HWY Traffic act fines to increase Jan 2010

[El Zilcho]

Personally what i would like to see is a system of radically increasing fines for re offenders. Something along the lines of, 1st time offense of no seat belt - $200. 2nd time offense $1,000. 3rd time $5,000.

And which time will carry life in prison?

[thumpit]

"Do you still think that increasing fines for everybody is the right thing to do"

The actions of a few spoil it for the many.

Personally what i would like to see is a system of radically increasing fines for re offenders. Something along the lines of, 1st time offense of no seat belt - $200. 2nd time offense $1,000. 3rd time $5,000. I know the system already hands out steeper fines for reoffenders, but i'd like to see it escalate more rapidly.

"When you start ruining the lives of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens just to get to a few dozens of hardcore offenders, you reach a point of diminishing returns."

If your life is going to be ruined by getting a 2k fine, perhaps you should be cautious and make sure your driving within the confines of the law.

Driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't play within the rules, you don't get to play.

Will this lead to more drivers on the roads with suspended license's and no insurance? It might. Hopefully law enforcement will be able to weed them out.. but that would mean that would actually have to do some work and enforce something other then speeding. It's not a perfect system but it's the one we have.

If memory serves correctly, the traffic offense fines by annual income is practiced in most scandinavian countries and is highly effective.

Torren/turbodish..

"If your life is going to be ruined by getting a 2k fine, perhaps you should be cautious and make sure your driving within the confines of the law. "

All it takes is a cop having a bad day and deciding there was just a hair too long a yellow light showing that you went through, and WHAM. You're screwed.

"Driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't play within the rules, you don't get to play."

That claim originated more than 7 decades ago when pavement was replacing more dirt roads. Even before 'unsatisfied judgement' was deemed a legal means to avoid real insurance, and gasoline was a nickel a gallon.

Driving has been a decided RIGHT/necessity for ages. All the taxes and fines and dues and taxes on taxes on taxes (just think A/C excise tax as an example) dictate that.

[Gixxer6]

Just an FYI yellow means stop and carries the same fine as red.

This is typical of the generally malaise of the driving population who run stop signs (albeit at a slow pace... hollywood style), change lanes without signalling and hang rights on red lights like its their god given right.

The general observer would assume that none of those issues listed above were issues to be dealt with by police due to the abundance of use in our driving world.

I agree education beats monatary punishment, so how about this... instead of a just a fine the offender has 3 choices;
a)pay the fine
b)fight the ticket
c)take a provincially run drivers education course at your own expense which would remove the ticket from your record, provide you with valuable driving knowledge and potentially provide an insurance break, all the while making you a better driver.

Everytime one of these topics comes up, people on this site are quick to condemn. However, rarely if ever, does anyone offer a possible solution. In your schools did your teachers not preach constructive criticism...

To those asking about who creates the set fines, a quick google search showed that Annemarie E. Bonkalo, Chief Justice
Ontario Court of Justice, signed the new fines into affect.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ocj/e...10110sch43.htm

[82Seca750]

Fine should be income based as they are in many European countries, for the exact reasons many have listed here

Hit a student with a $2K fine for something stupid and you will cripple them, hit a 40-50ish year old making 60K, yes $2K hurts, but it will no where near cripple them the way it would a student making 1/4 the income (and I say a 1/4 being generous)

The 40-50 year old might have to wait an extra month before remodeling their bathroom, the student is now on a very tight grocery budget for the rest of the year

I don't neccessarily disagree with the income-based concept as an attempt to level the playing field of punishment....but how much more coin do you think the older established population have to give?

when you're in your 40's and you sit down and calculate how much money the gov't has taken from you in income-based income taxes over the decades, you start to wonder what the heck they did with your lottery ticket

plain and simple....we've paid more than enough already that's income based

imo (and this was suggested in the HTA 172 threads) to level the playing field for serious offences, the punishments should carry community service options........everyone's time is worth a sum relavent to thier income potential....and community service penalities could be easily targeted to the type of offense they've been dinged for

but that would mean the system would actually be trying to resolve behavior as opposed to generate obscene sums of money for the province....

and we all know that these increases have absolutely nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the idiots governing this province spending all of our money like drunken sailors to the tune of a 24 Billion dollar deficit and are now looking desperately for ways to increase their income

it's gonna backfire though (everything these Liberal idiots have done is backfiring)....and it's just gonna jam up the courts even more...just like HTA172....which essentially costs the system even more because the crazy high penalties mean people fight the charges and don't just simply "man-up"

regardless of what my income is....nobody can convince me that taking the fine for a seatbelt violation from $56 to $1000 in twenty years is nothing other than an easy Gov't cash grab.....and while losing a grand today is far less severe for me than 20 years ago, I still consider it a form of theft, and I've paid far too much outta my pocket in taxes to accept it

[Red_Liner740]

The way Ontario is going, more and more i'm asking myself....why exactly do i live in Ontario, what are the benefits? and more and more the pros and cons start to lean towards cons...

i'm coming up to a point in my life where deciding where to live is becoming a more and more serious matter. for one, Toronto is def out. GTA is looking less and less desireable, and Ontario as well...

[dankyyz]

If i was a professional driver, and my livliehood depended on my license, i would make sure i put my seatbelt on before i drive.

Removing someones driving license is akin to putting them in jail!?!?!?

:LOL. What can i say to that without getting banned......

Nothing. LOL. AWESOME ARGUMENT MAN!!!

That sounds like a communist propaganda. The reality is that for a lot of people driving is a necessity---they have to drive to support themselves. Depriving them of that is similar in nature to putting them in prison.

All in all, the punishment needs to match the crime.

[happycrappy]

That sounds like a communist propaganda. The reality is that for a lot of people driving is a necessity---they have to drive to support themselves. Depriving them of that is similar in nature to putting them in prison.

All in all, the punishment needs to match the crime.

You know, everyone on here is always griping about the charter, getting the day in court, etc. These upgrades to the penalty portion stay well within those concerns, and yet this forum is still whining about it. Have any of you actually spent any real time involved in the traffic court process? The extreme majority of fines/charges are reduced,dropped, given umpteen years to pay the fine, etc. How do you think they pay for all of this? The scenario of the "poor hapless student" being forced into a life of crime by driving without a license is horse ****, plain and simple. The court system is available to all, and even those without legal representation can blissfully take advantage of the courts mercy without fail.

In regards to the above quote; I guess by your logic we should just automatically hand out licenses on your 16th birthday, no test required? I guess we should get rid of criminal records too; after all, people will really have trouble supporting themselves when the boss does a record search. And communist propaganda? Please try to keep this in perspective.

ANY type of license is a privilege, and a high amount of social dependency will never change that. You need to meet a pre-determined standard of competence, and you need to obey the laws, period. You do not own your license plates, nor do you own your license. Comparing it to being in prison really shows how detached you are from being able to contribute any reasonable logic here. I think about all of the working class single income families with only one car in rural areas, single parents with no cars, families on lower income, etc, that have made out just fine over the years, and I'm embarrassed for you. Using words like "communist" and "prison" when discussing an increase in seat belt fines is, well, a pretty glaring example of why we need government.

[Icbones]

well no surprise that you applaud the changes.....shocker

I'm guessing you're a security-guard (aka wanna-be-cop in the waiting) because I don't think I've ever seen someone cheerlead all these HTA changes like you do......and I don't think most real cops wanna write tickets against people that are growing to the size of mortgage payments from what used to be a week's worth of groceries

either that...or you're a flag waving Ontario Liberal Party quack who seems to think that everyone's got thousands of dollars to throw down the drain over the fact that you can't manage your income and have a serious spending problem

yeah...fines are supposed to be a deterrent.....but these raised fines are a crushing blow....and that's not what the system is designed to do

Ditto. The Ontario Liberal government is continuing their war against motorists in this province. In my memory I can't recall a government that has had such a history of banning, taxing or fining things. These new fines (Under Bill 126, Road Safety Act, 2009) are nothing less than vindictive. believe it or not, we can thank these new fines on Tim Mulcahy, as well as every MPP who voted in favour of Bill 126, Road Safety Act.

Info on the act is at http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bil...atus&Intranet=

New bill tough on Ontario drivers
Huge increase in fines proposed
By ANTONELLA ARTUSO, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF





TORONTO -- Ontario drivers face considerably higher fines for not wearing a seatbelt or running a red or amber light while new license holders face tough penalties if they drink, speed or pack the car with their friends.

Ontario Transportation Minister Jim Bradley introduced legislation yesterday that would also allow police to impound the vehicles of any motorist caught driving while under suspension, drunk or without a required ignition interlock device.

The provincial government is proposing dramatic increases in fines for some serious driving offences.

FINE INCREASE

The fine for not wearing a seatbelt, which now ranges from $60 to $200, increases to $200 to $1,000.

Failing to stop at a red light would result in a fine of $200 to $1,000, up from $150 to $500; while running an amber light could cost $150 to $500. Careless driving will carry a fine of $400 to $2,000, up from $200 to $1,000.

Drivers who fail to pull over for an emergency vehicle could face a fine of $400 to $2,000 for a first offense and a whopping $1,000 to $4,000 fine and up to six months in jail for any subsequent offense.

The Road Safety Act responds in part to concerns raised by Tim Mulcahy, whose 20-year-old son Tyler and two friends died in a speed-and-alcohol-related accident in Muskoka last summer.

The bill would extend the zero tolerance rules for alcohol to any driver aged 21 or under, not just those with G1 and G2 licences.

New drivers would not be allowed to carry more than one passenger under the age of 20, unless they're family members.

NO LEEWAY

"You're not going to have as much leeway to get out there and use the automobile as a toy, as a source of fun," Mulcahy said. "Nobody thinks it's going to happen to their child. My child's smarter than this or my child would never do this. That's the way I felt."

Mulcahy's emotional plea for tougher young driver rules had a strong impact on another father of four -- Premier Dalton McGuinty.

McGuinty was making no apologies yesterday for his government's legislation, saying parents have an obligation to keep children safe -- even if they're 21 years old.

"Perhaps the most precious thing that we have in our society is our children, and that includes our older children," McGuinty said. "I think we owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measures, take the steps, that ensure that they will grow up safe."

---

DRIVING OFFENSES GET COSTLY

Proposed increases in fines for driving offences.

-- The fine for not wearing a seatbelt, which now ranges from $60 to $200, increases to $200 to $1,000;

-- Failing to stop at a red light would result in a fine of $200 to $1,000, up from $150 to $500;

-- Running an amber light could cost $150 to $500.

-- Careless driving will carry a fine of $400 to $2,000, up from $200 to $1,000.

-- Failing to pull over for an emergency vehicle $400 to $2,000 for a first offense and $1,000 to $4,000 fine and up to six months in jail for any subsequent offense.

[/INDENT]

http://www.google.ca/search?q=Ontari...ient=firefox-a

[FiReSTaRT]

The way our country operates, driving is a necessity for most working people. Some of you people are having pipe dreams based on the courts being ultra-nice and the constables always doing their jobs properly.
I have been in a courtroom where the cop asked the JP to wait for a few minutes before entering the courtroom so he can continue coaching the witness. The JP obliged, disallowed questioning any questions about the witness credibility even when the witness was lying through his teeth, convicted the defendant based on wrong interpretation of the HTA section (absolute vs strict) and even increased the fine. The court process is hostile and designed to make the defendant give up on his case and pay the ticket. With our current increases in fines, fewer people are going to fall for it. Too bad we're at the mercy of people with purely political appointments and no educational/work experience requirements.
As for cops doing their jobs properly.. In most cases they will, but too many people get nailed with bogus tickets. I had an HOV lane ticket just for entering it to make a right turn into a parking lot. I even had parking slips from the lot to prove that I really was heading there, but I was still nailed with a ticket. On another occasion, I entered the intersection (going straight, doing the speed limit, not slowing down) while the light is green. It turned amber just as I was clearing the intersection. That was a red light ticket that I had to pay until I won the appeal. Since I was a broke student, I would not have been able to afford paying a $1000 ticket and wait for almost a year to get it back (assuming the appeals court handles the case properly).

[turbodish]

regardless of what my income is....nobody can convince me that taking the fine for a seatbelt violation from $56 to $1000 in twenty years is nothing other than an easy Gov't cash grab.....and while losing a grand today is far less severe for me than 20 years ago, I still consider it a form of theft, and I've paid far too much outta my pocket in taxes to accept it

And yet again you're being deliberately dishonest in your characterization of the new fines.

Twenty-odd years ago you were given a seatbelt ticket with a $56 set fine. Even with the new increase ineffect, the new set fine for that will be only $200 (not the $1000 you're crying about) and if precedent is any indication, that set fine will remain at $200 for the next 10 years.

The $1000 fine you continually parade is the maximum possible fine for no seatbelt, rarely if ever applied and only then against drivers with the worst of driving records appearing in court because of being involved in the worst of driving incidents or collisions in which lack or non-use of seat belts was a seriously aggravating factor.

Unless you're that kind of driver, you'll lose only $200. Many of you would spend that much and more just going out for a night on the town.

If you are that kind of driver worthy of getting the maximum fine thrown at you, why would anyone have any sympathy for you regardless of your circumstances?

Regardless of what kind of driver you are, if you don't want that extra level of "taxation", it's pretty easy to avoid being subject to it.

[jc100]

A cash grab is something that no one can avoid. This is extremely avoidable if you are smart and think about your driving instead of subconsciously treating it like an everyday chore.

I'd love to hear the same kind of argument many of you are using transposed to other victimless crimes such as "dammit, so what if I fiddled my taxes a little bit...these fines are soooo excessive".

As someone else said though this should be extended to traffic light violations and bad driving that's actually dangerous. If we could get people out of the habit of shooting late yellows that would be a step in the right direction and I bet none of you would complain if the above measures changed driving habits noticably enough for the powers that be to revisit the speed limits on major highways and increase them upwards. Right now, they have no real impetus to do so as many bad driving habits exist within the general public.

[FiReSTaRT]

We get penalized badly enough by the insurance industry. 2 tickets for doing 5 over the limit can cost a person a couple of g-notes in increased insurance rates until the tickets fall off the record. If that's not draconian enough, adding another couple of g-notes won't make a difference.

[happycrappy]

The way our country operates, driving is a necessity for most working people. Some of you people are having pipe dreams based on the courts being ultra-nice and the constables always doing their jobs properly.
I have been in a courtroom where the cop asked the JP to wait for a few minutes before entering the courtroom so he can continue coaching the witness. The JP obliged, disallowed questioning any questions about the witness credibility even when the witness was lying through his teeth, convicted the defendant based on wrong interpretation of the HTA section (absolute vs strict) and even increased the fine. The court process is hostile and designed to make the defendant give up on his case and pay the ticket. With our current increases in fines, fewer people are going to fall for it. Too bad we're at the mercy of people with purely political appointments and no educational/work experience requirements.
As for cops doing their jobs properly.. In most cases they will, but too many people get nailed with bogus tickets. I had an HOV lane ticket just for entering it to make a right turn into a parking lot. I even had parking slips from the lot to prove that I really was heading there, but I was still nailed with a ticket. On another occasion, I entered the intersection (going straight, doing the speed limit, not slowing down) while the light is green. It turned amber just as I was clearing the intersection. That was a red light ticket that I had to pay until I won the appeal. Since I was a broke student, I would not have been able to afford paying a $1000 ticket and wait for almost a year to get it back (assuming the appeals court handles the case properly).

I can't argue that there are inconsistencies in every legal process, and that would include EVERY type of government regulation. But since we're on the subject, the fine structure has no bearing on that fact. Have you ever had to deal with other forms of government sanctions, where you don't even get a hearing until a much higher appeal level? You don't want to know what that costs, and it really hurts to know that even when you win, you have no recourse to recover costs incurred.
Whether or not driving is a necessity has no bearing on fine structure. I could go on all day about how in some rural areas, people would have to have a commercial license to have any reasonable prospect of employment, how a cab driver needs a good record to afford his insurance, etc. You get a couple of speeding tickets and you're SOL.
Hey, some cops are bad, and I am more worried about them exploiting a bogus criminal charge over a traffic charge any day. But what you need to accept, is that when writing a law, they have to consider the overwhelming majority. People that can afford cars can afford the fines to go with minor infractions. If it's not minor, and you can't afford it, don't commit the offence. I sure as hell can't afford a charge for doing a wheelie down Lakeshore, so I won't do one.
Your assertion of a court room being hostile is simply not the case. I'm not trying to disregard your personal experience, but I've got to tell you that my traffic court experience is extensive, and in the vast majority of the cases the crown is quite receptive to reviewing the case prior to being in trial. I've even managed to have a careless charge DROPPED over the phone on behalf of a relative. Your examples beg the question: were these people represented, or were they trying to impersonate Perry Mason in the courtroom? In a typically busy traffic court, I can see the judge getting nasty with the cross examination of a witness, especially if the accused is the one doing the questioning. You need to understand that court has a great deal of procedure to be followed, and one of those procedures is to speak with the crown prior to your case being heard. With everyone and their uncle clogging the courts with idiotic requests like "I need 12 months to pay my $48.00 speeding ticket", you can expect that the court wants you to be well prepared if you are pleading not guilty, hence the negotiation process with the crown. With regards to your last sentence, the "hostile" courts would gladly give you an uncontested year to pay that fine, no questions asked.

[happycrappy]

We get penalized badly enough by the insurance industry. 2 tickets for doing 5 over the limit can cost a person a couple of g-notes in increased insurance rates until the tickets fall off the record. If that's not draconian enough, adding another couple of g-notes won't make a difference.

I've really got to ask you where you get your information. Your samples are extreme and unrealistic. By the way, what are the odds of someone getting 2-5 over tickets? lol Besides, if your rates go up THAT much then there is definitely a lot more going on.

[FiReSTaRT]

I've really got to ask you where you get your information. Your samples are extreme and unrealistic. By the way, what are the odds of someone getting 2-5 over tickets? lol Besides, if your rates go up THAT much then there is definitely a lot more going on.

My rate went up 20% because I had a 5 over and a 10 over ticket. Now that was $480. Multiply that by 3 and you're just short of a g and a half. My vehicle was a family sedan and my record was otherwise clean, but I was 21-22.

[82Seca750]

The $1000 fine you continually parade is the maximum possible fine for no seatbelt, rarely if ever applied.

if it's rarely if ever applied, then why even bother changing the legislation to include the new figure?

you seem to trust that the Gov't and Traffic cops won't froth at the mouth with the chance to start dinging drivers endlessly with these huge potential fines......I don't have that trust...trust is earned, and this current crop of idiots running the provincial gov't and the OPP have lost every ounce of my trust

kinda like those poor fools (all 15,000 of them) that beleived HTA172 was put in place to catch head-to-head street racers.....and then they found themselves taking a huge pole up the rump when they blew into a clunky transition zone....geez - nobody saw that one coming eh?

mark my words....when the OPP do the first seatbelt blitz in 2010 with these huge potential fines....they'll be nailing everyone with the $1000 max

and I don't care if these penalties are easily avoidable (which I've obviously been capable of avoiding for 20+ years)......regular citizens are expected to behave and react to situations in a responsible manner....so why the heck should I support a Gov't and Police force that does the complete opposite

[jc100]

if it's rarely if ever applied, then why even bother changing the legislation to include the new figure?

you seem to trust that the Gov't and Traffic cops won't froth at the mouth with the chance to start dinging drivers endlessly with these huge potential fines......I don't have that trust...trust is earned, and this current crop of idiots running the provincial gov't and the OPP have lost every ounce of my trust

kinda like those poor fools (all 15,000 of them) that beleived HTA172 was put in place to catch head-to-head street racers.....and then they found themselves taking a huge pole up the rump when they blew into a clunky transition zone....geez - nobody saw that one coming eh?

mark my words....when the OPP do the first seatbelt blitz in 2010 with these huge potential fines....they'll be nailing everyone with the $1000 max

and I don't care if these penalties are easily avoidable (which I've obviously been capable of avoiding for 20+ years)......regular citizens are expected to behave and react to situations in a responsible manner....so why the heck should I support a Gov't and Police force that does the complete opposite

What would your suggestion be to re-educate drivers? People respond to the dollar in their wallet I find.

[FiReSTaRT]

Yeah, I wouldn't count on cops or courts having much mercy. These days emergency room tickets are already common. First you lose your vehicle, your insurance rate will go up, you need to buy a different vehicle, you can't work, you're injured and in a lot of pain and then a cop walks up to your ER bed and hands you a ticket even though he could exercise some mercy and personal discretion by not slapping you with another p.i.t.a. Unfortunately that happens almost every time these days, so I wouldn't count on the cops or the courts being merciful.

[dankyyz]

My rate went up 20% because I had a 5 over and a 10 over ticket. Now that was $480. Multiply that by 3 and you're just short of a g and a half. My vehicle was a family sedan and my record was otherwise clean, but I was 21-22.

Man you are just making things up. Period.

[FiReSTaRT]

Man you are just making things up. Period.

Do not feed the troll. This person is going on my ignore list, to join turbodish (so he doesn't feel lonely).