Exceeding speed limit by >50km/h and being caught by photo radar?

[zither99]

It was an saturday morning ~7am with barely any traffic on the road... got a little excited and got 117 in a 50 zone by photo radar van.

Expected to receive a fine, pay it and be done. But no, hand delivered violation ticket with court date and no option to pay. How bad is this? What to expect? How to prepare? Any idea of expected fine?



I'm not asking a way out of this.


**********UPDATE************
Well I had court today for this speeding ticket. Before me there was some brown guy that had an even worse offence of 127 in a 50, (mine was 117 in a 50), and his fine was $1800, but after explaining he got laid off etc etc he got it reduced to $1500.

I talked to the prosecutor before appearing before the judge and she informed me the fine would be about $1600 if I plead guilty, and I could try to get it lowered. So I said I was a student, blah blah blah and got it also reduced to $1500. NO DEMERITS as this was photoradar.

[adam c]

well if you didn't post this thread they couldn't prove it was you

but now you're SOL

[88jbody]

well if you "were not driving the car" that day and had lent it out to a friend they cannot make you do anymore then pay the fine. especially if you had 2 or 3 friends over and let them each take a little drive round the block in your car, and none will admit who did it to you.

or this is what I would think happened and may be able to help you out, but go to the CP and see if they can do anything before your court date, if not go to court, use points or some one similar and see what they suggest or can do for you

[zither99]

CP?

[EK 2.0]

CP = Crown Prosecutor...

[zither99]

If i talk to a prosecutor wont they know it was me...

Also, this would be my first time. Where do you go see a crown prosecutor?

[Jynx]

Originally posted by zither99
If i talk to a prosecutor wont they know it was me...

Well they already think its you so i dont c what you have to loose..

[phil98z24]

Interesting that you were caught by a photo radar van and someone actually served a summons on you instead of sending an offence notice in the mail... What I'm curious about is what the wording of the offence is. If it something to the effect of "Being the registered owner of a motor vehicle did unlawfully allow blah blah blah" I would think they are going to ask if you were operating the vehicle at the time and if you weren't - who was? As section 157 of the TSA says, being the registered owner of the vehicle who allows someone else driving the vehicle to commit the offence, you are the one who will be charged with it.

You will be facing some demerits and likely somewhere around $500 for fines (from my experience). You will not be able to say someone else was driving the car, so unfortunately there is not really a whole lot you can do to prepare a defence. I am glad you are willing to man up to it and that you are looking to be prepared, that is a refreshing change. :)

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by zither99
If i talk to a prosecutor wont they know it was me...

Also, this would be my first time. Where do you go see a crown prosecutor?

Regardless of whether you want to perjure yourself and say you weren't driving(which I don't think you are saying you will do, just speaking hypothetically) the onus is on you to prove you weren't driving the vehicle. It won't make an iota of difference.

[zither99]

It's a violation ticket, Summons box is ticket and under is printed:
"I believe on reasonable and probable grounds and swear that the person named above committed the offence as indicated (and that i served a summons personally upon the person charged on)" With the part in the brackets crossed out by pen

And my name and such is at the top of the pink slip

[phil98z24]

Wow. With that information in hand, you were obviously identified by someone as the driver of the vehicle and are being charged as such... so at this point, you can go in and throw yourself as the mercy of the court and explain what you did, but unless you have a damn good reason or plausible explanation you are likely going to be fined and given demerits. As I said earlier, there isn't much you can do to prepare for this one.

[zither99]

impossible to have been identified.

thats why i'm surprised about this

[topmade]

Doesn't matter if you were driving or not. Being the registered owner of the car, you are responsible that your vehicle is driven in a safe manner. You will get slapped with a hefty fine and may lose some demerits.

If you are tight on demerits call Points and/or take a defensive driving course. If you have a good, record chalk it up as a lesson learned.

[rawsensation]

Originally posted by topmade
Doesn't matter if you were driving or not. Being the registered owner of the car, you are responsible that your vehicle is driven in a safe manner. You will get slapped with a hefty fine and may lose some demerits.


So let me get this straight if I steal your car and drive it recklessly and return it to where you left it, I can get away with it and you will get fined ;)

[sexualbanana]

I don't see how he can get any demerits for not being identified as the driver, only as the owner of the violating vehicle. I don't see how that's any different than the Registered Owner-type tickets that people get from photo radar that only carry a fine with no demerits since they can't prove who the driver was. Unless there was some extenuating circumstance like he was followed home by a witness or something.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by zither99
impossible to have been identified.

thats why i'm surprised about this

I forgot to ask you - what is the offence indicated? If it is something about being the registered owner, etc etc, than you won't face demerits but will have to pay the fine. That is likely what the offence is they are charging you with - being the registered owner of a vehicle allowing it to be operated in contravention of whatever particular act.

[5000Audi]

hmm seems odd.. ive gotten photo radar tickets and there has never been demerits given since they cannot prove who was driving the car at the time and also just a fine in the mail stating the car i own/register was caught doing so and so and you have to pay the fine.. this sounds wierd never heard of this before

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by sexualbanana
I don't see how he can get any demerits for not being identified as the driver, only as the owner of the violating vehicle. I don't see how that's any different than the Registered Owner-type tickets that people get from photo radar that only carry a fine with no demerits since they can't prove who the driver was. Unless there was some extenuating circumstance like he was followed home by a witness or something.

He will get demerits if identified as the driver, but won't if he isn't. However, this case is unique in that if he is charged as the registered owner and has to show up in court to explain things, he will be identified as the driver and the Crown may upgrade the charge to one where he can be dinged with the demerits. That is what I'm wondering with this particular offence is whether someone did ID him as the driver or whether the charging was done as RO.

[zither99]

160(1) Owner of Vehicle Involved in Contravention of Section 115(2)(P) TSA - Exceed maximum speed limit...


those damn friends of mine...

[ragu]

"I've put my car on sale and that day several people came for a test drive"? :dunno:

[sexualbanana]

This is where a lawyer will come in handy as he will prevent you from self-incriminating. You can try your luck by talking to the CP but this strikes me as a situation where you don't want to be cheap.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by zither99
160(1) Owner of Vehicle Involved in Contravention of Section 115(2)(P) TSA - Exceed maximum speed limit...


those damn friends of mine...

There you go - that is not you being personally charged with the offence and as such you will not be assessed demerits, but you will still have to pay the fine.

I do caution against trying to pin this on someone else, as there is nothing for the Crown to prove as there is no element to this offence besides you merely existing as the owner of this vehicle and being responsible for whatever it does regardless of who is driving it. There is a greater burden on you to prove you did not allow anyone else to drive it in that manner, which means you need exculpatory evidence to prove that. This is from my experience so take it for what you will - but a statement of "my friend had the car and I didn't know what he was doing with it" will not be good enough... unless something has changed in the past while that I don't know about. This is considered a serious traffic offence and won't be taken as lightly as other typical "registered owner" offences.

[96integra]

Originally posted by zither99
Where do you go see a crown prosecutor?

Big building on 5th in front of c-train...go to the 2nd floor and you'll find it. It's also on your ticket. Should be something like 203-S, 601 5th St...good luck!

[97'Scort]

AR4PGt9oOto

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by phil98z24
the onus is on you to prove you weren't driving the vehicle.

Traffic court is the only court where people are not innocent until proven guilty. It's a sad reality.

[BigDannyCool]

is everyone forgetting he was going 119 in a 50 zone? this guy should lose his license, and you're all trying to help him out.

[cam_wmh]

Originally posted by BigDannyCool
is everyone forgetting he was going 119 in a 50 zone? this guy should lose his license, and you're all trying to help him out.

I agree %100.

50km/hr = residential. The time is inconsequential, but I'll bite anyway & say that's a time when many of us are getting up & heading to work or heading out on our leisure activities.

This isn't 50 over on the #1 on Dead Man's Flats. IMO, this is a Dangerous Driving charge. OP, I hold no compassion for your situation.

[topmade]

Originally posted by rawsensation


So let me get this straight if I steal your car and drive it recklessly and return it to where you left it, I can get away with it and you will get fined ;)
For sure I would get fined as long as I couldn't prove you stole it during that time frame. But of course that would probably mean we know each other for you to get possesion of my keys, and that you're not a very good friend or relative!! to do something like that :D

[TYMSMNY]

Originally posted by BigDannyCool
is everyone forgetting he was going 119 in a 50 zone? this guy should lose his license, and you're all trying to help him out.

It's not going on the ROs record anyways. Pay the ticket and have your friend pay you back.

[rc2002]

Originally posted by BigDannyCool
is everyone forgetting he was going 119 in a 50 zone? this guy should lose his license, and you're all trying to help him out.

The guy admitted he screwed up already. He's just looking for some recourse now.

I bet a lot of people here have gone over 50km/h above the speed limit at some point or another. This guy was just one of those who got caught.

[megavolt]

I'm sure a few of us have tried 50 over on a deserted highway where the only person we would have killed is ourselves.

But I don't think many of us have done 69 over in a 50 zone... that's just retarded. :nut:

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


Traffic court is the only court where people are not innocent until proven guilty. It's a sad reality.

Not really. The charge is that the vehicle of the registered owner was speeding, which by law he is responsible for. Now for him to negate that responsibility he puts forth that someone else was in care and control of the car. He would have the owness to bring that person forward. The crown has a prema faca (sp) case under the law. The defence then has to produce evidence contrary to that case.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by DayGlow


Not really. The charge is that the vehicle of the registered owner was speeding, which by law he is responsible for. Now for him to negate that responsibility he puts forth that someone else was in care and control of the car. He would have the owness to bring that person forward. The crown has a prema faca (sp) case under the law. The defence then has to produce evidence contrary to that case.

Prima facie. :)

[v2kai]

onus?
lol sorry dayglow... everyone is nit-picking

so basically what you just said is, you were charged and you need to prove yourself innocent so...isnt that what gtsjeff said? just ...differently. youre guilty and you need to prove your innocence

edit:whoops prima facie, gotchya

[BlueGoblin]

You have to look at what the charge actually alleges:

a) That the accused is the registered owner of a motor vehicle

and

b) That that specific motor vehicle contravened the TSA

and that's it. That's the minimum that the Crown needs to prove to obtain a conviction.

The accused is still innocent until found guilty by the Court; It is simply that the necesary evidence is pretty easy for the Crown to put before the court.

What Dayglow said was that your defence to this charge still needs to be proven - unless the Crown has problems with a or b above. It is like any other court in the land; you can't just say, at your murder trial for instance, that you had an alibi that is uncorroborated by any other evidence and have the court be required to take it at face value.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin
You have to look at what the charge actually alleges:

a) That the accused is the registered owner of a motor vehicle

and

b) That that specific motor vehicle contravened the TSA

and that's it. That's the minimum that the Crown needs to prove to obtain a conviction.

The accused is still innocent until found guilty by the Court; It is simply that the necesary evidence is pretty easy for the Crown to put before the court.

What Dayglow said was that your defence to this charge still needs to be proven - unless the Crown has problems with a or b above. It is like any other court in the land; you can't just say, at your murder trial for instance, that you had an alibi that is uncorroborated by any other evidence and have the court be required to take it at face value.

And further to that, this is considered reverse onus where the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the accused and not the Crown... so in addition to it being prima facie which in and of itself means that in the absence of any other fact to the contrary indicates the facts in issue and offence would be proven (not that they necessarily have been, just that if there wasn't anything to prove otherwise they would be), that the accused has to prove the offence didn't take place as opposed to the reverse, which is how 99% of criminal and traffic law works.

Reverse onus, prima facie, and absolute liability laws are very rare. This is one example of such law, and the reason it has been put into place is because of too many people attempting to absolve themselves of liability when it comes to the way their vehicle is used.

[88jbody]

yeah good chance you'll be paying a big fine

yes I own said car, yes that is my car and plate number in photo.
No I do not recall if myself or someone else was driving the car at that date and time

pay the big ticket.

[zither99]

Originally posted by 88jbody
yeah good chance you'll be paying a big fine

yes I own said car, yes that is my car and plate number in photo.
No I do not recall if myself or someone else was driving the car at that date and time

pay the big ticket.

thats gonna be the case.

My friends brother got a similar fine on his motorbike, letter came to his house with no amount to be paid, they told him the amount in court. It was between $1800 and $1200.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by DayGlow


Not really. The charge is that the vehicle of the registered owner was speeding, which by law he is responsible for. Now for him to negate that responsibility he puts forth that someone else was in care and control of the car. He would have the owness to bring that person forward. The crown has a prema faca (sp) case under the law. The defence then has to produce evidence contrary to that case. Prima facie is a latin term that basically implies guilty until proven innocent. So thanks for chiming in just to show how little you know.

Owness...:rofl: Why don't you tell us about mistermeiners while you're at it?

[01RedDX]

.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Prima facie is a latin term that basically implies guilty until proven innocent. So thanks for chiming in just to show how little you know.

Owness...:rofl: Why don't you tell us about mistermeiners while you're at it?

Concidering I barely have high school and was bullied my whole life I think I done good.

Best you get a better understanding, prima facia means that the crown has enough evidence that they can prove guilt if no defence is offered. Big difference, the crown still has to bringthat evidence forward in court. At the start of the trial the accused is viewed as innocent. If the crown presents no evidence the case is dismissed. The crown must present it's case to prove the guilt of the accused. So if you offer no defence either by questioning the validity of the evidence or by presenting new evidence ( here the real driver of the car ) then the crown has proven their case.

The only way to be guilty until proven innocent is if you walk into the court room and the crown calls no evidence and you still get convicted.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by DayGlow


Concidering I barely have high school and was bullied my whole life I think I done good.

Best you get a better understanding, prima facia means that the crown has enough evidence that they can prove guilt if no defence is offered. Big difference, the crown still has to bringthat evidence forward in court. At the start of the trial the accused is viewed as innocent. If the crown presents no evidence the case is dismissed. The crown must present it's case to prove the guilt of the accused. So if you offer no defence either by questioning the validity of the evidence or by presenting new evidence ( here the real driver of the car ) then the crown has proven their case.

The only way to be guilty until proven innocent is if you walk into the court room and the crown calls no evidence and you still get convicted.

Perfect explanation for prima facie... GTS Jeff, though you may interpret prima facie as an implication that someone is guilty until proven innocent, you are wrong. That is your interpretation, but not how it actually works. Dayglow put forth a great explanation of how prima facie functions within our legal system.

[oilerfan4lyfe]

Back in the day didn't they used to take a picture of the front of the vehicle so they could kind of see what the driver looked like? Do they not do that anymore?

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by oilerfan4lyfe
Back in the day didn't they used to take a picture of the front of the vehicle so they could kind of see what the driver looked like? Do they not do that anymore?

Doesn't make much sense in a province without front license plates, does it?

They don't really care who was driving when the charge is destined for the registered owner alone.

[bart]

most of europe photo radar is in the front, specifically to identify the driver and hand out points. they blur passenger faces though. (in case your wife opened the ticket w/ photo and saw you were with some other lady you weren't supposed to be with lol) one example ;)

[BlueGoblin]

^ I know how it works in Europe. It is here that it makes no sense.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by DayGlow


Concidering I barely have high school and was bullied my whole life I think I done good.

Best you get a better understanding, prima facia means that the crown has enough evidence that they can prove guilt if no defence is offered. Big difference, the crown still has to bringthat evidence forward in court. At the start of the trial the accused is viewed as innocent. If the crown presents no evidence the case is dismissed. The crown must present it's case to prove the guilt of the accused. So if you offer no defence either by questioning the validity of the evidence or by presenting new evidence ( here the real driver of the car ) then the crown has proven their case.

The only way to be guilty until proven innocent is if you walk into the court room and the crown calls no evidence and you still get convicted.

"Best I get a better understanding?" Ok Officer Yoda. You're wrong though, read on...

Originally posted by phil98z24
GTS Jeff, though you may interpret prima facie as an implication that someone is guilty until proven innocent, you are wrong. That is your interpretation, but not how it actually works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

Third sentence in. :)

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff


"Best I get a better understanding?" Ok Officer Yoda. You're wrong though, read on...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

Third sentence in. :)

You know better than to use Wikipedia as a definitive source...

The wiki article is poorly written, though on a careful reread, it still refers to prima facie evidence. Once prima facie evidence is tendered, there has been sufficient evidence put before the court to secure a conviction unless exculpatory or other appropriate mitigating evidence is tendered. The case still has to be proven and therefore has nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

Checking a legal dictionary is a better option.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1598&bold
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm
(These are just two of many examples. They are American in source but the legal definition is pretty consistent here.)

[rage2]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Traffic court is the only court where people are not innocent until proven guilty. It's a sad reality.
You've obviously never been audited by CCRA :).

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin


You know better than to use Wikipedia as a definitive source... That's so 5 years ago. Fast forward to present day, and Wikipedia is pretty reputable so long as it's not referenced in published material. It's perfectly acceptable in everyday conversation and even informal research, especially at the level of "barely have high school."

But either way, we are descending into an argument of semantics, which isn't very fun.

[DayGlow]

isn't it sad that someone that barely got passed highschool has a better understanding of the underlying fundimentals of our justice system :rofl:

[Isaiah]

Not to be trivial but I find it a little sadder that some people don't have a better understanding of the underlying fundamentals of English.

[DayGlow]

I'll never argue that I have an issue with spelling. The downside ofusing my iPhone to browse the board is I can't rely on my crutch in a spell check.

If people can only focus on my spelling and nothing else, so be it.

[BlueGoblin]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
That's so 5 years ago. Fast forward to present day, and Wikipedia is pretty reputable so long as it's not referenced in published material. It's perfectly acceptable in everyday conversation and even informal research, especially at the level of "barely have high school."

But either way, we are descending into an argument of semantics, which isn't very fun.

You are right that it is pretty reputable, and for day-to-day stuff I will use wiki too; it is on the point at hand though that wikipedia lead you down the wrong path. By roughly defining prima facie as meaning 'guilty until proven innocent' you started the semantic argument.

[codetrap]

Maybe they did get a shot of his face.. either way, it'll be good to see the outcome of this.. and really, doing over 100 in a 50 zone? Bad driver.. off street.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by BlueGoblin


You are right that it is pretty reputable, and for day-to-day stuff I will use wiki too; it is on the point at hand though that wikipedia lead you down the wrong path. By roughly defining prima facie as meaning 'guilty until proven innocent' you started the semantic argument. Perhaps, but I refuse to perpetuate it. :) You know what I mean, and I know what you mean, so any further bickering is just bickering.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by DayGlow
isn't it sad that someone that barely got passed highschool has a better understanding of the underlying fundimentals of our justice system :rofl: Not especially. It's a part of your job to know the basics of the judicial system.

The fact that I managed to get you to admit to being bullied as a kid is a bonus for me (and the rest of the forum.) No wonder you're such a jerk nowadays eh? But hey, guess what:

NO MATTER HOW MANY TICKETS YOU WRITE, YOU'LL NEVER UNDO THE PAIN THE OTHER KIDS CAUSED YOU

[DayGlow]

:facepalm:

[codetrap]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Not especially. It's a part of your job to know the basics of the judicial system.

The fact that I managed to get you to admit to being bullied as a kid is a bonus for me (and the rest of the forum.) No wonder you're such a jerk nowadays eh? But hey, guess what:

NO MATTER HOW MANY TICKETS YOU WRITE, YOU'LL NEVER UNDO THE PAIN THE OTHER KIDS CAUSED YOU
______________________
The revealing words of one of the ogres hassling society with traffic stops:

Originally posted by DayGlow
I barely have high school and was bullied my whole life I think I done good.




Wow. Dude. That is just not funny. I hope it wasn't your intent, but you sound like a complete ass.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by codetrap


Wow. Dude. That is just not funny. I hope it wasn't your intent, but you sound like a complete ass. Wow. Dude. Guy. Whoa. Dude. It's not supposed to be funny. It's just that I'm sick of pricks like DayGlow taking out their childhood frustrations by just being a pain in the ass with his holier than thou attitude, on totally innocent people trying to live their lives. "Sir, do you know how fast you were going? You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign. How reckless of you, perhaps you'll be a safer driver after I take $120 from your wallet." And you know what, the only reason I'd be a "complete ass" for pointing things out is if what I were saying was true. So thanks for validating my statements. I just can't get over how textbook DayGlow is, to be bullied as a child and then just becoming a total bully himself to hurt other people like he was hurt. I can't stand it when people like him are so full of themselves and use every last ounce of their power to belittle others. Fuck that.

What I don't understand is where you think your brown nosing will get you. Out of some tickets? Or are you truly so misguided as to be a little sheep to someone because they're in a blue uniform? Either way, I don't feel any anger towards you, because you're not the bad guy here. You just have my sympathy for placing your loyalties in the wrong places. Dude. Wow.

[DayGlow]

I have a few wikipedia articles for you so you can better understand what happenned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

used in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasim

You really are dense.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Not especially. It's a part of your job to know the basics of the judicial system.

The fact that I managed to get you to admit to being bullied as a kid is a bonus for me (and the rest of the forum.) No wonder you're such a jerk nowadays eh? But hey, guess what:

NO MATTER HOW MANY TICKETS YOU WRITE, YOU'LL NEVER UNDO THE PAIN THE OTHER KIDS CAUSED YOU

Wow, Jeff, you actually thought he was being serious? :rofl:

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by DayGlow
I have a few wikipedia articles for you so you can better understand what happenned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype

used in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasim

You really are dense. Way to back peddle. You weren't being sarcastic about barely passing high school, which you said in the same breath as being bullied your whole life, so you probably weren't sarcastic there either. Proof? Look at how you tried to spell "sarcasim" into Wikipedia...:rofl:

[1997GSR]

:facepalm:

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
back peddle

You make fun of him for spelling "sarcasm" wrong, yet you don't know how to spell "backpedal." Pot, kettle, black.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


You make fun of him for spelling "sarcasm" wrong, yet you don't know how to spell "backpedal." Pot, kettle, black. If you really want to get technical, peddle is a the proper spelling, but just the wrong word. Sar-ca-sim is would be spelling the word incorrectly due to pronouncing it incorrectly from the beginning, kind of like a little kid saying a big word.

Anyway, you've really made the thread lame now by comparing peddling to pedaling, so I'll leave. Thanks for correcting me though; I won't make that mistake again. :)

[10secondpaki]

speeding by 50k? are you an idiot? Then come calgary based beyond.ca say and share it to all?

i am sure the court checks beyond.ca, ands its pretty easy to figure out who you are.


Speeding by 50 k is stupid. you should be in Jail. was this a playground zone too?

[DayGlow]

I can't spell worth shit. I freely admit that. You can make yourself feel big all you want looking over my spelling, but it doesn't change the fact that I at least understand the underlying fundamentals that I am explaining, while you are completely ass backwards, although with much neater spelling.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
Wow. Dude. Guy. Whoa. Dude. It's not supposed to be funny. It's just that I'm sick of pricks like DayGlow taking out their childhood frustrations by just being a pain in the ass with his holier than thou attitude, on totally innocent people trying to live their lives. "Sir, do you know how fast you were going? You didn't come to a complete stop at the stop sign. How reckless of you, perhaps you'll be a safer driver after I take $120 from your wallet." And you know what, the only reason I'd be a "complete ass" for pointing things out is if what I were saying was true. So thanks for validating my statements. I just can't get over how textbook DayGlow is, to be bullied as a child and then just becoming a total bully himself to hurt other people like he was hurt. I can't stand it when people like him are so full of themselves and use every last ounce of their power to belittle others. Fuck that.

What I don't understand is where you think your brown nosing will get you. Out of some tickets? Or are you truly so misguided as to be a little sheep to someone because they're in a blue uniform? Either way, I don't feel any anger towards you, because you're not the bad guy here. You just have my sympathy for placing your loyalties in the wrong places. Dude. Wow.


Ok. So, from this, it's clear to me that you do not believe in traffic enforcement. Nor does it appear that you believe in the current form of the traffic act. I find it hard to believe that a police officer will generally stop a "totally innocent" person going about their daily life to ask them about how much too fast they were driving, or that they failed to stop at a stop sign. I am a strong believer of personal responsibility. If you break the rules (in this case the traffic laws) then you have no cause to bitch about your interrupted day and/or loss of money as consequences. I also believe that if you feel strongly about something and you think it should change, then you should take personal responsibility to get out and change it. (grousing in a forum is not going to change it btw)

It seems interesting to me that every single time I've had interactions with the police, even when on the wrong end, it's been a positive, or at the very least a neutral experience. Yet there are people like you, that spout verbal diarrhea and pseudo psychological b.s. and use it to personally attack people, that seem to have had such negative experiences.

Jeff, I'm not angry at you either. I feel kind of bad for you that you've had such negative experiences, and that you've allowed it to affect your attitude so much.

[SilverGS]

I thought going more than double the speed limit is an automatic suspension.

In this case if the OP goes to court and admits to being the driver could the court upgrade the charge and suspend his license?

[BlueGoblin]

The court can only rule on the Information put before it* (that is the document which lays out the formal wording of the charge). In this case, the registered owner is being charged as such and not as the driver. In order to apply 'points' or a license suspension, that Information would have to be amended prior to the trial to become a non-registered owner charge charge under S.115 instead of S.160.

That being said, the court still has considerable latitude with punishments set down for a registered owner.



* Just to be pedantic, the Court can also rule on 'lesser included offences' incorporated into the offence in the Information - ie. an amendment wouldn't be required to find guilt on a common Assault when the Information was laid with an Assault Causing Bodily Harm charge.)

[Ruggzy_McTuggz]

Wow GTS Jeff... are you really that insecure that when someone proves you wrong you gotta go straight for the insults? You started the douchebaggery, DayGlow proved you and your little wiki page wrong, than you proceed to insult his spelling and the fact that he was bullied at a young age.

Kudos asshole, you are a true winner.

[GTS Jeff]

Originally posted by codetrap



Ok. So, from this, it's clear to me that you do not believe in traffic enforcement. Nor does it appear that you believe in the current form of the traffic act. I find it hard to believe that a police officer will generally stop a "totally innocent" person going about their daily life to ask them about how much too fast they were driving, or that they failed to stop at a stop sign. I am a strong believer of personal responsibility. If you break the rules (in this case the traffic laws) then you have no cause to bitch about your interrupted day and/or loss of money as consequences. I also believe that if you feel strongly about something and you think it should change, then you should take personal responsibility to get out and change it. (grousing in a forum is not going to change it btw)

It seems interesting to me that every single time I've had interactions with the police, even when on the wrong end, it's been a positive, or at the very least a neutral experience. Yet there are people like you, that spout verbal diarrhea and pseudo psychological b.s. and use it to personally attack people, that seem to have had such negative experiences.

Jeff, I'm not angry at you either. I feel kind of bad for you that you've had such negative experiences, and that you've allowed it to affect your attitude so much. Actually, I believe in traffic enforcement very much. I also believe in personal responsibility. Where we differ is that I don't contradict myself by saying "personal responsiblity" and then referring to the "rules" made by other people with zero regard to individuals and their "personal responsibility." Are you getting what I'm saying here? I advocate personal responsibility, as in, leave me the hell alone to drive, and if I fuck up, it's my responsibility. Certainly the police have a role in keeping the roads safe - but since when are certain speeds deemed safe or unsafe? And who decided on these speeds? And how are they qualified to judge me as a driver, my car's abilities, and the road's conditions? Why won't they let me take responsibility for driving at a speed that I deem safe? Do they have any idea what I'm doing? The answer is NO. They set the speeds not based on safety (because they have no logistical way of determining that) but rather based on revenue generation. But you know, that's the system and it's pretty tough to change. It irks me a little, but what REALLY irks me are the sheep who are blindly led to believe it. Do you stop at a red light when there are no cars in sight for miles either way? I'm guessing you do, so I ask you...why? Your only reason is "because it's the rules," or in fewer words, "bah-h-h-h-h."

Now you're sort of making an assumption here in saying that I've had bad experiences with the police. Au contraire, I am pulled over on an average of once per year and most of the time, I am let off with a warning. Why? Because I take the 10 minutes to act like a spineless bitchsheep who promises to be more careful (yeah as if staring at the speedo to stay a specific speed makes you more careful) and who thanks the officer for what a great job they're doing (yeah, the world is better place now that you've wasted my time with nothing.) The worst experience I've had with a cop was in Greece when a cop pulled us over and screamed at us in angry Greek for awhile. And that was more funny than anything else. So no, my experiences haven't been that bad, and I've received no more tickets than any average person out there, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. If a situation is fundamentally wrong, then I am quite justified in speaking out against it on a public forum.

[RedGallardo]

Originally posted by 10secondpaki
speeding by 50k? are you an idiot? Then come calgary based beyond.ca say and share it to all?

i am sure the court checks beyond.ca, ands its pretty easy to figure out who you are.


Speeding by 50 k is stupid. you should be in Jail. was this a playground zone too?

:facepalm:

if it was a playground, wouldn't it have been 119 in a 30 zone?

[10secondpaki]

Originally posted by RedGallardo


:facepalm:

if it was a playground, wouldn't it have been 119 in a 30 zone?

'
i didn't care to read his full story after i read 50 k over the limit.....

[mekeni]

Originally posted by 10secondpaki


'
i didn't care to read his full story after i read 50 k over the limit.....


:facepalm:

[chkolny541]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/c/ca/Fif.jpg

one, two three, four, FIIFF!!

[hamster_hammand]

Originally posted by 10secondpaki


'
i didn't care to read his full story after i read 50 k over the limit.....

I didn't care to take your reply(s) seriously after I read this

corolla type "r"

You seriously need to learn how to spell, punctuate, and get your grammar and abbreviations correctly.

Judging by how you write it sounds like you are a male individual under the age of 17 and should stay out of adult matters.

PS, I found your car.

http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/4051/img19670hz.jpg

[Preslow]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


You make fun of him for spelling "sarcasm" wrong, yet you don't know how to spell "backpedal." Pot, kettle, black.


ahhahahahahahahaha

[Moonracer]

I dunno if it's been said yet because I didn't want to read through all the crap. However, I do know that it is an automatic court appearance at 50km per hour over the limit so that is why you have to go to court. The judge will determine what you deserve for a fine/punishment. All depends on your driving history and the way you carry yourself in court.

[zither99]

Originally posted by Moonracer
I dunno if it's been said yet because I didn't want to read through all the crap. However, I do know that it is an automatic court appearance at 50km per hour over the limit so that is why you have to go to court. The judge will determine what you deserve for a fine/punishment. All depends on your driving history and the way you carry yourself in court.

I know that when being pulled over by a police officer and speeding 50km/h over the limit it is an automatic court appearance. I am not familiar with photo radar tickets.

I mentioned this earlier, but my friends brother got a photo radar ticket for 130km/h in a 50km/h zone on a motorbike and had the same slip in the mail. Once in court, he was fined $1200, but no demerits.

[zither99]

Originally posted by GTS Jeff
If you really want to get technical, peddle is a the proper spelling, but just the wrong word. Sar-ca-sim is would be spelling the word incorrectly due to pronouncing it incorrectly from the beginning, kind of like a little kid saying a big word.

Anyway, you've really made the thread lame now by comparing peddling to pedaling, so I'll leave. Thanks for correcting me though; I won't make that mistake again. :)

perhaps they do, perhaps they dont. Information given by me has been altered from the actual, including the speed the car was caught at ;)

[xxviet]

i did 150 down memorial ....deer foot -> 52nd cuz someone was trying to break into my sisters house or some crap and a flash went off...2 months later :confused: nothing.

[bart]

i'm pretty sure if you go REALLY fast like that they aren't expecting it so it won't catch you haha. on slower roads the camera is probably angled more, so going really fast will put you out of the frame by the time the camera snaps the photo.

[CUG]

Originally posted by topmade
Doesn't matter if you were driving or not. Being the registered owner of the car, you are responsible that your vehicle is driven in a safe manner. You will get slapped with a hefty fine and may lose some demerits.
What? Are you fucking high?

[jazzyb]

Originally posted by xxviet
i did 150 down memorial ....deer foot -> 52nd cuz someone was trying to break into my sisters house or some crap and a flash went off...2 months later :confused: nothing.

is'nt the usual protocol to call the police?

[gretz]

edit -

[HHURICANE1]

Unless they have a witness or a picture of you driving they cannot give demerits. Demerits are personal, however they CAN slap you with a great big fine. With photo radar they usually cannot prove who was driving so no demerits.

[gretz]

edit: -

[IhateDomestic]

You're fucked either way. Go and deal with it :dunno:

Then come move down to California...you will fit on the roads here. :bigpimp:

[alloroc]

Originally posted by xxviet
i did 150 down memorial ....deer foot -> 52nd cuz someone was trying to break into my sisters house or some crap and a flash went off...2 months later :confused: nothing.

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.
However at least two confirmed members of the cps have already contributed and answered all questions related to the OP's questions. Secondly if you look at the bottom left corner of every post you will see a date.

The last post before your post was on 12-04-2008 08:30 PM over two months ago, a general rule, let old threads die.

Thank you.
Now unless the OP has an update as to what actually happened ...



:closed:

[Quiet10]

^I don't get the rule mentioned above that you are speaking of... People generally get spammed with :repost: emotes when they make a new thread relating to a topic, and say that you should search a thread before posting. So what did he do, probably searched and found one from 2 months ago, and decided to contribute his story, which is not off topic either?

:dunno:

[texasnick]

Originally posted by zither99


perhaps they do, perhaps they dont. Information given by me has been altered from the actual, including the speed the car was caught at ;)

Ahhh....now I know that this thread is where to find all the people in this city who drive like assholes.

[zither99]

Well I had court today for this speeding ticket. Before me there was some brown guy that had an even worse offence of 127 in a 50, (mine was 117 in a 50), and his fine was $1800, but after explaining he got laid off etc etc he got it reduced to $1500.

I talked to the prosecutor before appearing before the judge and she informed me the fine would be about $1600 if I plead guilty, and I could try to get it lowered. So I said I was a student, blah blah blah and got it also reduced to $1500. NO DEMERITS as this was photoradar.

[sideWAYZ]

i'm pretty sure if you go REALLY fast like that they aren't expecting it so it won't catch you haha. on slower roads the camera is probably angled more, so going really fast will put you out of the frame by the time the camera snaps the photo.

The camera snaps three photos in something like 1/5th of a millisecond or something rediculous like that, its pretty hard to escape.

How long was it from the time of the incident until they delivered your ticket?

[lilmira]

Originally posted by sideWAYZ


The camera snaps three photos in something like 1/5th of a millisecond or something rediculous like that, its pretty hard to escape.

How long was it from the time of the incident until they delivered your ticket?

Mythbuster tested this myth. You'll need a rocket car to escape a photo radar. Not even a Murcielago can do it.

[zither99]

Originally posted by sideWAYZ


The camera snaps three photos in something like 1/5th of a millisecond or something rediculous like that, its pretty hard to escape.

How long was it from the time of the incident until they delivered your ticket?

i dont remember exactly, I think it was about 1-1.5 months