Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ??? I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause. For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it. After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt. Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside. The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity. Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Stunt driving charge at officers discretion ???
I was under the impression that "special powers, of vehicle and license suspension, towing etc." were granted by a MUST DO type clause.
For instance, .05 blood alcohol reading, requires / Mandated, vehicle/license 3 day suspension ... and police are given power to do this, by stating they MUST do it.
After speaking some people, I have discovered quite a few instances of people being 50 over the speed limit and NOT being charged with stunt and in some cases not even given a speeding ticket (once). ** this seems to occur is areas where there is a change is posted speed limit, most often ** Eg) east end of 407, continues into a 60 kph zone, person traveling at 130 kph was NOT charged with stunt.
Reason for asking : I thought the license/vehicle suspension, etc. at roadside for stunt - 50 over, was NOT at officers discretion. I thought it had to be that way, in order for police to have those special powers ... since essentially conviction is occurring at roadside.
The stunt law is confusing at quite a few levels, in terms of absolute clarity.
Question is: does the stunt - speeding charge have any room for officer discretion? If there is room for officer discretion, then isn't the officer themselves acting as judge, jury, executioner?
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
Most parts of the section state that the officer "shall", which would arguably mean there is no discretion (typically other sections of the act state that an officer "may"). But I doubt anyone would ever complain that their vehicle wasn't impounded, etc. And what would be the remedy for an officer not laying a more serious charge? And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I can see pros and cons each way.
If you read section 172(5): (5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall, (a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and (b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b). Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days. There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
If you read section 172(5):
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her drivers licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b).
Where it says "shall" refers to to fact that if the officers lays a charge under this section, it is mandatory to suspend the licence and seize the motor vehicle for seven days.
There is nothing that says the officer shall lay the charge. An officer always has discretion on whether or not to lay any charge under the HTA.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over. Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion. I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition. I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language. >> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion? I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
Because stunt is defined/redefined as 50 over, among others conditions, reasonable/probable grounds just needs 50 over.
Once that occurs, it seems, officers MUST suspend license/vehicle ... without discretion.
I was wondering if the law is worded that way specifically to allow officers to take license/vehicle suspension actions. As in, without that, they do not have authority to take those actions. And if that is the case, then is it also true that choosing NOT to do it, is exercising discretion, which may not be permitted, by definition.
I don't have the necessary background to decipher wordings of laws ... legalese is a somewhat different language.
>> And is it actually a better thing if officers never exercise discretion?
I think, officers discretion is a critical component, in general, though not everyone would agree. In the occurrences I mentioned above, despite those people being 50 over the speed, it was certainly a momentary, unintentional occurrence.
R. v. Paraschiew [2012] O.J. No. 4085 In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence. Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding. However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away. The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it. For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.) Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
In a weird twist of fate, this appeal court decision shows that being charged with Stunt Driving would have been more advantageous to the defence than being charged with S128 Speeding. Solely because with Stunt Driving you're afforded a due diligence whereas S128 Speeding requires a necessity defence.
Although, in 99% of situations most defendants have no defence for speeding; people are generally more concerned about the immediate admin penalties (7-day impound/suspension) and of course facing the minimum $2000 fine on conviction; I understand that "most" people would rather be charged with S128 Speeding.
However, if they can meet a due diligence defence; although they're out for the impound/license fees... they could be found "not guilty" at trial under S172.
Due Diligence is a lower bar to meet, as you say and probably could be reasonably applied in my case. However, it's a bit of a risk to take it to trial, if offered a speeding charge instead. And chances are, even a win in a trial, would more likely just be a reduction to a speeding charge. I'm not sure if being found not guilty of stunt, also means a speeding charge goes away.
The way the law is currently set up, there is no real win scenario from financial perspective. Principle is all that's left, and it comes at very high cost, if you get it.
For marginal cases, like mine, from my view; effectively it just increases a speeding fine by a few thousand dollars (impound/suspensions/alternative transportation/ time off work etc.)
Yes, I would have preferred the speeding ticket and be done with it.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now :-) . Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers :-) Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
UnluckyDuck wrote:
What I find helps a lot, be honest, apologize, and acknowledge that you've done something wrong. I'm probably the last one to talk, but last year, I was pulled over for stunt driving 4 times. I think the most I was caught over was 96 km/h over (146 in a posted 50). I think the worst punishment I got was two lightbulb infractions. The other punishment I got was a 15 over ticket (65 in a 50). Other than that, let off with warnings. It's all about attitude, if you're window is opened a crack and you're preaching "I don't have to talk to you. I have the right to remain silent. Here is my license, but I'm not giving it voluntarily." If you come off as "Good morning, oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was going that fast. It was an honest mistake and I won't do it again." then you might get off with a warning.
4 times!!! ... I understand your username now .
Another officer may have seen it differently. That weekend, that officer was at that location for 2 days. Probably charged 10+ people for stunt in that area. Fish in a barrel, location .. has been ever since the 410 extension was built. He may have been there specifically with that intent. You could probably make decent money with a coffee truck in that area, catering specifically to police officers
Officer immediately stated he was going to impound vehicle/suspend license, when he got to my window. It was an OPP officer.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't. As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers. accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding. just my take, and just IMHO
to me, the actual "spirit" of the law of Stunt driving, is racing or engaging in similar activity. Was it not actually brought in because of street racers.
accelerating on an empty hiway from 100-150 - and I understand it is illegal and speeding, is not actually, "stunting" per-se
there have been several threads where people have been done for stunting, where they have not been, but HAVE been speeding.
just my take, and just IMHO
--------------------------------------------------------------
* NO you cant touch your phone
* Speeding is speeding
* Challenge every ticket
* Impaired driving, you should be locked up UNDER the jail
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing. The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to: - Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle. - Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat. - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing - 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, - driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
I've seen people say this over the last couple days here, how it's not "in the spirit" of the charge. The word "racing" then comes up and I guess the assumption is that because there aren't cars battling each other or it doesn't involve a kid in a fart can honda civic that the charge isn't doing what it's meant to be doing.
The regulation can be found here. It covers all kinds of obnoxious and dumb behavior including, but not limited to:
- Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
- Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the drivers seat.
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing
- 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,
- driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway
The regulation is not limited to racing and racing activities. You don't need to be racing to get charged for stunt driving when you got someone in your trunk.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here. Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
bend wrote:
I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
If you've committed the offense, what's the difference? You aren't losing anything. You either get a freebie or you don't.
As for the officer being "judge, jury, and executioner", it has nothing to do with him. If you're charged with stunt driving, you get suspended, towed, and impounded. He didn't write the act and he doesn't get to pick and choose the consequences once you're charged. You are either charged with stunt driving or not. It's always up to an officer whether or not they lay a charge, it's not up to them to decide you get to keep your car after charging you.
>> I'm not even sure what we're arguing here.
Trying to determine if, an officer MUST charge stunt, by law, if a vehicle is "50+ over" the posted speed limit.
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break? -- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion. I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers. What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over. That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen. These are muddy waters. I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines. The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars. Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law. Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
bend wrote:
Let's pretend an officer MUST charge someone (they don't). What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
>> What's the argument? That no one should get a break?
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
I was under the impression, that 50+ over, was all that was required for stunt AND officers MUST charge stunt under that condition. I thought that wording was required to give the impound/suspension powers.
What I'm hearing here is, charging stunt is at officers discretion, even when 50+ over.
That surprises me; as it implies 50+ over isn't sufficient on its own, for the stunt charge. Yet, the majority of stunt charges are speed ONLY related. Most of which get reduced to speeding charges, before trial, from the few sources of information I seen.
These are muddy waters.
I agree with bobajob ... seems like they created a back door to allow impound/suspension for mere speeding offenses under the guise of stunt driving, for little purpose other than effectively significantly increasing speeding fines.
The money side of this is significant ... assuming an average cost of impound and license reinstatement of $1000 ... every 10000 stunt charges laid ... costs the public (those charged) 10 Million dollars.
Not sure how many charges there are to date but it seemed like there were about 30000 charges laid in the first few years of the stunt driving law.
Given that, at least half of those charges are quickly reduced to speeding, those 30000 charges, pulled an extra 15 million dollars to tow truck/impounds and MTO, that need not happen.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next. Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial. A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room. Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is. If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels. It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
gbs wrote:
-- laws being applied equally would be a pretty strong argument ... that's kinda the nail everything hangs on. -- "Who gets a break", is a decision for courts not an officer. I doubt officers have any significant level of discretion.
A week ago you were "surprised" the officer wasn't willing to listen to your reasoning at the side of the road. Today you are arguing that an officer shouldn't get to decide who gets a break. You also made the point that "single mothers, the elderly, families, etc" were falling victim to stunt driving charges and that wasn't fair. You said you were just a "middle aged stiff" and not a "young adult", therefore not capable of stunt driving. Today you are arguing everyone should be treated equally. It's hard to follow where you're going because your statements take a 180. If you want everyone treated equally, then everyone doing 50+ should be treated no different than the next.
Breaks may come in the form of a roadside reduction. They are offered as incentive to not go to trial. Trials cost money. That money doesn't come from thin air. You pay for it, your family pays for it, and your neighbor pays for it. You may also be offered a deal from the crown. Is that OK or is it just cops? If you don't agree neither offer a significant level of discretion, just don't take the reduction and go to trial.
A lot of individuals here probably don't agree with some aspects of the stunt racing regulations. It is what it is. That's the law and the most helpful comments you'll get will discuss what to expect and how to deal with it. You can vent and go in circles about how it should be, but it's not going to help you in the court room.
Stunt driving isn't the only instant administrative suspension out there. There are quite a few suspensions that will leave you out of time and money without ever being convicted of anything. Driving is not a right. Not everything is going to be fair. You either play by the rules or you take the bus. I'm not trying to sound harsh, it's just the way it is.
If you don't agree with the current system, go through the proper channels.
It's easy to see you're stressed about your current stunt charges. Good luck.
Ok one last time. 1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket. 2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well. This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty. OPS
Ok one last time.
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected. >> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. -- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is. I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ... Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
OPS Copper wrote:
1. The officer does not have to charge the stunt driving that is up to their discretion. Reductions on the side of the road happens all the time. I do not work a highway but I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads. Therefore, if someone has a good record and they did not do anything crazy they would get a 49km over speeding ticket.
2. If the officer charges then they have to Impound and suspend. They cannot charge without doing those two as well.
This is a huge break and should they not recognize and decide to roll the dice and see if they can win at court that it can revert to the original speed. I have yet to see it turn out well when someone steps in front of a JP and tries to justify 49 over. There is a motion to increase the fine when they are found guilty.
OPS
There is a fair bit of info on the net "implying" that 50+ over is an automatic stunt charge. So it's good to get that notion corrected.
>> I have rarely encountered someone going 60+ km over the speed limit. 50 over is really fast for most roads.
-- agree ... this was in an area where there is a 20km drop in speed, where it is not intuitive that the speed limit would change. Not saying that matters, but that's what it is.
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
Maybe it's the stunt driving label that irritates people most.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance. If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended. Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation. I would be in the little/no history category ... The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed. That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
bend wrote:
gbs wrote:
I'm not sure why someone offered a reduced charge of speeding, would choose to proceed to trial. Principle, I guess ...
I'd say it depends on the circumstances. Someone who speeds 50+ (stunt label or not) would probably be silly to not consider any reduced charge that puts them 49-. It's the difference between paying 5% extra on insurance vs 100%, being booted, and suffering through facility insurance.
If we're talking general speeding charges, someone who is a novice driver would also benefit from a reduced charge. 30+ would have them suspended.
Someone who is fully graduated with no or little history is not going to really benefit from a reduced charge (eg. 35km reduced to 10). You save a bit off the fine but that's pretty much it. Points are so plentiful and go away so quickly that they are a non issue. Insurance treats anything below 50 pretty much the same. These are the type of people who don't have much to lose. If you're going to gamble, this would be the ideal situation.
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
gbs wrote:
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That's because stunt driving is a SERIOUS offence. Comparing stunt driving and speeding is like comparing Impaired Driving with Care and Control of a Motor Vehicle with Alcohol readily available. I have never seen (or even read by browsing the forum) of an average joe getting a stunt driving charge dismissed without legal representation. Anything is possible, but the chances of that happening are the same chances as me winning $50 mil this Friday.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst. The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge. Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
gbs wrote:
I would be in the little/no history category ...
The sense I get, is there is a lot of pressure from other vested parties, politicians etc, to secure convictions for stunt at trial. So I would suspect the bar is quite high, higher than normal for sure, to get the charge dismissed.
That kinda takes away the trial option for those who believe they have a reasonable, but not certain defense.
It has more to do with the seriousness of the charge. Stunt Driving is one of the handful of HTA charges that comes with the possibility of jail time. As far as insurance goes, stunt driving is no better or worse than driving completely hammered. It's the worst of the worst.
The charge doesn't have a set fine like most HTA violations. It has a minimum and maximum penalty (Minimum: $2,000 + fees, 6 demerit points. Maximum: $10,000 + fees, 6 demerit points, Up to 6 months jail time, Suspension up to 2 years). There's a lot of room there to play around with without the need to reduce the charge.
Your right to a trial is never taken away. The problem, in your case specifically, is that you currently have no defense. You were already 30+ over the speed limit when the speed reduced by 20km. There's nothing to indicate there wasn't proper signage according to the regulations. Is it a "cheap" ticket? I guess that depends on who you ask. At the end of the day, it's not a defense though.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
.
