Careless Driving/ No insurance ticket- HELP!

[Riceburner]

You were riding one, so..... Did you have an ins. slip? Is any bike registered to you have insurance? Do you have an ins. slip for an s1kR at all registered with the same plate as was on the one you were riding? If it's NO to any, that's the proof.

Is it the officer's discretion to impound and suspend? You didn't get charged with stunting did you?

 

[Neil_V]

The claim could be made that one was riding friend Johnny's bike; he said it was insured, and here is his information. Now you'd have to be one hella good friend to go along with that.


.... on further thought, I'm confused and unwilling to read this whole thread again; did the officer take the plate number, or is that missing too?

 

[hondo79]

When I sold my bike I kept my plates, still have a valid sticker too. I could put those plates on another bike and ride dirty but I won't. I like paying low insurance rates .

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[mistersouthpaw]

Highly unlikely, if the cop thought there were evidence of further charges on any tape which may or may not exist, he would have reviewed it before he called the OP to come in, (he would lay all the charges at once, after all, there is no rush to have the OP come in, the officer had up to 6 months to lay the charges).

Again, no one even knows if there is video evidence, it was just something mentioned by a paralegal.

Oh true, was just a thought but wasn't sure.

 

[hedo2002]

Neither the crown, (DA is a USA term), nor the JP are likely, to inquire, about how he got the bike plated, (that would be an investigative issue for the police). Even if they asked, they can't "impose" any form of a penalty, without first laying a charge, If the OP has proper representation, that rep, would never let him answer an incriminating question, to begin with.

I thought an IVP database check was SOP. In the past I ran into issues getting a renewal sticker on my Mustang because the car was in storage, "withdrawn from use" in terms of insurance and I hadn't called the insurance company far enough ahead to tell them I wanted to put the car back on the road in the spring to update the database in time. The point is that the SO folks have access to this data; seems odd that they'd skip that crucial step.



If the DA or JP probes these angles and it hypothetically turns out one of them was how the OP obtained the stickered plates, how much more trouble is he in? That is, is there fines for fraudulently obtaining or renewing plates over and above driving a vehicle without insurance?



Would the DA or JP look further into the above?

 

[hedo2002]

Careful, how you proceed on this one. By your own admission the officer had you attend the station, at a later point. It is very probable, that he recorded the plate, of the bike and perhaps even the make and model. He doesn't need to "see" your registration at the time of the traffic stop. If you go with this line of questioning then it could backfire, (you have now by that question opened the door for him to state the make and model as well as the plate attached to said bike etc), and then leave no other viable defense motions. Think about it for a minute, he called you to come into the station, did he take your phone number at the time of the stop? He obviously had sufficient info to obtain your number and have you attend.

Just make sure you don't end up thinking you have an out, and end up digging a hole so deep you can't get out of it..lol That is why I still recommend speaking to a lawyer, rather than a paralegal.

As Neil pointed out you "could" have a friend, (who would have to attend court and testify under oath), that you were on their bike, BUT if the officer shows he recorded the plate and bike identifiers etc, then you and your friend "could" then potentially face much more serious criminal charges, (crowns and JP's tend to take a VERY dim view of this sort of thing...LOL). Of course I would assume from your previous posts that you intend to step up, and do things the proper way. Kudos for you.

The disclosure provides sufficient evidence to convict me of both offenses. However, I may have some point that may help my case. For ex, when the officer stopped me, he did not check my ownership; so how can he prove that the bike I was on that day was the same bike that is registered under me? Also, why did he take my license without suspending it or impounding the bike? And theres a few other points as well..

 

[yodude]

innocent until proven guilty, what about due process?! ..ffs

 

[hedo2002]

Have you read ANY of my posts? I have encouraged the OP to take full advantage of his rights, and options by seeking competent legal counsel, as well as seeking FULL disclosure, from the crown. Not sure how much more due process there is then that?

innocent until proven guilty, what about due process?! ..ffs

 

[Blackfin]

Have you read ANY of my posts? I have encouraged the OP to take full advantage of his rights, and options by seeking competent legal counsel, as well as seeking FULL disclosure, from the crown. Not sure how much more due process there is then that?

As well, the OP has already fully admitted his guilt on both counts.

 

[Ron Harper]

Long story short, I was hit with a careless driving and no insurance ticket on my motorcycle ( I was not insured). I know I shouldn't have been riding without insurance but I was an idiot and got dinged for it.

When the officer pulled me over, he did not identify himself and was aggressive in the nature he stopped me (grabbed me by my collar and started dragging my bike, bike nearly tipped over). He also Did not tell me what I was being charged with (also didn't ask for ownership or proof of insurance at the time). He asked for my driver's license and asked for my phone number and told me to come pick up my tickets at the station. He then left the scene (officer was on his way to tend to an emergency) without impounding my bike , forcing me to ride home without my license.

Two days later he called me and told me to come to the station to pick up my tickets (he had checked and found that the bike was not insured).

I know that these are some serious tickets and I have learned my lesson. What are the chances of getting them dropped? Also, any recommendations on good lawyers?

You have been issued arguably two of the most severe charges under the HTA and CAIA. Given that they were issued after the fact and that one offence is for no insurance, they will likely have been issued by way of summons.

Careless Driving carries 6 demerit points and is generally considered a serious offence for insurance purposes. Generally information can be found here and the specific section of the HTA can be found here.

Operate Motor Vehicle No Insurance carries, on a first offence, a fine ranging between $5,000 and $25,000 plus the 25% victim fine surcharge. General information on this offence can be found here and the specific section of the CAIA can be found here.

Your summons will list a mandatory First Appearance court appearance that must be attended by either you or your legal representative.

I have worked as a Provincial Crown Prosecutor, Municipal Prosecutor, and in the defence of HTA/CAIA charges in Ontario for going on 35 years. Generally, Careless Driving offences can, at a minimum, be negotiated to a lesser minor offence barring an outright defence to have the charge withdrawn or dismissed. This is of course dependent upon the facts in the case and the presence or absence of any aggravating factors. No Insurance charges carry massive fines, but can often times be reduced to a lesser amount proportional to the Defendant's income and expenses barring an outright defence or negotiated plea deal to a lesser offence.

I could certainly at a minimum review your summons and case history without cost if you would like some basic information and a quote on legal work.

 

[hedo2002]

From the OP's post, it "appears" the officer didn't go the route of a summons, as the OP stated "Two days later he called me and told me to come to the station to pick up my tickets" Unless of course the OP is confusing a summons with a simple "ticket"

You have been issued arguably two of the most severe charges under the HTA and CAIA. Given that they were issued after the fact and that one offence is for no insurance, they will likely have been issued by way of summons.

Careless Driving carries 6 demerit points and is generally considered a serious offence for insurance purposes. Generally information can be found here and the specific section of the HTA can be found here.

Operate Motor Vehicle No Insurance carries, on a first offence, a fine ranging between $5,000 and $25,000 plus the 25% victim fine surcharge. General information on this offence can be found here and the specific section of the CAIA can be found here.

Your summons will list a mandatory First Appearance court appearance that must be attended by either you or your legal representative.

I have worked as a Provincial Crown Prosecutor, Municipal Prosecutor, and in the defence of HTA/CAIA charges in Ontario for going on 35 years. Generally, Careless Driving offences can, at a minimum, be negotiated to a lesser minor offence barring an outright defence to have the charge withdrawn or dismissed. This is of course dependent upon the facts in the case and the presence or absence of any aggravating factors. No Insurance charges carry massive fines, but can often times be reduced to a lesser amount proportional to the Defendant's income and expenses barring an outright defence or negotiated plea deal to a lesser offence.

I could certainly at a minimum review your summons and case history without cost if you would like some basic information and a quote on legal work.

 

[Dougy]

^^^^Just curious Hedo.What police service did you work for ?

 

[s1000rrr]

Went ahead with a lawyer who reviewed my case. He's going to be taking care of my case. And in the meantime, It might be a good idea for me to get insurance before I get convicted so that I can ride for one more season lol. Btw, both tickets are summons... my mistake

 

[yodude]

for op
http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforum/showthread.php?200072-ALWAYS-fight-your-tickets!!

 

[yodude]

also sounds like you may have not pulled over, forthwith, when the 'pullover' ..went down

then cop went 'fast & loose' with procedures..

apparently, then ~ "grabbed you by the cuff & bike almost went down"

in whatever played out

undercover cop pullover maybe?

Long story short, I was hit with a careless driving and no insurance ticket on my motorcycle ( I was not insured). I know I shouldn't have been riding without insurance but I was an idiot and got dinged for it.

When the officer pulled me over, he did not identify himself and was aggressive in the nature he stopped me (grabbed me by my collar and started dragging my bike, bike nearly tipped over). He also Did not tell me what I was being charged with (also didn't ask for ownership or proof of insurance at the time). He asked for my driver's license and asked for my phone number and told me to come pick up my tickets at the station. He then left the scene (officer was on his way to tend to an emergency) without impounding my bike , forcing me to ride home without my license.

Two days later he called me and told me to come to the station to pick up my tickets (he had checked and found that the bike was not insured).

I know that these are some serious tickets and I have learned my lesson. What are the chances of getting them dropped? Also, any recommendations on good lawyers?

 

[Blacque Jacque Shellacque]

I took a tumble years ago in Durham Region when I braked too hard on a damp road. I slid down the road for 40 feet, and just before I came to a stop, I hit the bumper of a car. No damage to the car other than a paint chip. I was charged with careless. There were NO witnesses. My wife and I defended in court. With no witness to call, the crown and cop were unable to present evidence in the manner of how I was riding which led to the accident. In other words, they could not prove I was riding in a reckless or dangerous manner. The fact that there is an accident, is not proof of reckless or careless driving. You must ask the crown for disclosure well in advance of the court date. This will get you the cops notes, which will let you know if he actually has any evidence.

In Durham region, if you bump into someone from the rear, you will be charged with careless. It is their strategy to ensure they will collect some cash as almost everyone will take a plea to a lesser charge, usually following too close.

Have a look at the case law which set the standard for this type of charge at: https://www.canlii.org Regina VS Beauchamp in 1952.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support a charge under s. 29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act the evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in the manner prohibited by the subsection, viz., without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others. The standard of care and skill to be applied is well established, and is not that of perfection. A driver is required to exercise a reasonable amount of skill, and to do what an ordinary prudent person would do in the circumstances. The use of the term "due care", which means the care owing in the circumstances, makes it clear that, while the legal standard of care remains the same in the sense that it is always what the ordinary prudent men would do in the circumstances, the factual standard is constantly shifting, depending on road, visibility, weather conditions, traffic conditions that exist or may reasonably be expected, and any other conditions that an ordinary prudent driver would take into consideration. The standard is an objective one, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway, and in no way related to the degree of proficiency or experience attained by the individual driver whose conduct is in question.

It is not enough, however, to support a conviction under s. 29(1), that the accused's conduct should be shown to fall below this standard. Since the subsection creates an offence that is quasi-criminal in nature, it must also appear that the accused's conduct has been of such a nature that it can be considered a breach of duty to the public, and as such deserving of punishment by the State.


The offence of careless driving is of a quasi-criminal nature. It is something which goes beyond mere error in judgment.
It indicates a measure of indifference, a want of care for the matter in hand and an indifferent regard for the rights of others."


To support a charge under s. 29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act, the evidence must be such as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in the manner prohibited by the subsection, namely, without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others. The standard of care and skill to be applied has been long established and is not that of perfection. It is, I think, correctly stated in Mazengarb, op cit., at pp. 176-7, as follows:

"The law does not require of any driver that he should exhibit 'perfect nerve and presence of mind, enabling him to do the best thing possible.' It does not expect men to be more than ordinary men. Drivers of vehicles cannot be required to regulate their driving as if in constant fear that other drivers who are under observation, and apparently acting reasonably and properly, may possibly act at a critical moment in disregard of the safety of themselves and other users of the road.

Conviction quashed.

 

[hedo2002]

All good and correct info, but doesn't help the OP, as he wasn't charged as the result of a collision. He did something, that caught the attention of an officer. He wisely, has decided not to share what he did on the forum, but rather t share it with his legal rep. Hopefully he gets good representation and is able to report back with a successful outcome, on the Careless charge. He has already admitted he is pretty pooched on the no insurance charge as he didn't a policy in effect at the time of the offence.

I took a tumble years ago in Durham Region when I braked too hard on a damp road. I slid down the road for 40 feet, and just before I came to a stop, I hit the bumper of a car. No damage to the car other than a paint chip. I was charged with careless. There were NO witnesses. My wife and I defended in court. With no witness to call, the crown and cop were unable to present evidence in the manner of how I was riding which led to the accident. In other words, they could not prove I was riding in a reckless or dangerous manner. The fact that there is an accident, is not proof of reckless or careless driving. You must ask the crown for disclosure well in advance of the court date. This will get you the cops notes, which will let you know if he actually has any evidence.

In Durham region, if you bump into someone from the rear, you will be charged with careless. It is their strategy to ensure they will collect some cash as almost everyone will take a plea to a lesser charge, usually following too close.

Have a look at the case law which set the standard for this type of charge at: https://www.canlii.org Regina VS Beauchamp in 1952.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To support a charge under s. 29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act the evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in the manner prohibited by the subsection, viz., without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others. The standard of care and skill to be applied is well established, and is not that of perfection. A driver is required to exercise a reasonable amount of skill, and to do what an ordinary prudent person would do in the circumstances. The use of the term "due care", which means the care owing in the circumstances, makes it clear that, while the legal standard of care remains the same in the sense that it is always what the ordinary prudent men would do in the circumstances, the factual standard is constantly shifting, depending on road, visibility, weather conditions, traffic conditions that exist or may reasonably be expected, and any other conditions that an ordinary prudent driver would take into consideration. The standard is an objective one, fixed in relation to the safety of other users of the highway, and in no way related to the degree of proficiency or experience attained by the individual driver whose conduct is in question.

It is not enough, however, to support a conviction under s. 29(1), that the accused's conduct should be shown to fall below this standard. Since the subsection creates an offence that is quasi-criminal in nature, it must also appear that the accused's conduct has been of such a nature that it can be considered a breach of duty to the public, and as such deserving of punishment by the State.


The offence of careless driving is of a quasi-criminal nature. It is something which goes beyond mere error in judgment.
It indicates a measure of indifference, a want of care for the matter in hand and an indifferent regard for the rights of others."


To support a charge under s. 29(1) of The Highway Traffic Act, the evidence must be such as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in the manner prohibited by the subsection, namely, without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others. The standard of care and skill to be applied has been long established and is not that of perfection. It is, I think, correctly stated in Mazengarb, op cit., at pp. 176-7, as follows:

"The law does not require of any driver that he should exhibit 'perfect nerve and presence of mind, enabling him to do the best thing possible.' It does not expect men to be more than ordinary men. Drivers of vehicles cannot be required to regulate their driving as if in constant fear that other drivers who are under observation, and apparently acting reasonably and properly, may possibly act at a critical moment in disregard of the safety of themselves and other users of the road.

Conviction quashed.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I suggest that some people, who posted in this thread, read the sticky regarding such posts:

http://www.gtamotorcycle.com/vbforu...-The-Rules-Things-to-assume-when-posting-here

 

[Ron Harper]

From the OP's post, it "appears" the officer didn't go the route of a summons, as the OP stated "Two days later he called me and told me to come to the station to pick up my tickets" Unless of course the OP is confusing a summons with a simple "ticket"

The CAIA 2(1)(a) offence must be issued by way of summons due to the inherent penalties. While s.130 for Careless Driving may be issued by ticket or summons, it would be very atypical given the scenario for one offence to be issued by ticket and another by summons for charges stemming from a single incident.

 

[Ron Harper]

Went ahead with a lawyer who reviewed my case. He's going to be taking care of my case. And in the meantime, It might be a good idea for me to get insurance before I get convicted so that I can ride for one more season lol. Btw, both tickets are summons... my mistake

A lawyer or a paralegal? Normally most lawyers do not directly deal with this area of law. You may want to clarify whether your lawyer will be dealing directly with the Prosecutor and will be personally attending court appearances. If they are charging you their hourly rate as a lawyer, but retaining a paralegal to do the actual legal work, you may be paying a large amount of money for them to open your file and manage it but not actually do the core legal work for you.