake checks it is fairly obvious. Usually there is road rage or they do it in an area that has no turn offs... I have charged two times under the criminal code and both were convicted. This is something that I do not *EDIT* around with.

You will not get an HTA charge and I will go straight to criminal charges. Even if there is no accident.

OPS

beleafer81 wrote:True but its not what you know its what you can prove. It would be hard to prove intent.

Remember about two years ago near Milton? Two guys got into a road-rage incident on the James Snow Parkway, merged onto the eastbound 401, took off at high speed and then one of them cut the other off and gave him a brake job. The guy slammed on the brakes and swerved at the same time, causing him to lose control. He flipped over, was not wearing his seat belt, was ejected and died. The guy who gave the brake job pled guilty. Granted, that was a criminal code case, but don't you think that if intent was so hard to prove that they'd have fought it?

beleafer81 wrote:Witnesses can not say they know the drivers intentions.

They can't, but actions are often sufficient to demonstrate intent. As OPS Copper says, if someone brake-checks, it's pretty obvious.

beleafer81 wrote:Not having others injured is the only reason I dont sometimes.

You're right, you should never brake-check another driver. If someone's tailgating me, obviously there's some compelling reason (usually it's because they're a raging a******) as to why they want to endanger my life (and theirs) to have that spot, so they can have it. If I'm in the left or centre lane, I'll move over. If it's in the right lane, I just stay put. Sooner or later, he will blow by me, usually giving me the finger in the process. If not, I'll turn off.

OPS Copper wrote:Someone Brake checks it is fairly obvious.

Ok sometimes it is. Witnesses may have seen hand gestures, honking horn other dangerous maniuvers ect. But in a situation where no back and forth gestures can be proven I think not.

Here is a situation that happened to someone I know a few years back. He was in a hurry, and was behind a slow car on a 2 lane back road. Due to hills and corners he could not pass and he was tailgating. With no notice the slow driver slammed his brakes and a colision occured. my freind was only slightly injured. When police got there my freind said it like it was. He was charged for the accident (follow to close I think) the other guy didn't even give the cop a reason for his stop, he didn't have to. When a police officer comes on scene to an accident where it is obvious that the colision was due to follow too closely and the driver complains " he just stopped for no reason" would it really matter? in this case it was obvious and the correct charges were laid. That is the way it usualy goes.

OPS you know what people tell you at an accident scene isn't always 100% truth. If the guy who slammed his breaks says I thought I saw a deer comming out from the ditch into the road, would you still side with the close follower? Or are you gonna cite the guy for careless/follow to close?

I would like to appologise to the OP as we have strayed way off the topic here.

Again, slightly off topic but I had to put my two cents in. Every day I'm on the 404 south to the DVP south. Get into the carpool lane with my two kids in the vehicle and there's always some idiot that has to ride my bumper. Perfect example is the other week I had a GO bus so far up my butt that I couldn't see his headlights. I drive a large conversion van and was doing 105 in that lane on the 404 south. Pull over? Where? Too dangerous to try and merge back on from the left side . Switch lanes? Nope. Ususally packed to my right and can't switch lanes because of double solids and signs saying do not cross . Speed up? Maybe, but with 30 k/mh side winds my van becomes a kite at high speeds, and go explain that to the officer that pulls you over. What's the answer?

Oh, and today driving northbound 404 had a guy in a pickup riding my bumper. I was in the right lane doing the limit and all lanes to my left were clear for him to pass.

Just for information and statistics.

Last Wednesday I was in the court.

No disclosure, no cop.

Cause dismissed and free to go!

Thanks for advices.

awesome!