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.
I've searched and either I'm not hitting the key words or the topic hasn't been touched on before (which I doubt, but anyway...)
Just curious how long a HTA conviction stays on record (both on MTO and insurance) and does the "clock" start from the offence date or conviction date?
I recently hit a van from behind, at a busy cross section. The reason was my lunch bag and coffee dropped to floor with a 'bang', so I did not fully stop. The police came and charge me with HTA 130 (careless driving), is this too much for me?
BTW I did not mention the coffee thing to the police since I thought this would only involve insurance company (I was hit by somebody a few years ago, the…
Got stopped for what I thought was going to be speeding, officer apparently had other ideas which needless to say surprised the heck out of me since Im positive I was not going over 150.
Ive done a LOT of reading already on here, Ticket Combat and some specific cases on Canlii (need to look up even more) and many other places but I still have some specific questions and some general ones I didnt…
Hi There , I need some direction and Im hoping that someone can point me there. I am 7 years into a lifetime suspension for 3 DUI's back in another life. About two years ago I started emailing the powers that be... ie , the Minister of Transportation , the judge that convicted me , ect ,,,,ect..... A friend of mine in the program , ( lawyer ) gave me some hope with a tribunal for appeals in…
Recently I was cited for speeding 105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. I have two problems, firstly I am 18 and have my G2 (insurance is already expensive) and although I will likely have my G by the time this is resolved I want this to have the least impact on my insurance possible. The second and more important issue is that the officer who alleges I was speeding did not catch up to my car until I was…
I received a 141(5) left turn violation for an accident.
I was making a left turn across three lanes of traffic. The nearest two lanes were stopped for a traffic light up ahead of them and behind me. The third lane was a "right turn only" lane. As I made the turn, I saw a car pull out around the stopped traffic and enter the "right turn lane", so I stopped with my nose in the lane, but instead of…
Hi everyone I just received a ticket for parking the wrong way on the street in front of my house. There is not sign saying I have to park a certain way and I have been unable to find anything that says you have to park in a certain direction.
SO can anyone help me, I think I want to appeal the ticket but would like some advice to see if I am way off the watt with this one, or should I per sure…
Hello, i like many others a bad habit of attracting unwanted attention, and tickets. i drove a dark Eagle Talon that my girlfriend used to call a Bat-mobile. im also under 25 years old. well i drive for a living, and i want to do whatever i can to keep my abstract clean. so i sold the car, and im posting here. if anyone cares to take 5min and post your thoughts i would be delighted.
Good morning drivers, law enforcement, and traffic enthusiasts,
I recently received a ticket for "FAIL TO YIELD TO PEDESTRIAN." I was stopped at a red light in the left lane, signalling to turn left. The light turned green and as I pulled into the intersection, a pedestrian on the left crosswalk began crossing in the opposite direction. As I approached the crosswalk to complete the left turn, the…
I received a ticket on Hwy 6 North in Guelph going 90 km/h in a posted 70 km/h zone. I was clocked at 110 km/h and the officer reduced it to 90 km/h.
I requested for disclosure back in February 8th , after I received notice of trial for March 8th. The disclosure package did not get mailed, and when I went to the court on the day of trial, the clerk informed me that she had just…
I was driving past the ACC today in heavy traffic trying to eventually make the turn to go right to start my trek onto the gardiner. I had my Phone in my lap I was using it for GPS when I hear a knock on my hood. A police officer was just walking through the gridlock traffic to see who was on their phone. He immediately asked me to roll down my…
My case is a pretty 'common' one, I suppose. Nevertheless, I would like to read ideas and do some brainstorming: yesterday, after going out for dinner (about 11:00 PM ET in Oshawa) and while driving back on King Street North I noticed a police patrol following me closely. I did not attempt to speed away or anything. I simply continued my driving observing all precautions. Upon…
Hi, I'm new to this site, everyone seem really helpful to new members here. So here goes nothing.
I'm a G2 driver, aged around 20ish, male.
I got a ticket at around noon at intersection Markham road and Progress ave while I was driving my mother to work. I was going southbound on Markham road, I was going at about 70-75, I saw the approaching light and it was turning yellow and I decided to run for…
I got a speeding ticket today while I was at a stand still.
I had to stop as there was an elderly gentleman walking accross the left lane I was in. I could clearly see the speed trap up the hill as well as the en-mass brake lights from the vehicles ahead. I then accelerated up the hill and watched the speedometer. I never went above 60KM/H, speed limit is 50 I know but I'm trying to be honest.…
I'm new to the forum, and i'm not in the greatest situation...
I remember seeing a bright flash early in the morning a few weeks ago, and today i got a letter in the mail saying i ran a red light.
The problem is that i dont own the car, its my moms, and if she finds out i got the $325 dollar ticket il gonna get killed. I was lucky enough to have checked the mail today, and intercepte the…
A couple nights ago I was driving in the rain. I was at a 3 way intersection waiting to make a left turn. When i got the advanced green (may have just been a green light) I went and I didn't see any pedestrians. I proceeded to go but at the very end of my turn I saw someone walking towards my car. I abruptly stopped and triggered my abs brakes. When that happened it was too late, the pedestrian…
I've searched for hours looking for a similar situation to mine on a number of forums, and I couldn't come up with anything close. I know I need to file for disclosure tomorrow (my court date is October 7th), and plan to do so regardless of what else I end up doing, but I could really use some help with this one.
I was arrested on private property after being watched and stalked for over two hours…
I was driving down a two lane road, in the left lane. As I approached a construction zone, the two lanes merged into one. There was a sign that said the right lane ends, BUT this sign was incorrect. It was the left lane that ended.
Unfortunately I was driving according to what the sign said, and improperly continued into the right lane. This lead to me almost colliding into a bus.
I was given a ticket fail to obey stop sign. I was too far back from the white line. He has it on video that I was not at the white line - but he could not see exactly how far behind the white line I was because a big pine tree was in the way. It was dark, and I have a black car.
There was a car in front of me that duped me because he stopped - then pulled forward and stopped again - he was…
I got a speeding ticket back in June which I pleaded not guilty to. My main reason being that the ticket states that I committed the offence of driving at 129 km/h in a posted 90 km/h. But it was on Hwy 400 and I know it is 100 km/h.
My court date has been set. Maybe I should have researched more because reading some of these threads I see that this is not a fatal error and can be corrected in…
Hi Guys, my court date is Sept 28, 2015. Need help on whether I should plea or not. I got no evidence that I had stopped and will just be representing my self. Cop says I was speeding and ran a red light on a right turn. Both cases I told the cop I was aware of my driving and came to a stop / wasn't speeding. He issues me a caution ticket for going 120km and a ticket for fail to stop red light.…
I just had an experience where I had a cyclist ride off of the sidewalk in front of my car at a corner. I managed to stop, she went by me. She was looking backwards screaming at me and lost her balance, mostly due to the grocery bags on her handle bars. She fell in the other lane. I got out to see if she was okay. She had a scraped knee, but was fine. She said she was okay so I left. The police…
.
