“134 In A 100 - Possible Fatal Error”

Wow, that's a lot of replies. I know full well what I did when I refused the offer - I have no existing demerit points on my license and I really don't care about them as they only last for 2 years. The court likes to dangle "less points" in front of you to coax you into paying and hide the fact that the only way to avoid an insurance increase is to not be found guilty. To an insurance company a 34 over is the same as a 1 over. The really important thing is money: the court wants your money and you want to keep your money. It is more cost effective to the court to offer you a reduction than it is to waste the time holding a trial for you.

At first I was fighting this to get the charged removed, but I have slowly realized that this is a very unlikely possibility. Maybe an 11B will work (especially if it gets adjourned again - already at 9 months), maybe not. My goal is to make this ticket non-profitable for the province by wasting as much of the court's time and money as possible. I believe that if everyone did this, they would have to drop the whole scheme. Also, by forcing TWO police officers into court, I have hopefully saved a few other motorists from the speeding tax.

Radar Identified wrote:

As far as intent or "knowing," I've been in a car when I turned to the driver and asked him: "You know you're going 140?" (He was trying to go 110... and that was in Nova Scotia where the speed limit IS 110.) Empty road, nothing around, sitting in the right lane, and he didn't watch his speedometer swing up. Some people are totally incapable of perceiving how fast things are going by them, or judging speed, unless they have that little gauge and are paying attention to it.

This is very true - I used to be a much safer driver when I just drove at comfortable speeds and focused on the road (although I was not trying to drive at the speed limit). Now I drive at the speed limit exactly. I am somewhat of a hazard to other drivers because I constantly have to check the speedometer when I should be focusing on the road. Personally I think this really isn't any different from using a cellphone or doing some other ridiculous activity while driving, but according to the government and the police it is the safe thing to do. However, it is fun seeing everyone getting pissed off and then passing me (including cops!). It's paying off - I smiled at an OPP hiding under a bridge on the 401 on Sunday as I passed him at exactly 100.

EphOph wrote: the only way to avoid an insurance increase is to not be found guilty. To an insurance company a 34 over is the same as a 1 over.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point. Most insurance companies have a cutoff speed, where a speeding ticket is no longer a minor conviction but a major one. For many it will be 50+, but some companies have a lower threshold.

Stanton wrote:

EphOph wrote: the only way to avoid an insurance increase is to not be found guilty. To an insurance company a 34 over is the same as a 1 over.

I'm going to disagree with you on that point. Most insurance companies have a cutoff speed, where a speeding ticket is no longer a minor conviction but a major one. For many it will be 50+, but some companies have a lower threshold.

Interesting, I didn't know that. I'll have to keep that in mind the next time I am shopping for insurance (if i get convicted). I looked at an online quote a few months ago (forget which company) where the threshold was 1-44 and then 45+. Seemed a little strange.

Depends on the insurance company... mine forgives a single "minor" ticket, like 0-15 over. Then 16-44 over is an increase, 45+ over is serious.

Then again, some insurance companies consider 30+ over to be "major." When I spent two years living in Michigan, one insurance company had its hands completely stuffed up its @$$ about speeding. This one company (which shall remain nameless) gives substantially higher rates to someone with one ticket for 10 mph over than someone who has a drunk driving conviction and hit a pedestrian. (I was told this by one of my co-workers... didn't believe it until I played with their on-line quotes and confirmed it.) The reason being, they all use different assessment tools that they've developed. Some conduct their own studies, analyze data differently, and arrive at different conclusions as to how to set their rates.

Today was my second day in court and it was the best result anyone could ask for. This is how it went down:

- I signed in. The prosecutor's name was crossed out and a new one written above (different prosecutor for my case - not sure if this had any bearing on the final decision). I told the clerk that I had already spoken to the prosecutor because I was there today due to an adjournment. He recommended I speak to the prosecutor again so I checked the box and waited.

- Prosecutor called me in, briefly went over some details of the case (speed, etc). I was then offered the same deal as last time (29 over), which I again declined.

- Court started: ~40 mins of guilty pleas to lesser charges by paralegals and defendants. This was like sheep to the slaughter.

- Court recesses, clerk says for about 15-20 minutes.

- 30 minutes into recess, prosecutor calls me into her office. She says that due to a court error only one of the officers have shown up and gives me the following choice: adjourn to another date or plea guilty to 15 over. I simply said that I would prefer if the Justice decided what to do and that I didn't want to plea guilty to anything. She immediately says "alright then we'll just have to withdraw; you are here and the officer isn't" and wrote a big W/D on the case notes. I thanked her profusely (despite trying to deceive me) and went back to the waiting room.

- The remaining 30 minutes of recess seemed like one of the longest waits of all time. I sat worrying that the other officer would show up and I would have to do some serious battle.

- Finally court started again and I was called up. The prosecutor said "there is no possible prospect of conviction" and then I heard from the justice my new favourite phrase: "you are free to go."

I would like to thank everyone who provided me with information. I am very happy with what happened, albeit slightly disappointed that I didn't get to use my sneaky tactics (still haven't received disclosure).

The important things are: I wasted the court's time and resources thus making speeding tickets less profitable in general, I saved myself from a $259 tax and hundreds more in insurance, and I have removed a tax collector from the streets for a couple hours (hopefully saving a few people from getting tickets).

I do have one more question: is it possible for me to apply for costs, or am I just expected to cut my losses? I had to take two days off work for this and I burned a lot of fuel travelling to and from the courthouse. Also the registered letters were quite expensive. I just think it's fair, because if you are convicted you have to pay court costs.

EphOph wrote:I do have one more question: is it possible for me to apply for costs, or am I just expected to cut my losses? I had to take two days off work for this and I burned a lot of fuel travelling to and from the courthouse. Also the registered letters were quite expensive. I just think it's fair, because if you are convicted you have to pay court costs.

No. To recoup your costs, you would have to file a lawsuit against the police and/or Crown. However to win in Court you would have to demonstrate some sort of malicious intent on the part of the police and/or Crown (i.e. fabricated charges). In your example you got off on a technicality, and were spared the expense of the actual fine and impact on your insurance rates. There is nothing to indicate your charges were improper or unsuitable to proceed with.

Wow, i cant believe you didnt take that deal, if you hire someone to fight it ( which is the only way you'll win) its gonna cost a lot just to not end up with points, so youll pay an extra 300-500 for no point or pay 150 for a ticket and continue with life......good luck fighting it.....i think you'll need it...