Beyond.ca - Car Forums



Home Automotive Forums > Beyond.ca - Car Forums Archive > Lounge > Society / Law / Current Events / Politics

 
Anit-photo radar licence plate fine?? - Click HERE for Original Thread

garybk
Just got a ticket for $345 for "posession of altered documents" for using a anti-photoradar licence plate cover. I got one a few years ago and it was called somthing like obstruction of licence plate and I think it was $72. I'm pretty sure I got the wrong ticket today. Can anyone enlighten me?

Thx
Gary
liquidboi69
PM Traffic_Cop he might be able to clarify things.
FivE.SeveN
WHOA that sounds alot more like "Fake ID" than "license plate cover"....

I call :bullshit: on that cop y0!
DayGlow
your license plate is also a document issued to you by the registry.
benyl
plus all the fines have recently gone up a significant amount.
sputnik
Originally posted by garybk
Just got a ticket for $345 for "posession of altered documents" for using a anti-photoradar licence plate cover. I got one a few years ago and it was called somthing like obstruction of licence plate and I think it was $72. I'm pretty sure I got the wrong ticket today. Can anyone enlighten me?

Thx
Gary



It isnt really a fine. Its a tax on stupid people that think that the covers actually work.

soupey
haha ive got a cover that works but its insanely obvious to anyone walking by that sees it, so i dont use it. i can take pics if anyone wants to see, its guaranteed illegal to use tho, damn car place in west edmonton mall convinced my parents to get it at some rediculously marked up price...lol
slickk
damn that's a steep fine!
garybk
I was charged under section 61(2)(b). I just looked it up on the queens printer website which states "have in that personís possession a document that is mutilated, defaced, altered or falsified". Now my license plate was in no way mutilated defaced altered or falsified. I will be bringing my license plate to court. By the way how do I PM Traffic_Cop? I'm a newbie. Thx all. BTW (Sputnik) I have been using these plate covers since photoradar has been around here and have never got a ticket in the mail. (Well I did get 3 in the 1st year before I found out about the covers and one for around $175, but that was between license plate covers). They have saved me mucho $$$. The 1st time they got me I think it was $72 and confiscation, the last 2 times they just confiscated them. A good $25 investment. Even if the proper ticket is $345, which I'm quite certain it is not, it is still a big savings over the years. Steep fine yes, I have an idiot friend who was caught sleeping drunk in his car running in the winter at WEM and he got a $970 fine, a year license suspension and qualified for the interlock program in 3 months because of his job. It tells you how serious the government is about drunk driving when the fine for that is less than 3 time the alleged fine for having a license plate cover protector!!!
topmade
I have an idea, it's called STOP SPEEDING and you won't need any sort of fancy license plate cover.
EnRich
Those plates dont work... I took pictures of them with my flash, and they dont bounce it or anything.... lies...
88CRXGUY
haha the covers don't work dumbass, its the spray that does...
Tyler883
Can that be defense?

"....Your honor, here's a picture of my plates with the cover on.......and you can still see the numbers."

:rofl:
googe
Originally posted by DayGlow
your license plate is also a document issued to you by the registry.



i find it disturbing that a cop just replied here knowing this was a BS charge and replied as if it were valid.

the license plate, while considered a document, is in no way falsified or modified. you gonna charge me $345 for carrying my registration in a plastic sheath too? thats the same amount of "modification". lets see some integrity here.

the correct charge, as dayglow knows, is:

53(1)(a) Drive / park motor vehicle / trailer without licence plates properly displayed

which carries a fine of $115.

easy win on your part, but shady move by the cop. gotta wonder how much money they bring in by fraudulently charging people that dont know their rights.

Toms-SC
Originally posted by 88CRXGUY
haha the covers don't work dumbass, its the spray that does...



Its does not, I have used it on two different plates.

garybk
Originally posted by topmade
I have an idea, it's called STOP SPEEDING and you won't need any sort of fancy license plate cover.



Why? I've been licensed for 27 years and have never had an accident! I drive for a living, that is why I need the plate cover, because of the miles I put on and the odds I will pass an automatic taxing machine. I am a defensive driver and have avoided many accidents that would have been caused by "idiot" drivers. In fact I have slowed down quite a bit over they years.

I just looked up that section at the online queens printers and found
53(1) Except as otherwise permitted under this Act, a person shall not do any of the following:
(a) operate or park a motor vehicle or trailer on a highway unless the subsisting licence plate issued for that vehicle or that is otherwise permitted under this Act is displayed on that vehicle in accordance with the regulations;

Where do you find the fines for the infractions though? Thx
:confused:

DayGlow
Originally posted by googe


i find it disturbing that a cop just replied here knowing this was a BS charge and replied as if it were valid.

the license plate, while considered a document, is in no way falsified or modified. you gonna charge me $345 for carrying my registration in a plastic sheath too? thats the same amount of "modification". lets see some integrity here.

the correct charge, as dayglow knows, is:

53(1)(a) Drive / park motor vehicle / trailer without licence plates properly displayed

which carries a fine of $115.

easy win on your part, but shady move by the cop. gotta wonder how much money they bring in by fraudulently charging people that dont know their rights.



You forgot the other stipulation, 'altered'. Using a cover to alter the appearance of a document issued by the registry violates that law. When the poster says he has a 'anti photo radar cover' I think of the ones that blur out the plate from an angle. Much different from a clear plastic cover of your document folder. Now if you place a picture or slip over your DL to change the appearance of your photo or info, then this will apply as well. You don't have to physically alter the surface of a document to alter it.

I personally haven't used this section, but others have and unfortunatly I am not familiar with the case law regarding this from the outcomes.

There are often multiple sections in any Act that can be applied to any situation.

googe
:bullshit: altered and modified mean the same thing. it doesnt matter what you place in front of an object, youre not altering the object. blurring something by obstructing the view of it isnt altering it, its failing to properly display it.
CMSbob
When I was at SEMA last time, there was a company producing a system that basically is a radar detector with a bright light or something like that, so when the detector is triggered, it flashes the light over the license plate spoiling the photo picture. It also is supposed to work on red light cameras... I haven['t seen them up in Canada though. Very doubtful on the legality...
Traffic_Cop
Originally posted by googe


i find it disturbing that a cop just replied here knowing this was a BS charge and replied as if it were valid.

the license plate, while considered a document, is in no way falsified or modified. you gonna charge me $345 for carrying my registration in a plastic sheath too? thats the same amount of "modification". lets see some integrity here.

the correct charge, as dayglow knows, is:

53(1)(a) Drive / park motor vehicle / trailer without licence plates properly displayed

which carries a fine of $115.

easy win on your part, but shady move by the cop. gotta wonder how much money they bring in by fraudulently charging people that dont know their rights.



I hate to do this, but I have to agree with Googe (LOL). The Section 53(1)(a) fits this perfectly, although the alter documents section can be used, its really a stiff charge for this. Go speak to the Crown.

andres_mt
Originally posted by 88CRXGUY
haha the covers don't work dumbass, its the spray that does...



really?? that stuff from speedtech?

barbarian
Was this one of those glue-on strips, or was it a frame-type of cover that bolts-on over the license plate? If the former, gluing it to the plate could be considered alteration.

Anyways, see if you can make a deal to get it reduced to improperly displayed plate.
garybk
Originally posted by barbarian
Was this one of those glue-on strips, or was it a frame-type of cover that bolts-on over the license plate? If the former, gluing it to the plate could be considered alteration.

Anyways, see if you can make a deal to get it reduced to improperly displayed plate.



Yes thanks I will. It was a clear frame that had the reflective part as part of the frame. My Quebecois RCMP friend, who had a difficult time with the english language :english: , confiscated it before giving me the ticket. (I have found Edmonton cops much more pleasant to deal with BTW.) I will be going to the courthouse, I always find that the crown prosecutors are quite easy to work with, they don't like seeing these things make it into the court room. They would rather see me give them $115 right then and there at the till as profit as opposed to receiving $345 with court costs, (judge, officer has to show up, etc ect) as that actually becomes a financial loss. And we all know it is about making money.

Now speed related fatals does not mean speeding or even that speeding was the only factor... of interesting note on the SPEED RELATED FATALS from: http://www.cartalk.com/content/rant...followup16.html

"As it turns out, all other speed-related data the government gives out is easily checked and is, not surprisingly, just as suspect. And yet Lee's despised "speed nazis" go on believing. In accident reporting, "speed-related" is used as a catchall, and when it is brought up to scare citizens, it shows up in 34 percent of all fatal crashes.

BUT, if you remove "speed-related," that ALSO includes alcohol/drugs, bad weather (even low speeds can be entered here), and the best one--"speed too low" (a real beauty, that--using slow drivers to make fast drivers look bad!), the amount left ends up being less than 5 percent!

Now, the problem with using these stats is that no matter how you look at them, they only prove a negative number. There are no stats on "successful speed." Even if the 34 percent figure is taken at face value, that percentage of fatals could still be only 1 percent of fast drivers. There's no way of measuring. It would be sad to paint a picture of fast drivers using only 1 percent of the total information, now wouldn't it? "

eblend
i don't know much about the law and all that and what you going to pay, but it seems like your dead stuck on speeding with all your facts and what not to prove it. Why don't you do everyone a favour and just not speed. Shit everyone has to be somewhere so suck it up and drive the limit. I am not the one to always obay the law myself, usually speed 5-7 over unless a school zone, but if you speed for a living, then maybe all the tickets you get are a good thing to hopefully straigten you out. I don't really like to criticize what people do to each their own, but your being very arrogant about speeding and shit, guess what, faster you go, less time you got, less time to make a decision. So for all i care please go on speeding, i just hope whenever it is you are wrapped around a pole you don't take anyone with you.
googe
eblend is wrong. speeding is just fine, this has been proven. you cant argue with the facts, plain and simple. keep speeding :thumbsup:

note the link in my sig!
Traffic_Cop
Originally posted by googe
eblend is wrong. speeding is just fine, this has been proven. you cant argue with the facts, plain and simple. keep speeding :thumbsup:

note the link in my sig!



UNREAL!!!!.....why not read this, I have plenty more and so probably does Dayglow. Why not tell this to those families, and the 7 year old kid.

May 27

It was a story that left even the most hardened cops with tears in their eyes. Rob and Lisa Manchester were out celebrating their 17th wedding anniversary when fate brought them to the intersection of Yonge and Stouffville Sideroad.

Also there that night - two suspected street racers. One of the cars slammed into the couple's vehicle, killing them as they tried to make a left hand turn. He was just 47. She was only 43.

But most tragic of all is the person who was left behind at home waiting for them to return - their seven-year-old daughter Katie.

"We have information that there was two sports-type cars, Honda motor vehicles that were travelling at a high rate of speed northbound on Yonge Street immediately prior to the accident," York Regional Police Staff Sgt. Gary Miner explained.

"It's just sad. You've got a seven-year-old who's now an orphan and people that are without relatives - it's just sad."

Relatives are now caring for the little girl who heartbreakingly kept asking police what happened to her parents.

A 19-year-old and a 21-year-old both face counts of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving.

garybk
You are comparing racing with speeding. I believe they are two completely different things. I drive every day, at least every weekday approx 100 to 200Km. I speed every day to make my day more productive. I have been doing the same job since 1983. I have never caused an accident. I am a defensive driver. It is not the speeding that causes the accidents and destruction -it is the errors in judgement, not leaving enough room to manouver should someone cut you off etc. Making completely sure it is safe to make a left turn... In your example if my memory seves me correctly - and please correct me if I am wrong - the Manchester's vehicle was making a left hand turn crossing the path of the racing drivers when it was struck. When I drive I give driving complete consentration. For example, when I am driving I am aware of who is in front of me, beside me and behind me at all times. If I have to do a panic stop because of the driver in front of me, the 1st thing I do is check the rear view mirror to see how much distance the fellow behind me has before he hits me. I have been able to pull over in the past to avoid being rear ended just because of the fact that I drive defensively.

Now I am very familiar with your example because I heard it on the news that day and it was on the talk shows for a while after that. My heart did sink and I am still very angry at this completely senseless insident. You quote they were going a high rate of speed. What speed was that? 20Km over like the average I probably do? NO. They were racing down Yonge Street at 140KM/HR!!! in an 80km/hr zone. That is 60kmph over the speed limit. Do you think this is an example of the average speeder? Say the guy doing the Edmonton Calgary run? OF COURSE NOT!

Now I woke up this morning to hear on the radio about 2 "accidents" in Edmonton. In one, two young people are critically injured, and in the other an 18 year old dies and the 17 year old driver is critically injured. In both instances it is believed they were racing. Short account of story here: http://www.630ched.com/news/news_lo...=news_local.cfm They also believe alcohol was a factor. Now this will go down as a speeding related accident.

I do not drive like this and and neither does the average speeder. I saw a guy coming north into Edmonton tonight on the #2 in a brand new mustang. I'm doing 125 and he is probably going 5 more than that but he is zooming in and out of traffic without signaling coming very close to cars, cutting into spaces not much bigger than his car. An idiot driver. If he got into an accident would it be the fault of speeding? I don't think so.
garybk
More on accidents story here.... http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edm...30/1710712.html :(
googe
yeah i dont know why youre using a street racing story to talk about speeding, they arent the least bit comparable.
brendankharris
Originally posted by DayGlow


You forgot the other stipulation, 'altered'. Using a cover to alter the appearance of a document issued by the registry violates that law. When the poster says he has a 'anti photo radar cover' I think of the ones that blur out the plate from an angle. Much different from a clear plastic cover of your document folder. Now if you place a picture or slip over your DL to change the appearance of your photo or info, then this will apply as well. You don't have to physically alter the surface of a document to alter it.



thats exactally what I was going to say. I would say it could easily be called altered. Or even defaced although the plate can be 'repaired' it is still not doing its job of being visible

googe
^which would fall under the charge related to its visibility - failure to properly display. obviously defacing it is modifying it, but he didnt do that.
Tyler883
Originally posted by garybk
You are comparing racing with speeding. I believe they are two completely different things. I drive every day, at least every weekday approx 100 to 200Km. I speed every day to make my day more productive. I have been doing the same job since 1983. I have never caused an accident. I am a defensive driver. It is not the speeding that causes the accidents and destruction -it is the errors in judgement, not leaving enough room to manouver should someone cut you off etc. Making completely sure it is safe to make a left turn... In your example if my memory seves me correctly - and please correct me if I am wrong - the Manchester's vehicle was making a left hand turn crossing the path of the racing drivers when it was struck. When I drive I give driving complete consentration. For example, when I am driving I am aware of who is in front of me, beside me and behind me at all times. If I have to do a panic stop because of the driver in front of me, the 1st thing I do is check the rear view mirror to see how much distance the fellow behind me has before he hits me. I have been able to pull over in the past to avoid being rear ended just because of the fact that I drive defensively.

Now I am very familiar with your example because I heard it on the news that day and it was on the talk shows for a while after that. My heart did sink and I am still very angry at this completely senseless insident. You quote they were going a high rate of speed. What speed was that? 20Km over like the average I probably do? NO. They were racing down Yonge Street at 140KM/HR!!! in an 80km/hr zone. That is 60kmph over the speed limit. Do you think this is an example of the average speeder? Say the guy doing the Edmonton Calgary run? OF COURSE NOT!

Now I woke up this morning to hear on the radio about 2 "accidents" in Edmonton. In one, two young people are critically injured, and in the other an 18 year old dies and the 17 year old driver is critically injured. In both instances it is believed they were racing. Short account of story here: http://www.630ched.com/news/news_lo...=news_local.cfm They also believe alcohol was a factor. Now this will go down as a speeding related accident.

I do not drive like this and and neither does the average speeder. I saw a guy coming north into Edmonton tonight on the #2 in a brand new mustang. I'm doing 125 and he is probably going 5 more than that but he is zooming in and out of traffic without signaling coming very close to cars, cutting into spaces not much bigger than his car. An idiot driver. If he got into an accident would it be the fault of speeding? I don't think so.



Another smart ass that thinks he's a better driver than everyone else so therefore the status quo doesn't apply to him.

googe
well if hes been doing it that long without a crash, he obviously is a better driver ;) 27 years of speeding all day and no accident, pretty much speaks for itself. if you feel endangered because someone with that record is on the road, you are silly.
Tyler883
I feel endangered when he starts preaching to a bunch of snot nosed ricers that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
nadroj23
Originally posted by Tyler883
I feel endangered when he starts preaching to a bunch of snot nosed ricers that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.



snot nosed ricers??????????????????? wtf is this, im confused, so everybody on beyond is a snot nosed ricers? whats your definition of ricers? hes just stating a point that the incident that Day_Glow said has nothing to do with the average speeder but a street racer.

in*10*se
um thread hijacked?:hijack: :hijack:
DayGlow
Originally posted by nadroj23


snot nosed ricers??????????????????? wtf is this, im confused, so everybody on beyond is a snot nosed ricers? whats your definition of ricers? hes just stating a point that the incident that Day_Glow said has nothing to do with the average speeder but a street racer.



One's that can't even read who posts what? :D

max_boost
haha oh man WTF is going on here. What happened to the good old days where you get a $60 fine for these infractions.
DayGlow
Originally posted by googe
^which would fall under the charge related to its visibility - failure to properly display. obviously defacing it is modifying it, but he didnt do that.



I think it goes towards intent. The person in question purposely altred the appearance of his licence plate to avoid detection/indentification of his vehicle. That vs simply not displaying plate properly, ie placing it in the rear window or having part of the bumper cover part of the plate.

Again I personally have not used this section for this charge and have no idea how the courts feel about it covering appearance altering covers for plates, I am merely stating the thinking behind the particular charge being used. BlueGoblin probably would know better if this charging section is viewed valid by the courts or not.

garybk
Guy stopped for speeding:

Officer: May I see your driver's license?

Driver: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got caught Drunk Driving

Officer: May I see the registration and insurance for this vehicle?

Driver: It's not my car. I stole it.

Officer: The car is stolen?

Driver: That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the pink cards in the glove box when I was putting my gun in there.

Officer: There's a gun in the glove box?

Driver: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns this car and stuffed her in the trunk.

Officer: There's a BODY in the trunk?!?!?

Driver: Yes, sir.

Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was
quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to handle the tense situation:

Captain: Sir, can I see your license?

Driver: Sure. Here it is.

It was valid.

Captain: Who's car is this?

Driver: It's mine, officer. Here's the registration and insurance.

The driver owned the car.

Captain: Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?

Driver: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it.

Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.

Captain: Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.

Driver: No problem.

Trunk is opened; no body.
Captain: I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glovebox, and that there was a dead body in the trunk.

Driver: Yeah, I'll bet the lying bastard told you I was speeding, too.:D
Fcuk
^^^
lol golden joke.
BlueGoblin
Originally posted by DayGlow


I think it goes towards intent. The person in question purposely altred the appearance of his licence plate to avoid detection/indentification of his vehicle. That vs simply not displaying plate properly, ie placing it in the rear window or having part of the bumper cover part of the plate.

Again I personally have not used this section for this charge and have no idea how the courts feel about it covering appearance altering covers for plates, I am merely stating the thinking behind the particular charge being used. BlueGoblin probably would know better if this charging section is viewed valid by the courts or not.



I never ran into this particular situation when I was in traffic court. That being said, I would probably have amended the information to reflect the charge of improper display of license rather than the alter/mutilate/deface one prior to trial. That being said, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily out and out wrong to lay the charge as the description of the offence may encompass the nature of the circumstances; it just is not the straight line from circumstance to charging section. It may have been that the issuing officer indeed felt it went to intent. I just probably would not have run with it that way in court. Some judges it may have worked well with, others perhaps not so much. It all comes down to articulation and if there is any relevent case-law from higher courts.

Just like how running a red light could be laid as either failing to stop at a red light for $287 or as failure to obey a traffic control device for $172. Because both could be applicable, you normally go with the charge that is more specific to the circumstances - the red light one.

garybk
Ok I just got an email from the govenment into my inquiry. Here's the scoop.

"The use of anti-photo radar licence plate covers is prohibited by Alberta's Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation, section 71, which prohibits the operation of a vehicle if the licence plate is not legible and clearly visible at all times. You may be interested in viewing the regulation at this link: Operator Licensing and Vehicle Control Regulation, scrolling down to section 71.

The current fine for the use of anti-photo radar licence plate cover is $115 including the 15% Victims of Crime surcharge. Fines may be found at this link, listed in the Procedures Regulation, scrolling down to Traffic Safety Act, Operator Licensing an Vehicle Control Regulation table.

71(1) No person shall drive a vehicle if the licence plate is not
securely attached in accordance with this Regulation, legible and
clearly visible at all times."

Now the ticket says I have to appear on September 21st. Can I go to the courthouse any time before that and speak to a Juatice of the peace or a crown prosecutor on a drop in basis? Its been a while....
soupey
i thought any kind of cover (whether to obstruct the camera's picture or just for protection of your plate) is illegal because it prevents teh license plate from having a bumped surface, if theres no bumped surface the anti-photo radar sprays will work, so to prevent that the use of anything on top of a license plate to make it a flat surface isnt allowed...

by bumped surface im talking about how the numbers or letters are raised...
JRSC00LUDE
Originally posted by Tyler883
I feel endangered when he starts preaching to a bunch of snot nosed ricers that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.



Wow, I'm a snot-nosed ricer because I belong to a respected car forum. I guess you must be a drug-pushing, overweight wanna-be gangster that never takes off his "Support your local red and white" shirt because you drive a harley? Grow up.

And get a real bike.

soupey
hmm so i took some pics of it
here it is
click for larger version
» Click image for larger version
and now its gone
click for larger version
» Click image for larger version
and heres the other side
click for larger version
» Click image for larger version
and now its gone
click for larger version
» Click image for larger version
this is what it looks like on its own.
click for larger version
» Click image for larger version

100% illegal. :D

also should point out that mine is really battered up, lots of scratches n stuff on it, when u buy it new they're alot smoother and harder to tell that they're on a plate, but if someones driving or walking past ur car, and they're lookn at it at an angle, u can tell its there for sure...that includes police...hence why i didnt let my parents put it on the car after they bought it...haha
cloud7
Originally posted by soupey
i thought any kind of cover (whether to obstruct the camera's picture or just for protection of your plate) is illegal because it prevents teh license plate from having a bumped surface, if theres no bumped surface the anti-photo radar sprays will work, so to prevent that the use of anything on top of a license plate to make it a flat surface isnt allowed...

by bumped surface im talking about how the numbers or letters are raised...



I believe you are correct, that any cover (even clear ones that's not intended to fool photo radar) is illegal can can technically be ticketed. However, looking at the amount of clear plate covers out there, that law is unfortunately almost never enforced.

garybk
why is that unfortunate?
black_radiation
Originally posted by 88CRXGUY
haha the covers don't work dumbass, its the spray that does...




hahaha only problem it turns your license plate yellow after 3 months... trust me... i came home and my room mate had sprayed alllll of our vehicles, and now i have a gay yellow license plate... which im sure is gonna get me pulled over, im realy good about speeding so i never thought about puttin that shit on lol.... but yeah like i said... gay horribly ugly license plate...

Tyler883
I was thinking about a hinge and a manual choke cable. A camera cant see a plate that is hinged out of the way.



Do you want to post a reply? This is a car forums archive, to participate in daily discussions on cars, visit our forums website and register today! Its free.


For the latest automotive news, visit the car blog

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.9
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited