OHTA.ca

Great sunday so far.

Occurred on the 410 north in brampton towards caledon.

The last few miles of 410, even though it is still a 4 lane divided hwy drop to 80kph speed limit.

It is not that well posted ... I drive that way quite often .. I have never noticed it. Pretty clear very few people are aware of it ... nobody is driving 80kph, no one slows down until they hit highway 10, which is 80kph.

So to be honest, wasn't really aware it dropped to 80kph there. Feel a little swindled really. Clearly the police are, opp probably ticketed double digit vehicles for sure this weekend. One was a 76 yr old man, charged with stunt driving. Clearly a cash grab scenario ...

It's a four lane divided highway with everyone driving in the 100+ range, but for some reason, the speed limit is dropped to 80 kph. Not something you would expect for any reason.

I wouldn't drive 50 kph over speed limit, it that very safe to be moving that much quicker than other vehicles .... Slowing to 80 on that part of the 410, even if I was aware of the speed limit change would just mean a bunch of cars would back up behind, horns barming and a lot of unsafe passing. Wouldn't be safe to be that much slower than other traffic.

Feels more along the lines of entrapment and/or obvious cash grab.

Anyway, vehicle impounded, license suspended ... 7 day thing.

Don't like the "stunt driving" label ... not appropriate in this case in my view. Certainly don't like being treated like a criminal.

Early May is the initial court date ...

I have no idea what this is all about or how it proceeds ...

Quite concerned obviously .. given the name of offense being "stunt driving" ... when really it should just be 130 in 100 or something like that.

Have no idea what happens next ... internet sites claiming jail terms are possible??? Seriously??

This is a four lane divided highway ... no one would expect the speed limit to be 80. It is 100 everywhere else on the 410

I am quite concerned really ... The label stunt driving sounds fairly extreme, and it most certainly wasn't.

Any heads up help would be appreciated. No I don't typically have speeding tickets, none recent for sure, but there have been a few 10-20 ones over the years. It's a real concern as vehicles are typically required to earn income etc. In fact, cities/town re built around everyone having a vehicle. I don't think it is appropriate for vehicles to be taken under questionable scenarios like this. AND certainly the costs to me here, or anyone, in this case, are certainly excessive. Imagine a single mom trying to feed her kids having to deal with this. That's not me, but no doubt, there are people not in a position to lose thousands of dollars dealing with stuff.

I'm new here ... just trying to see what this stunt driving stuff is all about ... trying to figure out how to best deal with it. BUT in my view, this is exceptional excessive ... if that's what is needed, which I doubt, to address whatever concerns ... then the solution is to raise speed limits, not try to beat everyone into submission ...

Any heads up help/info would be appreciated.

[Note: wasn't driving 130 on a road only capable of 80kph ... this is a four lane divided highway, the 410. I'm not a yahoo street racer, young adult, or any of that ... middle aged stiff like everyone else.]

Looking thru documents just now ... the offense is citing s stunt driving - speeding.

Also did not have drivers license, registration, insurance card in vehicle ... was at home on desk .. had it out for another reason ....

Included with the summons are summons/offenses ... failure to surrender drivers license, vehicle registration, and insurance card. There is also a summons for operating a motor vehicle without insurance ... although I most certainly have insurance .. I guess they can find it on their system or whatever ??

Man, what a load of nonsense this is going to be ... and it clearly doesn't seem like anyone is going to be reasonable in this scenario.

Obviously the vehicle is insured licensed etc ...

All this seems quite excessive to me ... this is certainly not the intent of the stunt driving legislation ....

Well, no matter what your reason for speeding is. If the speed limit on those roads are 80 km/h and you were going 130 km/h, by the court you are considered guilty.

It sucks, I'm in a bad situation too, but this is how our government likes to earn money.

Anyways your best bet is to fight the ticket, wait for disclosure, see if you have a possible defense against the officer.

If you don't and he happens to show up to court, you can plea guilty for a reduced charge. I don't think you explaining that "yeah i don't think the speed limit here should be 80, its unfair" is really going to help in court.

When it comes to traffic tickets, they usually don't care why you did it, they just care whether you did it or not (obviously, because govt likes $$).

If the police officer didn't radar you or doesn't have that sort of evidence in the disclosure, you should be fine if you fight it. I also believe the officer needs to provide a test of the radar gun to make sure it's properly working. If he hasn't done that then you can use that as a possible defense.

If jail time is what your worry about, I think it's very unlikely.

i definitely agree with you on how it's unfair but that's a topic for another day. I already got a warning from a mod for "spazzing" .

As mentioned above, speeding is an absolute liability offence therefore all that matters is whether or not you were speeding. The onus is on you as a driver to be observant and aware of speed limit changes regardless if you're "just going with the flow of traffic". That excuse won't get you anywhere.

The category of stunt driving you fall under is: "Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit." Once you are charged with stunt driving you receive an automatic 7 day license suspension, 7 day vehicle impoundment, and have to pay a 180 license reinstatement fee after the 7 day suspension. The summons you were given at the roadside is just the preliminary court date where you state how you'll plea, request disclosure etc... I would strongly consider contacting a paralegal as stunt driving is seen as a serious offence by insurance companies which can lead to cancellation. I believe the minimum fine sits around $2000. Depending on your driving record the prosecutor might elect to drop it down to speeding 49 over or something along those lines but this is not a guarantee.

As for the drive with no insurance, its reverse onus therefore you must prove that your vehicle was insured at the time of the stop. Ask your insurance company for a document proving it was insured on that date. With my service we charge for no insurance sometimes when the driver cannot provide an insurance card and we are unable to contact the company to verify. All you need to do is prove to the prosecutor you were insured at the time of the stop and the charge is dropped immediately.

Seek legal representation.

some other people will be around I'm sure, but my comments

1> even if it was a 100, you where doing 35 over (what you thought) the speed limit was

2> If the speed limit is 80, it's 80, usually ignorance is no defense in law, so you where doing 55 over, which somewhere else I saw the LEO's have to charge with stunt

By some accounts some people get off, some get nailed to the wall, yes life sucks,

I found in the UK, your more likely to get a warning, depending on the actual circumstances.

Here if you get stopped your getting a ticket.

As already mentioned speeding is an absolute charge, things that won't fly as a defense

1> Going any speed over the posted speed limit

2> Going with the flow of traffic

3> Over taking

4> Trying to drive safely

5> Not knowing the speed limit

6> The speed limit is unfair

7> I was ill and needed to get off the highway quick

8> I was being chased

9> I need to go to hospital

they have pretty much heard it all

Hope this helps

gbs wrote:Great sunday so far.

Occurred on the 410 north in brampton towards caledon.

The last few miles of 410, even though it is still a 4 lane divided hwy drop to 80kph speed limit.

rainman wrote:

As for the drive with no insurance, its reverse onus therefore you must prove that your vehicle was insured at the time of the stop. Ask your insurance company for a document proving it was insured on that date. With my service we charge for no insurance sometimes when the driver cannot provide an insurance card and we are unable to contact the company to verify. All you need to do is prove to the prosecutor you were insured at the time of the stop and the charge is dropped immediately.

Seek legal representation.

^^^ THIS

It is a common belief by locals that the word "Caledon" is the aboriginal word for "Speed Trap".

If you don't see a police car hiding on the right side behind the big pile of dirt as you come off the 410 onto Highway 10 north it simply means he/she is further up north on Highway 10 writing a ticket. Gotta believe that section of the 410 with it's subtle drop to 90 and then 80 km/hr was designed specifically for radar traps. Unlike the top of the 427 where they have a big sign over the highway warning people to reduce speed, the 410 lets you figure it out the hard way. There are more traps north of there at the bottom of Caledon "mountain" and in Caledon itself but north of Caledon where the worst accidents occur, they don't really worry about.

bobajob wrote:some other people will be around I'm sure, but my comments

As already mentioned speeding is an absolute charge, things that won't fly as a defense

1> Going any speed over the posted speed limit

2> Going with the flow of traffic

3> Over taking

4> Trying to drive safely

5> Not knowing the speed limit

6> The speed limit is unfair

7> I was ill and needed to get off the highway quick

8> I was being chased

9> I need to go to hospital

they have pretty much heard it all

Speeding is an absolute liability charge, however, Stunt affords you a Due Diligence Defense. If you were being chased by armed gunmen, you have the right to speed like that. Going with the flow of traffic is not gonna cut it in court.

As for the middle age stiff comment, My boss was pulled over in Cornwall, with myself in the passenger seat, as well as 2 of my coworkers in the backseat for Stunt, 162 in a posted 100 zone. He's 57, with 3 kids and 2 grandkids, yet he still drives like a maniac and races kids on the highway. Just because we're young kids, doesn't mean we're all racers.

I've seen various post's where ppl have said they where chased down (the ones I think I remember) was a plain clothes car, they tried and failed to use the "I was in fear of my life" defense,

some women driving at night, dark car came up behind her, and she booted it, lost, got ticketd for stunt.

I think "in theory" your right, in practice, I don't think you'll get away with not getting ticketd for stunt. I'm sure as in some defences posted on here, you can plead to a lessor,#but you'll still get ticketd.

Didn't one of the LEO's on here say, that if somone is doing 50+ they where instructed to to give them a stunt?

UnluckyDuck wrote:

Speeding is an absolute liability charge, however, Stunt affords you a Due Diligence Defense. If you were being chased by armed gunmen, you have the right to speed like that. Going with the flow of traffic is not gonna cut it in court.

As for the middle age stiff comment, My boss was pulled over in Cornwall, with myself in the passenger seat, as well as 2 of my coworkers in the backseat for Stunt, 162 in a posted 100 zone. He's 57, with 3 kids and 2 grandkids, yet he still drives like a maniac and races kids on the highway. Just because we're young kids, doesn't mean we're all racers.

Maybe if the proper channels were used, i.e. calling 911 prior, then a summons wouldn't be issued. None the less, if I'm getting chased by armed gunmen, I really don't care, I'm gonna slap 210 right across any road I can.

thanks for replying ...

The speed caught on radar was a momentary speed, while merging into the outside lane from the inside lane to go around a particularly slower moving vehicle. So I would suspect the traffic flow was moving at 110-120 before I merged to the outside.

But my real issue is what jetblue mentioned. The speed limit change isn't clear. The tow truck driver pointed the sign out on the way back.. Its a small sign, off on the far right shoulder ... unlikely very many people see it and if they did they would likely assume it refers to an off ramp speed.

If the speed limit drops like that, on a four lane divided highway .. it should be an overhead sign. I travel that way quite a bit and have never seen the speed limit change; and judging from the speed traffic moves at in that area, very few other people see it. Can't follow rules that are not clearly posted. In fact, I even argued with officer that was a 100 kph zone ..

Quite a few people got charged with stunt driving in that area this weekend ... families, single moms, pensioners, struggling students etc. This is not the intent of stunt driving rules. These people are not stunt driving. Stunt driving penalties and costs are significant enough to have a serious effect peoples financial lives.

To me, it seems like a lot of people are "hoodwinked" is this particular area of the 410.

Anyways ...

Speaking to the truck driver and his son who was previously charged with stunt driving in a different area ... the process is ..

1. Initial court appearance, where a real court date is set, and some disclosure documents are handed out

2. On that second court date, you speak with the prosecutor, a mediation type thing that you can accept or refuse.

3. If you refuse, a court date will be set to go to trial.

Is that the typical process ?

stunt driving was IIRC brought in because of the amount of road racers on on industrial parks, "giving it some"

so agreed the "spirit" of the charge should be what is sounds, not simply "driving too fast" stunting, i.e. wheel spinning, racing, showing off etc,

what I can say, from reading various post'ts over time on here, that stunting, is more about excess speed, i.e 50 over .

you could technically, be driving on a deserted hi-way at 155 and not harm anyone

But doing doughnuts and drifting in a mall car park, is considerably more dangerous

again no expert just things I;ve read over time on here

gbs wrote:

Quite a few people got charged with stunt driving in that area this weekend ... families, single moms, pensioners, struggling students etc. This is not the intent of stunt driving rules. These people are not stunt driving. Stunt driving penalties and costs are significant enough to have a serious effect peoples financial lives.

heres another link on here

this one has an outcome too

looks like the "change" from 100 to 80, is VERY COMMON

thanks for links bobajob .. it is helpful ...

because it is referred to as stunt driving, it falls into a different category of seriousness. Stunt driving, in most people minds, implies something different so I can understand prosecutors being quite hard line about this stuff.

reading thru here and other places, it is quite clear that stunt driving isn't being applied according to it's original intent it was sold on.

Unfortunately, the penalties/punishment is aligned with what most people would reasonably assume stunt driving to be.

So a big disconnect between what's being called stunt driving and the penalties.

This is link from the Toronto star about a 62 yr old stunt driving grandma [ i assume link posting is permitted here ]