Advice required please.

[rcrenson1]

Got caught speeding yesterday. 82 km/h in a 40 km/h zone. It was on Avenue just north of Eglinton. The officer gave me a big break. He cut it down to 55 km/h in a 40 km/h zone, so only 15 over. I have a 250r. This is my first speeding ticket on my bike, second in general. I'm 18 years old, and insurance is already killing me. Not sure what to do with the ticket? Advice please. Thank you.

[GreyGhost]

I'd fight it. 44 over or 15 over doesn't matter for insurance, either one is a minor ticket. The worst thing that could happen in court is it gets raised to 44 over (unlikely) and you lose. That would still be less than $500 (I didn't bother looking up the actual fine). The best thing that can happen is you win and the ticket never happened.

As this is your second ticket within 3 years, you are looking at a 10%+ insurance surcharge (viffer correct me if I'm wrong here) for the next year at least, possibly up to 3 depending on when you got the first ticket. 10% on you insurance will be more than the fine. Fight it.

[unL33T]

Fight it. If it's less than 50 over insurance sees all tickets as the same as far as I know.

[HunGJaI]

I'd fight it. 44 over or 15 over doesn't matter for insurance, either one is a minor ticket. The worst thing that could happen in court is it gets raised to 44 over (unlikely) and you lose. That would still be less than $500 (I didn't bother looking up the actual fine). The best thing that can happen is you win and the ticket never happened.

As this is your second ticket within 3 years, you are looking at a 10%+ insurance surcharge (viffer correct me if I'm wrong here) for the next year at least, possibly up to 3 depending on when you got the first ticket. 10% on you insurance will be more than the fine. Fight it.

+1 Fight it...

your actual cost...44 over $317, 15 over $52.50

I don't get why people think they don't reverse the ticket back to the orginal amount in court...I believe it is possible and allowed.

Any ticket is bad for you, also for your age its not going to help your renewal next year...(For your bike or your car (Also on parents if your name on their policy for the car))

[FiReSTaRT]

Some see 45-46 over as major convictions but AFIK no insurance company in Ontario treats 44 over as major. Might as well fight it.

[rcrenson1]

Ok, thanks guys. But I'm sort of confused how I fight a speeding ticket? I'm clearly guilt of the act, how do a fight and win something that is theoretically impossible. I know how to set a court date etc. The confusion surrounds the idea of winning/reducing my charge, that between me and you, I'm completely guilty of? What if the officer shows up. What are my arguements etc?

P.S: He reduced the ticket to only 15 km/h over.

[FiReSTaRT]

Here's a very nice outline of all of the hoops you have to jump through http://www.ticketcombat.com/
There are ways to beat the charge.. The reason why we're advising you to fight it is...
If you don't fight it:
-You have 2 convictions on your record, your insurance goes up, assuming they're willing to insure you in the first place. YOU LOSE
If you do fight it:
-Same as if you didn't fight it YOU LOSE
-You take a plea. YOU LOSE
-You get the case thrown out. YOU WIN

Going to court and disputing the charge is the only way where at worst you'll end up where you are right now and at best you'll get away clean.

[TorontoBoy]

I'd like to ask why you were 42kph over the speed limit. so very close to the magical 50kph number?

I'm not familiar with the area, but aren't there schools and such on Avenue Road, and lots of traffic?

Don't let anyone say the 250r is "not fast enough".

[razorblade2099]

Ok, thanks guys. But I'm sort of confused how I fight a speeding ticket? I'm clearly guilt of the act, how do a fight and win something that is theoretically impossible. I know how to set a court date etc. The confusion surrounds the idea of winning/reducing my charge, that between me and you, I'm completely guilty of? What if the officer shows up. What are my arguements etc?

P.S: He reduced the ticket to only 15 km/h over.

When people say fight the ticket, they don't usually mean to go to trial. What they mean is set a court date, ask for disclosure, and hope something in the system goes wrong to throw the case out.

It could be the cop doesn't show, you win.

Information was missing on the disclosure, or incorrect information. Go to the trial date and request to delay the trial to a later date because of the missing info and hope the officer doesn't show up for the second trial date. You can possibly win.

Cop shows up, disclosure is perfect, you take a plea bargain and get the charges/fine reduced. You lose, but it's less of a loss than if you just plead guilty straight away and paid the fine.

[DemonPig]

I'd fight it. 44 over or 15 over doesn't matter for insurance, either one is a minor ticket. The worst thing that could happen in court is it gets raised to 44 over (unlikely) and you lose. ...

Not that I deny it but how is that scenario possible? The charge on the ticket is 15km/h over so how can it get raised?

[shicksr6]

Not that I deny it but how is that scenario possible? The charge on the ticket is 15km/h over so how can it get raised?

Because the officer will state in his notes that he was already being kind that day and knocked it down. Most prosecutors will charge you with the original fine at 44 over instead of the already reduced number.

[Hellbound]

Because the officer will state in his notes that he was already being kind that day and knocked it down. Most prosecutors will charge you with the original fine at 44 over instead of the already reduced number.

But do they charge you monetarily only, or does it bring back the points that 15 over doesn't have?

[HunGJaI]

But do they charge you monetarily only, or does it bring back the points that 15 over doesn't have?

Since your being charged for going 44 over...

it will be that plus the 4 demit points that come along with it.

[MarcosSantiago]

Because the officer will state in his notes that he was already being kind that day and knocked it down. Most prosecutors will charge you with the original fine at 44 over instead of the already reduced number.

Source?

[gnatwest]

On a reduced charge there is an R on the copy of the ticket your receive.

In the Officers notes it will say (example)

Red Honda, Radar noted speed of 82kph. Identified driver etc, etc. Reduced offence of 65 kph in a 50 kph zone. etc etc

The prosecutor has evidence that you were in fact going faster than 15kph over the limit and could prosecute according to that evidence. It is not guaranteed that they will.

Be aware that the prosecutor can and will lie to you in hopes you will plea bargain. No matter what say you wish to plead not guilty.

[GreyGhost]

On the ticket there will be an R. If the R is circled, that means the charge was reduced roadside. The notes will include the original speed. It is at the prosecutors discretion whether to upgrade you to the original charge when you show up to court.

I could be wrong, but in a previous discussion, I don't think the R has to be circled, I think the officers notes can be used to raise the ticket even if there is no indication on the ticket that it was reduced.

4 demerit points don't really matter. If you are getting caught often enough that points matter, you won't be able to afford bike insurance very quickly.

[MarcosSantiago]

On the ticket there will be an R. If the R is circled, that means the charge was reduced roadside. The notes will include the original speed. It is at the prosecutors discretion whether to upgrade you to the original charge when you show up to court.

I could be wrong, but in a previous discussion, I don't think the R has to be circled, I think the officers notes can be used to raise the ticket even if there is no indication on the ticket that it was reduced.

4 demerit points don't really matter. If you are getting caught often enough that points matter, you won't be able to afford bike insurance very quickly.

We are talking about slightly different things here.

Once in court, it is not up to the cop (the witness) to amend the charge.

It is NOT at the prosecutors' discretion to amend the charge either.

In court, the prosecutor may ask the Justice of the Peace to put the original speed back in the charge... the JP can grant or deny that request.

I read more and more references to that in this forum - like above, that say "most prosecutors do it" (most? where did the information come from?).

But it boils down to this >>> if the officer, or prosecutor, or clerk at the court house, mention that if you fight the ticket, they will put the charge back up to the original speed, it can be considered pressure (to use a nice word) so drivers do not exercise their constitutional right to a trial.

[Rob MacLennan]

The simple truth is that most Crowns DON'T do it, but it's possible for the charge to be amended.

[FiReSTaRT]

In any case, points don't matter unless you need a clean abstract to keep your job or your driving/riding style is so enthusiastic that you're racking them in every chance you get.

[MarcosSantiago]

The simple truth is that most Crowns DON'T do it, but it's possible for the charge to be amended.

I have been reading lately about how to appeal a traffic ticket conviction.


Yes, the charge can be amended, but then it gives the defendant grounds for an appeal, and most likely the ticket would be dismissed at the appeal hearing. It is fundamental Charter of Rights and Freedoms







Section Eleven (a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;

Going to court and getting convicted of a different charge than what appears on the ticket is just plain wrong. They cannot tell you half way into the proceedings : "Oh, by the way, we are changing the nature of the charge"...

11(a) covers "economic prejudice" as well, as ruled by the Supreme Court. For example, this means that a defendant may argue that, had he been informed sooner, within a reasonable time, of the information laid against him, he would never have decided to go to court by himself, but in light of a more severe charge (that has a higher financial impact on the defendant), he would have decided to hire a lawyer.

If they don't inform him of the most severe charge "within a reasonable time", his rights have been violated

R. v. Delaronde, 1997 CanLII 404 (S.C.C.)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...canlii404.html