“Red Light - Fail To Stop”

It doesn't work like that.

You aren't "keeping a clean record" by cancelling your insurance for a couple years. All you're doing is avoiding any surcharge they charge you for the next little while.

Also, you can't do insurance math to predict the future. Is your insurance provider planning on keeping the same rates years from now? You plan on driving the same car? You plan on living in the same place? You plan on piggybacking off your dads policy several years from now? Are all the drivers on your policy going to remain there? Are they going to keep a clean record? Half the factors are out of your hands.

bend wrote:It doesn't work like that.

You aren't "keeping a clean record" by cancelling your insurance for a couple years. All you're doing is avoiding any surcharge they charge you for the next little while.

Also, you can't do insurance math to predict the future. Is your insurance provider planning on keeping the same rates years from now? You plan on driving the same car? You plan on living in the same place? You plan on piggybacking off your dads policy several years from now? Are all the drivers on your policy going to remain there? Are they going to keep a clean record? Half the factors are out of your hands.

But, won't my insurance record stay clean to come. How will they find out about my offence if they never see the ticket. After 3-years it will be removed from my record?

Also i called OTT Legal and they told me that there is a 60% chance that they can get it dismissed and 40% chance they can get it reduced. Those numbers sound pretty good but kinda hard to believe?

Please keep topics to one thread.

As for the OTT chances, they have a database on which officer shows up to court or not. My guess is they have 10 cases with that officer, he missed court 6 times, and showed up 4 times, or something along those lines. They actually won't go for a full trial (not to my knowledge) because they get paid no matter what.

As for your insurance issue, remember insurance company's pay for driver abstract checks, so they are random. I've paid for a copy of my abstract and when the guy and Service Ontario printed it, it was 6 8.5x11 pages long. He asked me how do I still have a license and laughed. Anyways, back to my point. My insurance company had not done a check on me yet *knocks wood* and they still have me as a conviction less, suspension less driver. So you may get lucky and not get checked for those 3 years, and your premium will not go up.

Unlucky duck. You have to reveal tickets, suspensions to your insurance company. If not they can refuse to pay.

UnluckyDuck wrote:Please keep topics to one thread.

As for the OTT chances, they have a database on which officer shows up to court or not. My guess is they have 10 cases with that officer, he missed court 6 times, and showed up 4 times, or something along those lines. They actually won't go for a full trial (not to my knowledge) because they get paid no matter what.

As for your insurance issue, remember insurance company's pay for driver abstract checks, so they are random. I've paid for a copy of my abstract and when the guy and Service Ontario printed it, it was 6 8.5x11 pages long. He asked me how do I still have a license and laughed. Anyways, back to my point. My insurance company had not done a check on me yet *knocks wood* and they still have me as a conviction less, suspension less driver. So you may get lucky and not get checked for those 3 years, and your premium will not go up.

I made different threads because the topic is different. One is asking for a good paralegal that people recommend. The other is advice on the ticket.

argyll wrote:Unlucky duck. You have to reveal tickets, suspensions to your insurance company. If not they can refuse to pay.

Agreed. It's in every insurance policy. You have to reveal any changes.

No one does it, but they could very well deny you coverage when you need it the most. When they deny you coverage, your only option is to take them to court. I don't know how successful you'll be. Knowingly concealing tickets while paying reduced rates would be an uphill battle. That's something you don't want while the other driver is suing you over an accident.

I was under the assumption as if they don't ask, I don't reveal. I'm not lying to them, just not telling them about it. If they ask, I'll be truthful. I've been on the same policy with the same provider for 7 years and not once have they asked me about tickets.

Your assumption will not act as a defence in a civil suit

UnluckyDuck wrote:I was under the assumption as if they don't ask, I don't reveal. I'm not lying to them, just not telling them about it. If they ask, I'll be truthful. I've been on the same policy with the same provider for 7 years and not once have they asked me about tickets.

They won't ask you, the fact that you have a policy with them they are able to check your driver's transcript with MTO without your knowledge or consent, the consent was given once you signed up with them.

They generally check your record when your policy is up for renewal.

Observer135 wrote:

UnluckyDuck wrote:I was under the assumption as if they don't ask, I don't reveal. I'm not lying to them, just not telling them about it. If they ask, I'll be truthful. I've been on the same policy with the same provider for 7 years and not once have they asked me about tickets.

They won't ask you, the fact that you have a policy with them they are able to check your driver's transcript with MTO without your knowledge or consent, the consent was given once you signed up with them.

They generally check your record when your policy is up for renewal.

Yes, but I'm trying to say after 3-years it will be off my record. Even if they check with the MTO it's not going to show up.

t3ch9 wrote:Yes, but I'm trying to say after 3-years it will be off my record. Even if they check with the MTO it's not going to show up.

The ticket is on your driver record for life. There are different types of record requests you can make through ServiceOntario. Insurance provider will use a 3 year record, but they may ask you personally (verbally) for a 6 year history or anything past 3 years when you start.

oh oops, i was supposed to post this on this thread, not my other one but...

One defense a paralegal told me about was...

The cop was not looking at the same light as me, he was in front of me on the opposite side so therefore he wasn't looking at the same light as me, therefore my light could've been yellow and his could've been red.

Unless he tested the lights (which I'm sure he didn't)?

What do you guys think about this? Should i go with this guy? He was from Mavericks legal service.

No one here knows anything about your case other than the story you've provided.

Do you have any notes or anything from your disclosure request?

t3ch9 wrote:oh oops, i was supposed to post this on this thread, not my other one but...

One defense a paralegal told me about was...

The cop was not looking at the same light as me, he was in front of me on the opposite side so therefore he wasn't looking at the same light as me, therefore my light could've been yellow and his could've been red.

Unless he tested the lights (which I'm sure he didn't)?

What do you guys think about this? Should i go with this guy? He was from Mavericks legal service.

To be acquitted you need to create reasonable doubt, not just doubt. Traffic lights are well designed to all operate on a matched cycle.

bend wrote:No one here knows anything about your case other than the story you've provided.

Do you have any notes or anything from your disclosure request?

No, I don't. I got the ticket less than a week ago, still gotta file it.

I will post the notes here once I get disclosure.

I'm pretty sure he also has a dash cam video also.

argyll wrote:

t3ch9 wrote:oh oops, i was supposed to post this on this thread, not my other one but...

One defense a paralegal told me about was...

The cop was not looking at the same light as me, he was in front of me on the opposite side so therefore he wasn't looking at the same light as me, therefore my light could've been yellow and his could've been red.

Unless he tested the lights (which I'm sure he didn't)?

What do you guys think about this? Should i go with this guy? He was from Mavericks legal service.

To be acquitted you need to create reasonable doubt, not just doubt. Traffic lights are well designed to all operate on a matched cycle.

Yes but traffic lights are technology and can have malfunctions. Which is what I think the paralegal was trying to tell me he wanted to argue.