“Fighting A 97 In A 60 With "legal Justification"”

Hey guys,

I was clocked by a motorcycle cop on Friday for doing 97 in a 60. When he pulled me over i could immediately tell he had gone into "im not going to listen to your bulls##t excuses" mode so i handed him the usuals, he gave me a $277 ticket and advised it will be 4 points and i was on my way.

I would like to fight this ticket and get the charges completely dropped because what the cop hadn't seen was that i had just accelerated to avoid an accident with another car. I have written an account of what happened which i plan to present to the court along with snapshots from google images to back up the account.

What i'm not sure about is how to proceed. If i choose option 2 i'm still pleading guilty to the charge so the best i'll get is a reduced fine but if i choose option 3 and go to court i'm still going to be admitting to the speed violation but then showing reasons for justification.

One of the options on the ticket says:

I'm concerned that if i choose this option the court will assume that i plan to contest the documentation of the officer and look for a loophole in the procedures and the moment i explain that yes i did speed but with good reason the court will tell me that speeding is speeding and you're SOL

I even contacted the officer personally a few days later and he called me back but he made it very clear that the ticket had been submitted and he couldn't change anything so i didn't even try and explain the circumstances to him.

Here is my account of what happened, any advice would be really appreciated as i have never fought a speeding ticket before. I don't even know how to submit my option 3, i assume i have to take it down to the address listed and hand it over in person.

At the time of the speeding violation i was travelling North up wonderland road to get back to work on my lunch hour.

The burst of speed resulting in me breaking the speed limit was to avoid a potential accident and therefore justified and was not intended as an attempt to travel above the speed limit without cause. Furthermore there were no accidents caused by my actions solidifying the fact that my judgement at the time was justified

Tohrmentrix wrote:I would like to fight this ticket and get the charges completely dropped because what the cop hadn't seen was that i had just accelerated to avoid an accident with another car. I have written an account of what happened which i plan to present to the court along with snapshots from google images to back up the account.

Guidelines for Submitting Photographs: http://www.ontariohighwaytrafficact.com/topic1765.html

Tohrmentrix wrote:What i'm not sure about is how to proceed. If i choose option 2 i'm still pleading guilty to the charge so the best i'll get is a reduced fine but if i choose option 3 and go to court i'm still going to be admitting to the speed violation but then showing reasons for justification.

One of the options on the ticket says:

I intend to challenge the evidence of the Provincial Offences Officer. I request that the officer attend the trial

I'm concerned that if i choose this option the court will assume that i plan to contest the documentation of the officer and look for a loophole in the procedures and the moment i explain that yes i did speed but with good reason the court will tell me that speeding is speeding and you're SOL

From their perspective, they have evidence to support a conviction... why would they withdraw? If the defendant believes they have a 'Necessity Defence', then its up to them to show that.

Based on your story, you will require a full-blown trial. Even if you think you have a necessity defence, it's still in your best interest to review the officer's notes on how he obtained your speed; did he properly test the device before and after his shift; was he qualified at the time?

Speeding is an absolute liability offence, the only way to be found not-guilty is to use a 'necessity defence' OR find issues with the officer's speed reading.

Tohrmentrix wrote:I even contacted the officer personally a few days later and he called me back but he made it very clear that the ticket had been submitted and he couldn't change anything so i didn't even try and explain the circumstances to him.

Tohrmentrix wrote:Here is my account of what happened, any advice would be really appreciated as i have never fought a speeding ticket before. I don't even know how to submit my option 3, i assume i have to take it down to the address listed and hand it over in person.

Tohrmentrix wrote:At the time of the speeding violation i was travelling North up wonderland road to get back to work on my lunch hour.

I was approaching the traffic lights at wonderland and whiteacres drive, travelling at the posted speed limit when a car pulled out from whiteacres drive onto wonderland road into the right hand lane. The light was green so i had right of way but the car failed to accelerate quickly enough to merge into traffic and it would have been illegal for me to change lanes over an intersection so instead of slamming on my breaks and causing a potential accident to cars behind me

Lets say for example right turn driver from Whiteacres Dr. rather than turning into the right lane on Wonderland Rd... he went wide and turned into the left lane on Wonderland Rd... that would be illegal.

If you're driving north on Wonderland Rd and want to change from the right lane to the left lane in the middle of the intersection, that is perfectly legal as long you can do safely.

Tohrmentrix wrote:i checked the road ahead, saw that it was clear of cars and accelerated once over the intersection and crossed into the left hand lane allowing me to pass the car.

There were cars in both lanes behind me and to have merged into the left lane so suddenly could have caused a potential accident to the cars in the left lane behind me so i decided at the time that the burst of speed would be the safest choice and did allow me to generate enough distance between myself and the car behind me in the left lane whilst avoiding the slower vehicle in the right lane

the road then turned into a decline elevating my higher speed at which point the officer registered my speed with the radar gun.

The officer stepped out into wonderland road from attawanderon gate to indicate for me to pull in and i looked at my speed once i realized he was an officer and i was already back down to 67km and still slowing.

The burst of speed resulting in me breaking the speed limit was to avoid a potential accident and therefore justified and was not intended as an attempt to travel above the speed limit without cause. Furthermore there were no accidents caused by my actions solidifying the fact that my judgement at the time was justified

What type of vehicles were behind you? How long were the vehicles following you? How close were they? Were they tailgating you? How did you come to the conclusion they would have been unable to stop if you had braked?

Three elements are required for a successful defence :

1. the accused must be in imminent peril or danger

2. the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook

3. the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused

The peril or danger must be more than just foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable.

At a minimum the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable.

Thanks very much for the reply, its good to have someone elses perspective on this. I have amended my statement a little, not adding any creative writing but including facts that i didn't think to be relevant about the cars behind and removing the part about not crossing on an intersection as i'm now clear on the rules for merging on an intersection (thanks for that!)

I'll definitely take pictures of the scene as google images wont be accepted although im not sure why the court wouldn't as i would only be using them to highlight the layout of the road rather than specific cars or objects in the picture

I only contacted the officer just to see what his advice would be regarding the ticket but as soon as he said he couldn't do anything i knew that the conversation was pointless

I'll be going with option 3 and hope that the officer doesnt show up although based on what i have read they usually do nowdays but if he does show then i am prepared with a statement as to what happened. I'm sure the prosecution will offer to settle with a lower fine before it goes to court but i honestly feel my actions were justified in this case and to accept a lower fine is to accept guilty regardless of the punishment

At the time of the speeding violation i was travelling North up wonderland road to get back to work on my lunch hour.

The burst of speed resulting in me breaking the speed limit was to avoid a potential accident and therefore justified and was not intended as an attempt to travel above the speed limit without cause. Furthermore there were no accidents caused by my actions solidifying the fact that my judgement at the time was justified

Be prepared for some heavy cross examination on your statement. I personally dont think what you have is sufficient, but it will be very dependent on your articulation.

the road then turned into a decline elevating my higher speed

I don't understand what you mean by this.

means the road turned into a downhill slope which added to the increase in speed

my account of what happened does sound long winded and technical but we have all been in the situation where a car pulls out from a side road so we change lanes to pass them instead of slowing down and waiting for them to catch up.

Only difference more me is that the lanes weren't clear behind me so i gunned it to get through the gap and pass instead of slamming my brakes but if i recall the event just like that then i doubt it will be enough to justify it so i have to explain in detail why i felt my choice to be the best one

Today is the 12th day after receiving my speeding ticket so i just went to the court address and handed in my not guilty plea and the guy told me i will be now contacted with a trial date and its going to take at least 4 months for a date to be set. Once its set i then have 21 days to request disclosure.

Anyone know if this is right? doesnt the right to a speedy trial mean my court date needs to be without 45 days of my not guilty plea?

You should expect 8-10 months from offence date to go to trial trial (on simple matters). I have no idea where you got the notion that your trial must be within 45 days after a not guilty plea---that's not how it works. Just the intake period can be up to 2 months sometimes!

i was researching a defense and came across this site:

Once you have a trial date, you need to be aware that the Constitution guarantees "a fair and speedy trial." Speedy trial is accepted to be 45 days from the date of arraignment (date which you enter your plea). It is important to monitor this time line very carefully. If the prosecution or the court contact you about changing your trial date you will have to waive your right to a speedy trial. The only advantage to waiving this right is that the longer the trial date is from the actual citation date, the better the odds are that the officer wont be able to remember the details.

It's a US site so i was wondering if there is a similar rule for Canada but i guess over here they just say they will get to it when they get to it