# Speeding tickets: pay it or fight it?



## Sonal

Just got my first-ever speeding ticket today, and I'm looking for some suggestions or advice about what to do about it.

Being in Ontario, the land of crazy-high insurance rates, my biggest worry is how this will affect my insurance costs. I'm hearing some mixed things about how much 1 speeding ticket will affect my rates. I did some online quoting to get a rough idea to see if things would change much--for some yes, and for no.

I called one of those traffic-ticket specialists, whom naturally recommended I get them to fight it for me.  That costs more than 3 times as much as the ticket, so I hesitate about going with them, despite their assurances that I will probably win.

The ticket is for going 70 in a 50 zone, which is 3 points. I had a car accident (I was at fault, but no conviction) just over 6 years ago, but my driving record is otherwise clean.

Any ideas about what I should do, or where else I can look for information?


----------



## Macified

I feel for you Sonal but my personal opinion is that if you got caught you should pay the ticket. If there is some larger reason that calls the fault into question then there are avenues of pursuit (ie. poor signage? of speed zone change). I don't really know what the effects of the ticket will be on your insurance.

Good luck.


----------



## MacGYVER

Two things I would recommend:

1. Pay it and in 3 years you get your points back and a clean record of speeding tickets. 

2. Go down to the court house and talk to whom ever they are called and see if they will reduce the ticket or points and then plead guilty and pay the ticket.

Those are your best choices at this point. As far as insurance rates, it may go up, but shouldn't go up that high, especially if it is your first speeding ticket.

Avoid the Ticket Buster people or whatever they are called. They can't guarantee you anything plus you pay 3X or 4X the amount of the speeding ticket.

That is my advice. Don't stress over it, just pay it and move on.


----------



## SINC

Sonal, one thing to check is how long do the three points stay on your driver's abstract?

In Alberta, one "loses" two points each calendar year from the date of the infraction.

If they will disappear in a year or so, I would pay the fine and forget it. Chances are slim that your insurance company will pull and abstract on you unless they have you flagged and from your record, it does not sound like that is the case.

Checking is now done randomly and you might not ever feel any effect from this ticket, so spending more to fight it is not a good option from my experience.

Hope this helps.


----------



## VVA88IT

You take it to Court knowing full well that it is absolute liability offence, meaning you'll lose if you fight.

The reasons for doing this are:
1. if the officer does not appear, you are in the clear.
2. if the officer shows up, you'll be nice and polite and work out a deal with the officer to reduce the charge so that you will not lose any points but still pay the fine.

AND you DO NOT need ro hire anyone. You can do this yourself.

cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

I've taken three traffic tickets to court in BC, one for ignoring a sign, one for speeding and one for jaywalking.

In two of the cases the officer didn't show up and I didn't have to pay. In all instances I felt I had a good excuse for why I shouldn't have received the ticket although on a technically legal basis I was guilty.

In the case of the speeding ticket, I was caught in a well organized speed trap staffed by at least 10 cops. It was definitely as major operation and must have issued hundreds of tickets that day. It was at the bottom of the hill in Vancouver leading to the Knight Street bridge. At the point where they were pulling over several cars per minute, the speed zone changed from 50 kmh to 80 kmh. I was ticketed with doing 75 in a 50 zone. What really bugged me is that I was travelling generally slower than the surrounding traffic, many who were going much faster than me well before the end of the 50 zone. I happened to be not in the midst of a pack of cars, so I was easily flagged to pull over. As I watched they were letting packs of cars travelling faster than me go by, because it would have been difficult and likely unsafe to try and pull over 10 cars at once.

I am very careful about monitoring my speed and almost always refuse to go more than 10 kmh over the posted limit, even if the bulk of traffic is going much faster. I have heard that up to 10 kmh over is an unwritten line below which most police officers will not ticket you. At the bottom of the hill on Knight St. you really have to keep on the brake to avoid going faster than 50, while all the traffic is usually speeding up to hit the 80 zone. Many are often doing at least 100 kmh well before the end of the 50 zone. I had heard the police announce on the radio on another occasion that they don't generally have speed traps at the bottom of hills because even careful drivers usually speed a little at that point.

When I showed up at the traffic court I was informed that the ticket would not be contested. I asked if this was because the officer couldn't show up and they said something that led me to believe that they did not even consider defending this charge. Probably there were a lot of people like me in this particular case. Anyone who paid a ticket from that speed trap probably paid unnecessarily. I wish they had just stuck to ticketing those who were really stepping on the gas, rather than those like me who were speeding, but going generally slower than most of the traffic.

If you choose to contest it you may win, often it is hard for the officers to make it to the traffic courts because of scheduling problems. If you do go, you should have a good reason for why you think your speeding wasn't a problem. I would also advise you to keep within the 10 kmh limit in future. Most traffic that I observe on major city streets is often going a lot faster, so at 60 kmh you will usually find yourself going slower than others. I don't think that most people even bother to look at their speedometers when driving.

I wouldn't contest the ticket, if in reviewing the situation you actually think that your speed was unsafe. Take it as a wake-up-call to watch your speed in the future. If you don't have any more tickets in the near future the 3 points will drop off your record. I don't know about Ontario, but I don't think 3 points will cause one's insurance to go up here. If I recall having 6 within a year would.


----------



## MacGYVER

The rules in Ontario are as follows for points and speeding tickets:

1. Your first offence in speeding, if found guilty, you will lose 3 or how many points it states on your ticket. After 3 years you get those points back and you have a clean record. The speeding ticket after 3 years is deleted in the system period.

As for insurance, my insurance never went up for my first speeding ticket. They just made a note of it and moved on.

*Note: If you plead guilty, they will send you a bill in the mail, at least that is how they did it with me, however, check to see if the DATE matches the date of the time you received your speeding ticket. In my case, the bill stated I was caught speeding 1 year in advance, (for example: caught speeding in 2004, but bill of ticket stated I was caught in 2005)


----------



## Sonal

Thanks everyone. It's hard to find straight answers for this.

It was on a major street. Typically, major streets in TO have a limit of 60, but apparently, this stretch of this street is 50. (Off the top of my head, I can't recall where that's posted.) They had a big speed trap set up--it seems that everyone speeds down that stretch. As soon as they had dealt with me, they had the next person lined up and ready to go.

I have no issue paying the fine; I just don't want to keep paying for it in raised insurance premiums. The main reason I would contest it is on the hope that the officer doesn't show up, and it gets thrown out--and thus, I wouldn't get demerit points.

It's a funny thing--contesting know that you are wrong and will lose, but hoping it works out anyway.

In any case, I had a brainwave and called my insurance broker. They confirmed that a first ticket will probably not make a difference on my rates. And if it does.... well, my accident was just about to clear (I reached the 6-year mark last month) so hopefully, it will be a wash at worst.

Not sure if I'll contest or not yet, but either way, it seems the implications are not as bad as I feared.


----------



## iSawTheLight

Sonal said:


> _It was on a major street. Typically, major streets in TO have a limit of 60, but apparently, this stretch of this street is 50._


Sonal, as listed in the highway traffic act, on major thoroughfares, if the speed limit is not posted, the assumed limit is 50km/h, not 60. Still, by doing 70 you were speeding. Pay it, remember it and watch for posted speed limits, don't assume. We're all safer as fellow drivers sharing the road.


----------



## miguelsanchez

I learned a lot about fighting tickets here:

http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/

and also from a friend of mine who is a lawyer.

There are a few hoops you have to jump through, but it's better than paying out $200 + for the ticket. Even if you lose the case, the worst that will happen is that you will pay the same fine approximately a year later. the typical wait for a court date, thus saving you from your insurance company for a year. And you will learn something about how the courts work.

You must fill out a Motion to Dismiss (because of your right to a speedy trial) and also a Request for Disclosure of evidence against you. You don't need a lawyer to do this, just some time to hand-deliver the documents to the various offices downtown. 

I have a fought a speeding ticket and defended someone in court for a failure to stop at a stop sign. The first was thrown out when the officer did not show up, and the second was thrown our for non-disclosure of evidence. The Justice of the Peace tore a strip off the Crown Attorney for not responding to me, and the officer was pretty P.O.'ed since he was only there for that one case.

MOST insurance companies won't ding you on your premiums for one speeding ticket, even with an accident six years ago. Also, your premium should not go up until you are convicted i.e. you plead guilty (pay the fine) or lose in court.

PM me if you want more details about what you have to do. 

Good luck,

Michael


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

miguelsanchez said:


> I learned a lot about fighting tickets here:
> 
> http://www.magma.ca/~fyst/


I found the following on their web site:


> "Deliberately setting the speed limit too low, and then sending out cops to sneak behind motorists is highway robbery disguised as traffic safety enforcement... [in a traffic court] the robber is the plaintiff and the victim is the accused..."
> 
> "Breaking the laws of speed limit doesn't kill, breaking the laws of physics does."


Although, I think there are probably some cases where speeding tickets are used as a cash cow, such as my case where they perched at the bottom of a hill and at the spot where the speed zone changes, I disagree with all these pro-speeding activists.

They were quite active in BC when they helped the BC Liberals to kill the radar camera program that had only been in effect for a few years.

These guys purposely confuse arguments about speed on freeways, which _may arguably_ be set too low in some cases, with arguments about speed limits on city streets. In most cases 50 kmh is plenty fast for urban streets full of children, bicycles, pedestrians and busy intersections. The impact on one's reaction time in the city of going 20 or 30 kmh over is too great. Most people don't come close to following the speed limits, night or day, rain or snow but these guys argue that the average speed of drivers should determine what the speed limit is.

I'd like to know what the freakin' hurry is anyway? Is getting somewhere 2 minutes faster worth the potential risks? It seems like every day I hear the bizarrely chirpy traffic reporters announce that a pedestrian is down and holding up traffic. I think these speeding activists are mostly people who are addicted to driving fast, sporty cars around, don't give a damn about the impact of their activities on everyone else and probably have glove-boxes full of speeding tickets. They imagine that they are expert drivers who can handle tricky situations in all weather and traffic conditions and have god-like reaction times and reflexes.

Can we all not drive like responsible adults instead of thrill-seeking hyper children playing with flashy toys? 
[/rant]


----------



## yo_paully

As far as I know, in Ontario Under the Provincial Offences Act (POA), a person issued an Offence Notice (traffic ticket) has three options: (1) plead guilty and pay the prescribed fine; (2) plead guilty before a Justice of the Peace with an explanation; or (3) contest the charge in court.

I received a speeding ticket last year, in Peel Region, and choose option #2. I was going 25 km/h over the limit (85 km/h in a 60 km/h). Basically I was given a date to show up at court and meet with the Prosecutor. He had a copy of my driving record and based on my record (which had been clean for the last 5 years) he reduced my ticket to 15 km/h over resulting in a lower fine and 0 demerit points. I went into the court and plead guilty to 15 km/h over the limit, paid the fine and that was it – took about 1 hr total.

I’d suggest option #2 or #3 – you’ve got nothing to lose.


----------



## kps

As mentioned, traffic offenses are heard in front of a Justice of the Peace. JPs are political appointees and not judges with a law degree. So if a JP got up on the wrong side of the bed, you'll be found guilty even if you present a legal argument worthy of Clarence Darrow. 

But do fight it if it's a big concern to you. Show up early and prior to court ask to see the Crown Council and explain simply that you may have been going over the limit but in no way shape or form were you going 70...no way. The Crown may then offer you a deal for say, 10km over. Agree to plead guilty to 10 over and there's a good chance your case will be heard first --saving you the time of sitting there and listening to all the bozos fighting their seatbelt tickets. Plead guilty, pay the reduced fine at the court house and get the hell out of there.

Your insurance company should give you a freebie, if they don't, it should not be a huge increase. Your insurer will not do anything until renewal of the policy when they pull your abstract, so calculate your renewal and court dates to gain an advantage.

Good luck!


----------



## RevMatt

I would definitely suggest that you contest it. As noted, you really have nothing to lose beyond your time. While one ticket MAY not harm your rates (never believe an insurance company, the rules change all the time, even if you do get the full story), you have used your mulligan, as it were. As a general rule, with a clear record as yours is, the prosecutor will be willing to knock it down to 15 so you get no points, as a bare minimum. I'm actually surprised the cop didn't. If you are very lucky, the officer won't be there. But in any event, the leap from 0 to 2 points is, in my opinion, overly harsh, and it is reasonable for you to at least try for that compromise. A ticket with no points is also much more likely to be ignored by your insurance company. Dress nicely, be polite, you should be fine.

If you want to be devious, I am told that a good strategy is to ask for the trial date to be rescheduled. Find a reason. Apparently, that makes it much more likely that the officer won't be there. 

That said, what I hear you saying is that you are willing to accept responsibility for speeding, but don't want to be forever damned by our predatory insurance industry. So I would just go for the compromise. Show up for court, be polite, ask for a lower charge.


----------



## miguelsanchez

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Can we all not drive like responsible adults instead of thrill-seeking hyper children playing with flashy toys?
> [/rant]


GA, I don't particularly agree with the statement you quoted from the website, but the fact remains that this particular website, along with some info from a lawyer friend of mine helped me get out of a speeding ticket that I thought was unjustly served. The ticket was for 137 in a 100 zone, and anyone who knows me knows that I rarely if ever drive that fast especially when I have passengers. 

Again, with the failure to stop, the person that I was defending was certain that he had stopped, yet the officer, from very far away, determined that he "rolled" through the stop sign. The person was determined to fight it, and asked for my help. 

In any case, we are given the right in Canada to defend ourselves in a court so why not exercise that right? It was a great learning experience for me, and would be for anyone who has the time to spend a couple of hours seeing how the court system works (it's not like on TV in case you were wondering).


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

miguelsanchez said:


> GA, I don't particularly agree with the statement you quoted from the website, but the fact remains that this particular website, along with some info from a lawyer friend of mine helped me get out of a speeding ticket that I thought was unjustly served.


Yes, no doubt there's some valuable info there, I was just objecting to their pro-speeding bias.

I've been to traffic court in BC and it sounds like it's less complex than Ontario. It was really easy to do and took less than an hour each time. I remember consulting a Self-Counsel Press book on the subject (early 90s pre-internet) for strategy called "Fight That Ticket in BC", but it really wasn't required.


----------



## scootsandludes

Hey Sonal,
I didn't read all the replies, but the best thing to do is to fight, and don't bother with the ticket fighters, they're crooks.

Any ticket you get, bring it in to fight it, it doesn't really cost you anything, except maybe loosing a few a hours of your time.

I've gotten a few of the 70 in a 50 zone tickets, it's no big deal, it's the most common ticket next to a parking ticket. If you don't fight it, it's a $105 ticket plus 2 demerit points. If you fight it, all you have to do go set a date, when the date comes, you go in, and they provide a attorney for you, who will give you 2 options. Option 1 is to fight it full out. Option 2 is to plead guilty to a lesser charge, which will be 15km/h over, no points and a $45 fine. You tell them the option you choose, go back outside wait till your name is called again, go back to the same room, and agree to the judge that you'll plead guilty to the lesser charge, papers get signed, and pay cashier on the way out. I just pay the $45 fine, no worries about insurance, if you have a clean driving record (in the past 5 years), they're not gonna pinch you on it for having 1 speeding ticket. I get this ticket every few years. My insurance has not gone up since I was a teen.

Always fight a ticket if it involves demerit points. I'm currently waiting to get a court date for running a red (left turn at an intersection, who hasn't run that red?) They told me it would be 6 to 8 months to get a trial date. So after they tell me the date, which will be another 6 to 8 months away, can you say so long ticket? The gov't recently changed the mandate on the courts system, so they're so backed up, it's not funny, actually it is.

good luck
vince


----------



## Ariell

Hi Sonal

If I were you, I'd go to court. I've never had a speeding ticket but I've had quite a few parking tickets, some of which I've gone to court for when I had a legitimate excuse. So I can tell you how it works with parking tickets. I believe the same applies for speeding tickets, but I'm not 100% positive. 

I'd say that about 90% of people who I've seen in court who plead guilty with an excuse get a reduced fine, so you've got nothing to lose except for your time. My experience has been that it's a very quick process. Usually a half hour tops. Trust me, the judge wants to get out of there fast too. I think I've only seen one time where the judge seemed especially grumpy and he made each person pay the full fine regardless of their excuse. But that was the exception.

You're not saying that you're not guilty -- you're saying that you're guilty with an excuse. If you do have an excuse, say so and most times you'll get a reduced fine.

As far as I know, the only time that the 'cop didn't show up so it's thrown out' scenario happens is when you say you're NOT GUILTY. In that case, it's considered a trial. You need to go to the witness stand and testify. So, if the cop doesn't show up, there's no one to dispute your evidence and the case is thrown out. But if you're admitting that you're guilty, I think there's no way it will just get thrown out if the cop isn't there. This did happen to me once. I think the judge just wanted to go home. So all the remaining people pleading not guilty got to go home.

There was one time that I was legitimately not guilty (parked on my own street with a valid permit) so that's what I pled. The cop showed up and we both testified but because I had evidence, I got off. 

Hope that helped. Good luck

Sorry if this repeats things that you've already heard. I didn't read each reply thoroughly!


----------



## Sonal

Wow, I go off to class, and all kinds of helpful info gets posted. Thanks.

Just to be clear, I don't deny that I was speeding, or that I didn't deserve the ticket. I'm just trying to see if it's worthwhile to try and minimize the impact of the ticket, and if so, how to go about doing it.

I've completely ruled out the ticket-buster people.


----------



## Max

Say Sonal, where you were nabbed, that wasn't Eastern as it sails over the Don and the DVP, was it? It's a 50 zone and I've been 'busted' there once, a few summers ago. It's a favourite haunt of the cops in the wee hours of Saturday and Sunday morning, when the 905ers are drunkenly bailing out of clubland and roaring back home up the DVP.... I was going west over there a few days ago and saw, for the first time, speed traps on both sides of the river. They were bagging speeders at both ends! Making a pretty efficient business of it, too.

Nowadays, thanks to a good ticket and some demerits, I'm pretty good at keeping it to a dull roar going over that stretch, maybe 6 or 7 k above the limit. I figure the cops have bigger fish to fry than that. I'd stick to 50 were it not for how ridiculously slow it feels. Sure, there's cars whipping in and merging off of the southbound DVP, looking to get onto Richmond or Front... but really, 50 k seems awfully silly.


----------



## Sonal

I know exactly the stretch you're talking about, Max, (and I agree--that is a really odd place for a 50 zone) but no, that wasn't it.

I was on Bayview, just north of Lawrence, in that weird little section where Lawrence ends, and you have to take Bayview for a little bit to get back on Lawrence again.

You think they'd have any sympathy for the fact that I was coming home after having part of my gums lasered off at the dentist?  (Just had local freezing--I wasn't under the influence of nitrous or anything.) 

It was a bad morning.


----------



## Max

Oh yeah, I know the zone, all right. I'm up there fairly often as I have a brother at Yonge and Lawrence. But unless I'm on my way up to the Bridal Path, I don't stay that long on Bayview. I take it it's a semi-regular trap?

Another place where I often see traps is Lansdowne, just past the rail overpass above Rideau, a bit below College. I was nailed there once, years ago, and ever since then I try to remember that there's a good chance a waiting cop will be on the other side of the trestle... and you won't spot him and that radar gun until it's way too late.

Anyway, sorry you got busted on a bad day.


----------



## Sonal

It's a very regular trip. I work a couple of days a week near Lawrence and Don Mills (my dentist is there too) and live near Yonge and Eglinton. The fastest way to-and-from is to go along Lawrence, take the detour around the Bridle Path, etc. 

I'm not on Bayview for very long--no more than 1 km. It seems that this might be a regular place for speed traps; they had it set up in the back parking lot of TFS. 

Another one frequent one is Northbound on Don Mills Rd, just south of York Mills. They set up the trap at a church that is just past a curve in the road--and they get people for driving in the carpool lane too. 

Is it ever a good day to get busted for speeding?


----------



## simon

Fight it. Fight It.

Insurance companies are greedy bastards and will use any excuse to bump your rates. What you want is the ticket to be thrown out, not reduced. 

Insurance companies use convictions as your insurance rate indicator not what the ticket was for (so a 10km over ticket is just as bad as a 40km over ticket which is the same as a ignore stop sign). Fight the ticket, trust me - learn from my mistake. My story - I have been driving like forever mostly incident free (couple of tickets, one accident NOT my fault over 10 years ago before the insurnace changes) - but on a Sunday drive I got caught in a speed trap and got a ticket for, get this, 7km over the speed limit. I just ignored the ticket as it was the first one I got in years, piad it and forgot about it. Well one year later I got nailed in another speed trap but this time I got nailed for 35km over and then the very next week I got pulled over for running a red light (I had my excuses but they didn't wash). So suddenly I had three tickets in two years. My insurance renewal came in the mail and my insurance for my two cars went from $140 a month to $398 per month and the only reason was those three tickets (none of which I fought in court) I was advised later that the 7km one would have been thrown out because of certain technicalities and the other fines would have been reduced - but mainly I would have only TWO tickets. 

That third ticket (fine of $50) cost me $5700 in additional insurance premiums over two years because I just paid it. Although I haven't got a ticket in years if I do get another I will fight it tooth and nail to get rid of it.


----------



## miguelsanchez

It sounds like you guys should add to this database:

http://www.speedtrap.org/speedtraps/ste_city.asp?state=ON  

Regarding pleading guilty with an explanation: it still counts as a conviction, (you did plead guilty after all), and if you collect two of those in a three year period, and your insurance company checks your driving record, your premiums will go up, even with no demerit points on your record. You could have two tickets for 1km/h over the limit and that is theoretically enough. That is why you should fight your ticket.

Now, insurance companies check driving records randomly on contract renewal, because it costs them money to do it. But if you change insurance companies, you MUST tell them about your convictions or risk having your record checked and then being nailed for lying about your record. The maximum fine providing "false or misleading" information is $100,000.

If you plead "not guilty" you will have a trial. You don't have to get on the stand to testify, and in fact it's not recommended. Your plan of action is to cross-examine the officer (if he shows up) with as many questions as you like. When I was in court for one of my ticket defences, the officer couldn't prove that he had calibrated his radar unit, (he sheepishly admitted that it had been nine months since it was calibrated), and the case was thrown out.


----------



## kps

Good point about lying about your convictions/claims. Insurance co.s consult a central database of your record, it is not the MTO database, it's just shared information between the insurance companies. If you lie and get caught, and you will, they'll drop you like a hot potato and no other insurer will touch you. If anyone does, it'll be 'facility' and your premium may be 6k-8k ...if you're lucky.

Sonal, fighting a speeding ticket is very difficult even for experienced persons. Two things must be on your side, the cop and the JP. Highly unlikely. You're fighting the technology (or the method of implementation) and not the cop's word. Very difficult to create a 'doubt' that the JP will accept. Remember, the JP has heard it all.


----------



## Ariell

Yeah but you're assuming "fighting it" = pleading not guilty. He's already said that he's not planning to plead not guilty.

Fighting it also = pleading _guilty with an excuse_ in the hopes the J of the P will reduce your fines which he/she almost always will. So he's got nothing to lose by trying.

I think what Simon says above should be enough reason to go to court but see this link as well: http://www.moneysense.ca/planning/insurance/article.jsp?content=20021126_153823_3064

Let us know how it works out!


----------



## RevMatt

Ariell said:


> Yeah but you're assuming "fighting it" = pleading not guilty. He's already said that he's not planning to plead not guilty.



_Pssst! Sonal's a she!_


----------



## SINC

Like I said way back on the first page of this thread, pay it and move on Sonal. It is better and much easier and in the long run, won't hurt your record.


----------



## Ariell

RevMatt said:


> _Pssst! Sonal's a she!_


Ooooopps!  

Very sorry about that Sonal. I just assumed. I'm not familiar with the name. 

Sorry.


----------



## Sonal

Ariell said:


> Ooooopps!
> 
> Very sorry about that Sonal. I just assumed. I'm not familiar with the name.
> 
> Sorry.


No problem. 

This seems to happen to me a lot. Unless they've seen me in person, (or I've made my gender clear somehow) a lot of people seem to assume I'm a man.

Maybe I should change my avatar to something really feminine and girly, like a pink flower or something. :lmao: 

(Just kidding--couldn't resist.)


----------



## tmr

*This exactly what happened to me!*

Okay this is exactly what happened to me in Alberta. I am going to court to fight it, it was a speed trap, in a National park on a long weekend. The speed limit is 90 and they wrote me a ticket for 120!! I was doing 80.
I pleaded not guilty and have to go to court on the 28th of this month.
Do you have any advice for me? I've never done anything like this before and I'm a little nervous. How do I prove my case?
My friend was in the car with me but she lives in Montreal and can't fly back for one day to be my witness.
What gets me is that none of the cars that were passing me, actually speeding didn't get stopped.
Thanks in advance








GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I've taken three traffic tickets to court in BC, one for ignoring a sign, one for speeding and one for jaywalking.
> 
> In two of the cases the officer didn't show up and I didn't have to pay. In all instances I felt I had a good excuse for why I shouldn't have received the ticket although on a technically legal basis I was guilty.
> 
> In the case of the speeding ticket, I was caught in a well organized speed trap staffed by at least 10 cops. It was definitely as major operation and must have issued hundreds of tickets that day. It was at the bottom of the hill in Vancouver leading to the Knight Street bridge. At the point where they were pulling over several cars per minute, the speed zone changed from 50 kmh to 80 kmh. I was ticketed with doing 75 in a 50 zone. What really bugged me is that I was travelling generally slower than the surrounding traffic, many who were going much faster than me well before the end of the 50 zone. I happened to be not in the midst of a pack of cars, so I was easily flagged to pull over. As I watched they were letting packs of cars travelling faster than me go by, because it would have been difficult and likely unsafe to try and pull over 10 cars at once.
> 
> I am very careful about monitoring my speed and almost always refuse to go more than 10 kmh over the posted limit, even if the bulk of traffic is going much faster. I have heard that up to 10 kmh over is an unwritten line below which most police officers will not ticket you. At the bottom of the hill on Knight St. you really have to keep on the brake to avoid going faster than 50, while all the traffic is usually speeding up to hit the 80 zone. Many are often doing at least 100 kmh well before the end of the 50 zone. I had heard the police announce on the radio on another occasion that they don't generally have speed traps at the bottom of hills because even careful drivers usually speed a little at that point.
> 
> When I showed up at the traffic court I was informed that the ticket would not be contested. I asked if this was because the officer couldn't show up and they said something that led me to believe that they did not even consider defending this charge. Probably there were a lot of people like me in this particular case. Anyone who paid a ticket from that speed trap probably paid unnecessarily. I wish they had just stuck to ticketing those who were really stepping on the gas, rather than those like me who were speeding, but going generally slower than most of the traffic.
> 
> If you choose to contest it you may win, often it is hard for the officers to make it to the traffic courts because of scheduling problems. If you do go, you should have a good reason for why you think your speeding wasn't a problem. I would also advise you to keep within the 10 kmh limit in future. Most traffic that I observe on major city streets is often going a lot faster, so at 60 kmh you will usually find yourself going slower than others. I don't think that most people even bother to look at their speedometers when driving.
> 
> I wouldn't contest the ticket, if in reviewing the situation you actually think that your speed was unsafe. Take it as a wake-up-call to watch your speed in the future. If you don't have any more tickets in the near future the 3 points will drop off your record. I don't know about Ontario, but I don't think 3 points will cause one's insurance to go up here. If I recall having 6 within a year would.


----------



## tmr

*This exactly what happened to me!*

Okay this is exactly what happened to me in Alberta. I am going to court to fight it, it was a speed trap, in a National park on a long weekend. The speed limit is 90 and they wrote me a ticket for 120!! I was doing 80.
I pleaded not guilty and have to go to court on the 28th of this month.
Do you have any advice for me? I've never done anything like this before and I'm a little nervous. How do I prove my case?
My friend was in the car with me but she lives in Montreal and can't fly back for one day to be my witness.
What gets me is that none of the cars that were passing me, actually speeding didn't get stopped.
Thanks in advance








GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I've taken three traffic tickets to court in BC, one for ignoring a sign, one for speeding and one for jaywalking.
> 
> In two of the cases the officer didn't show up and I didn't have to pay. In all instances I felt I had a good excuse for why I shouldn't have received the ticket although on a technically legal basis I was guilty.
> 
> In the case of the speeding ticket, I was caught in a well organized speed trap staffed by at least 10 cops. It was definitely as major operation and must have issued hundreds of tickets that day. It was at the bottom of the hill in Vancouver leading to the Knight Street bridge. At the point where they were pulling over several cars per minute, the speed zone changed from 50 kmh to 80 kmh. I was ticketed with doing 75 in a 50 zone. What really bugged me is that I was travelling generally slower than the surrounding traffic, many who were going much faster than me well before the end of the 50 zone. I happened to be not in the midst of a pack of cars, so I was easily flagged to pull over. As I watched they were letting packs of cars travelling faster than me go by, because it would have been difficult and likely unsafe to try and pull over 10 cars at once.
> 
> I am very careful about monitoring my speed and almost always refuse to go more than 10 kmh over the posted limit, even if the bulk of traffic is going much faster. I have heard that up to 10 kmh over is an unwritten line below which most police officers will not ticket you. At the bottom of the hill on Knight St. you really have to keep on the brake to avoid going faster than 50, while all the traffic is usually speeding up to hit the 80 zone. Many are often doing at least 100 kmh well before the end of the 50 zone. I had heard the police announce on the radio on another occasion that they don't generally have speed traps at the bottom of hills because even careful drivers usually speed a little at that point.
> 
> When I showed up at the traffic court I was informed that the ticket would not be contested. I asked if this was because the officer couldn't show up and they said something that led me to believe that they did not even consider defending this charge. Probably there were a lot of people like me in this particular case. Anyone who paid a ticket from that speed trap probably paid unnecessarily. I wish they had just stuck to ticketing those who were really stepping on the gas, rather than those like me who were speeding, but going generally slower than most of the traffic.
> 
> If you choose to contest it you may win, often it is hard for the officers to make it to the traffic courts because of scheduling problems. If you do go, you should have a good reason for why you think your speeding wasn't a problem. I would also advise you to keep within the 10 kmh limit in future. Most traffic that I observe on major city streets is often going a lot faster, so at 60 kmh you will usually find yourself going slower than others. I don't think that most people even bother to look at their speedometers when driving.
> 
> I wouldn't contest the ticket, if in reviewing the situation you actually think that your speed was unsafe. Take it as a wake-up-call to watch your speed in the future. If you don't have any more tickets in the near future the 3 points will drop off your record. I don't know about Ontario, but I don't think 3 points will cause one's insurance to go up here. If I recall having 6 within a year would.


----------



## keebler27

Mel33 said:


> I have to disagree. If you pay the ticket your insurance rates will go up which in the end is costing you more money than if you were to hire a representative to fight your ticket in court. If anyone is looking for a paralegal with a high success rate I would recommend calling Street Legal 416.601.1500. They handle traffic tickets across Toronto and Ontario. I was very pleased with their service and as a result my insuranace did not go up because m tickets were dismissed. Street Legal - Traffic Ticket Defence speeding tickets Toronto Ontario


No. The 1st ticket is usually not counted*. It's a 'warning', if you will, to the insurance company. If you get another one within x amount of years, then rates will go up.

I know this because I've had 3 - all well spread out with years in between and each time, nothing happened.

* unless someone is really over the speed limit like 120 in a 50 or the stunt driving.


----------



## John Clay

keebler27 said:


> No. The 1st ticket is usually not counted*. It's a 'warning', if you will, to the insurance company. If you get another one within x amount of years, then rates will go up.
> 
> I know this because I've had 3 - all well spread out with years in between and each time, nothing happened.
> 
> * unless someone is really over the speed limit like 120 in a 50 or the stunt driving.


That's far from a universal truth and depends on the insurance provider, as well as your own info - age, address, etc. All contributes to the risk profile, and thus your rates.


----------



## keebler27

John Clay said:


> That's far from a universal truth and depends on the insurance provider, as well as your own info - age, address, etc. All contributes to the risk profile, and thus your rates.


good pt. I imagine someone younger would be subject to less leeway.


----------



## FeXL

Holy zombie thread, Batman...


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Holy zombie thread, Batman...


Yep, I never respond to a spammer, 'cause that is what this is. 

The "New Neighbour", one post, four year old thread and the link to a commercial firm gives it away.


----------



## screature

FeXL said:


> Holy zombie thread, Batman...





SINC said:


> Yep, I never respond to a spammer, 'cause that is what this is.
> 
> The "New Neighbour", one post, four year old thread and the link to a commercial firm gives it away.


Yep...









Cripes that animated gif is making me dizzy...

Ahhhhh... I think I am infected...










Ahhhh......


----------

