|
What's it cost to fight a speeding ticket? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Euphorica |
Dude thats horse . You know traffic typically cruises at 120-130. So even if you are going with the flow of traffic and get "caught" you are gonna pay? that. going 100 would cause more of an accident hazard for everyone on the road and I see this daily.
Not to mention radar isnt 100% accurate or always working right. Sometimes they dont even use it and use their "judgement" . Its an option on the ticket. We have every right to dispute the charges . If you wanna be some big man and just pay it anyways then go right ahead. You arent gonna be doing anything but making your wallet lighter. So really the joke is on you and no one else. No one gives 2 s if you "own up to it" and pay. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Incorrect.....any infraction...including speeding tickets affects your insurance....if you speed you are considered a higher risk and therefore fall into a different category....yes you are right the points don't really matter as it's the infraction itself however, if you have lost your licence or it has been revoked then good luck getting insurance with anyone other than facility. |
that's what I meant...by "conviction", I more meant anything that shows on your driving abstract.
my point is that demerit points do not matter...infractions/convictions/whatever do. So when people say "I'm fighting it so I don't get the points", thinking it's what's going to save their premiums from going up, they're wrong. It's the actual charge/infraction itself that matters. If they reduce the ticket, it's still going on their abstract, points or no points.
If thye fight a ticket, the hope should be to save money, get it thrown out altogether, or have it reduced to a less serious infraction from the insurer's point of view.
insurers do distinguish between convictions, in terms of severity though, no? i.e. a 10 over the limit won't hurt you like 50 over. |
|
|
| Jem_hadar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Why? Because you can't accept blame for your mistakes and you are hoping to get out of it. Personally, I think if you loose your fight then you should have to pay all court costs. If you don't want to get speeding tickets then don't speed. That is the problem with society today....no one wants to take blame for the they do.....when you screw up and get caught then accept your punishment. |
Exactly. If you are speeding, then you're speeding. You're wrong (you did not follow the rules) - and, balls, you got caught! So don't act all indignified and like that it was unjustied that you are being called on your act of speeding - where you clearly know how fast you should be going!
If you don't wanna get caught for speeding, stay in the middle or right lane. You should able to do it to less of an extend there w/o causing problems by "moving so slow" as you said.
| quote: | Originally posted by Euphorica
:rolleyes:
cause the cops are always right and their equipment is idiot proof.
|
Man, if you're going 30 clicks over (and you know it), how are you in the clear?? Even YOU are aware that you're speeding. That puts you conciously in the wrong!
Saying that you should fight every ticket only means that you feel you shouldn't have to pay (even though you know the rules) and that you happen to know that if you fight, you'll prolly get away with your behaviour. It doesn't make what you're doing any more right.
Jem |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| well this is an improvement over his last thread 'What do you think?' |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
insurers do distinguish between convictions, in terms of severity though, no? i.e. a 10 over the limit won't hurt you like 50 over. |
Typically, No. If you are a long time customer then the broker may make the ticket "disappear" but that is very rare in this day and age. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Euphorica
Dude thats horse . You know traffic typically cruises at 120-130. So even if you are going with the flow of traffic and get "caught" you are gonna pay? that. going 100 would cause more of an accident hazard for everyone on the road and I see this daily.
Not to mention radar isnt 100% accurate or always working right. Sometimes they dont even use it and use their "judgement" . Its an option on the ticket. We have every right to dispute the charges . If you wanna be some big man and just pay it anyways then go right ahead. You arent gonna be doing anything but making your wallet lighter. So really the joke is on you and no one else. No one gives 2 s if you "own up to it" and pay. |
The thing is....maybe you should give a and own up to it. This is why I am a huge fan of photo radar on every bridge on every major highway. Set the machine to go off at 10 km/hr over and let the tickets start flying.
Just because everyone else is doing 120-130 doesn't make it right. If everyone else is killing dogs does that mean you should to and it should be alright.
Face it....you are just acting the way the majority of society acts...."It's not My Fault" mentality is what will eventually destroy North America |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| next time ur doing 131 in a 90 make sure its in oncoming traffic |
|
|
| *~LiSa-LoO~* |
| I went with POINTS. I don't know if you guys have that in Toronto, I went to it here in Windsor. It cost me about 150 bucks or something to get a 250 dollar (or something like that) ticket removed. I just remember it was 4 points. He was pretty negotiable about the cost. I told him I was in school and didn't work much...so therefore I didn't have a huge income and he was a bit more flexible. You end up having to pay close to the amount of the ticket I think...I've only had to do this once, so I'm not sure. But the big deal is that the points were taken off so it helps out with your insurance in the long run. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The thing is....maybe you should give a and own up to it. This is why I am a huge fan of photo radar on every bridge on every major highway. Set the machine to go off at 10 km/hr over and let the tickets start flying.
Just because everyone else is doing 120-130 doesn't make it right. If everyone else is killing dogs does that mean you should to and it should be alright.
Face it....you are just acting the way the majority of society acts...."It's not My Fault" mentality is what will eventually destroy North America |
There is one small flaw in your logic, which is that (according to traffic engineers worldwide) most people drive safely and the "safe" speed limit should in fact be determined by how fast the majority of people drive. One of the first principles of defensive driving is to go with the flow.
If photo radar could be made to be sensitive to traffic, road, and weather conditions and actually determine what is a "safe" speed by some kind of algorithm, then fine - however, arbitrarily setting the limit at 100 km/h, which is a VERY low limit, and using photo radar or any other automated system, is nothing but a cash grab and a denial of due process (one of the reasons it was disbanded in the first place).
I agree with most of what you've been saying here - if you know you are breaking the law, and you get caught, you have to suck it up and not bitch about the people who enforce the law. Photo radar is taking it to an extreme though, considering that the speed limits are already deliberately underposted to increase cash flow. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
There is one small flaw in your logic, which is that (according to traffic engineers worldwide) most people drive safely and the "safe" speed limit should in fact be determined by how fast the majority of people drive. One of the first principles of defensive driving is to go with the flow.
If photo radar could be made to be sensitive to traffic, road, and weather conditions and actually determine what is a "safe" speed by some kind of algorithm, then fine - however, arbitrarily setting the limit at 100 km/h, which is a VERY low limit, and using photo radar or any other automated system, is nothing but a cash grab and a denial of due process (one of the reasons it was disbanded in the first place).
I agree with most of what you've been saying here - if you know you are breaking the law, and you get caught, you have to suck it up and not bitch about the people who enforce the law. Photo radar is taking it to an extreme though, considering that the speed limits are already deliberately underposted to increase cash flow. |
I definately agree that the actual speed limit is too low....120 km/hr is ideal to me. Considering the increase in technology in vehicles and the fact they are much safer then there should be no problem with a higher speed limit.
Photoradar is the extreme.....but just think of the cash grab there...WOW....I remember when Photoradar was tried in Ontario before....it worked but only because the radio stations told you where it was located for that day and people slowed down. |
|
|
| DJ_Science |
| quote: | Originally posted by d!abolic
Got one for 131 in a 90 on the Gardiner :( Any idea what it'll cost to have XCOPPER (or whoever) fight it? Any recommendations for who i should go with? |
No offence but seriously, what the ? I have tried and tried to not get involved in your threads but this one has crossed a line.
You are in here all the time bragging about how you were doing your usual 140 km/h down the highway the other night. You finally got the ticket you have been asking for, for some time. SUCK IT UP, pay the price and learn to drive more responsibly before you kill someone! |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Photoradar is the extreme.....but just think of the cash grab there...WOW....I remember when Photoradar was tried in Ontario before....it worked but only because the radio stations told you where it was located for that day and people slowed down. |
In a sense it worked, but one of the unintended side effects of an automated system that is especially prevalent with red-light cameras, but also photo radar, is that some idiots on the road slam on the brakes every time they see something that looks like a camera. It's far more dangerous if people speed and suddenly stop than if they just speed.
I think the system could work if:
a) The actual speed limit was sensitive to road and traffic conditions (obviously it would have to be clearly posted on digital displays)
b) The system were also used to cite unnecessarily slow drivers (unsafe lane changes would be nice as well but that would be much harder to detect);
c) Drivers were given clear warning on the roads themselves, giving them time to slow down safely; and
d) The system were used as a means for actual officers to issue citations, rather than an end in itself. This would make it a lot like the two-man Lidar speed traps except that it would be more efficient and not require the "stake-out" officer, only the "chase" officer. This part is very important to mitigate the due process problem.
This way would actually make a lot of sense because it would still be up to the discretion of an officer whether or not to cite a driver, so there is a little more fairness in the system and people going 1 km/h over the limit wouldn't necessarily be pulled over if they were driving safely. The system would also provide greater safety at less cost because it wouldn't be necessary to post officers all the time - people would slow down anyway if they knew the cameras were there.
Of course, I'm speaking strictly from the perspective of traffic flow and safety. As a generator of revenue, such a system would be far less efficient, but I really don't think it's appropriate for any government to be using laws and law enforcement as a mere tool for revenue generation (that smells a lot like fascist oppression to me). |
|
|
|
|
