Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help! | Page 6 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Got caught going 166 km/h on highway. Need help!

Zangief said:
Great advice man thanks!

Do I need to have a lawyer BEFORE I meet with the prosecution or after?
Click to expand...

Not sure... one thing I am sure of though is this.

DON'T speak with the crown UNTIL after you have your court date set. Now I doubt things in Halton will be as backlogged as Toronto, but hey you never know. If you happen to go past that 13month or so period before you go to trial, then maybe you can get off on an 11b (took too long). Problem is if you talk to the crown before your court date, then that can push back you court date which means getting off on an 11b is almost completely unlikely.

As far as speaking with the crown..... this is where someone with more experience might be able to chime in. If you can go on your own and if that doesn't work out have your representative go do the talking, then I'd say no problem. However, if they don't want to listen to the story more than once, then you're better off sending your representation in there first. I just don't know if you can talk to them multiple times or not.

BTW - Grimy or Grimmy (sp?) put up a post some time ago, detailing how to go after the tow trucks/impound lots if they over charge you. You might want to dig that up.
 
Zangief said:
Great advice man thanks!

Do I need to have a lawyer BEFORE I meet with the prosecution or after?
Click to expand...

You definitely want to have representation, before speaking to The Crown. You also want your representative to do the talking, for you.
 
turbodish said:
The arguments fall apart quickly enough.

That impaired person that you speak of as being "impaired" at the time of stop is given 90 days of pretrial suspension in which to sober up. How many people do you know who require 90 days to sober up from even a serious bender? Clearly they should be sober enough to be permitted to drive after no more than 12 or 24 hours, yet the 90 days is the measure in place.

The vehicle operated by the driver under ban could actually be owned by another person, but the mandatory 45-day impound remains in effect for that vehicle's owner even if that owner had an impeccable personal driving record had not personally committed any another offence, or shown any obvious disdain for the legal process.

Despite those counterarguments, the higher courts still did not see fit to overturn Ontario's or any other province's traffic laws pertaining to roadside administrative license suspensions or vehicle impoundments, and they've had some twenty or more years to do it.

In the case of dealing with extreme speeders and other forms of stunting or street racing, I think if need be the government can easily enough argue the greater benefit to society in legislating a strong deterrent against such driving.
Click to expand...

Hardly. The issue of impaired operation involves both physical impairment, and addiction. There's decades of science and political pressure, from groups like MADD, to support it. You constantly try to equate these two issues, when they clearly bear no resemblance to each other. THAT is where things quickly fall apart ;)

Still, to my mind the 90 day suspension isn't warranted, until the subject has demonstrated a propensity for the act. Law shouldn't be applied like insurance rate demographics.
 
Baggsy said:
turbo usually gives good advice, its just way too late to undo anything, or help with the current situation.
Click to expand...

Really, when did that ever happened? His replies usually sound like a blue line manual .... He also rides motorcycle and has never had been caught speeding once in his life. What exactly do you propose he could/would should undo in this scenario? Don't go 166 or maybe don't go 144 as tons of people do on every major hwy in Ontario??? It's just ridiculous ....
 
mxs said:
Really, when did that ever happened? His replies usually sound like a blue line manual .... He also rides motorcycle and has never had been caught speeding once in his life. What exactly do you propose he could/would should undo in this scenario? Don't go 166 or maybe don't go 144 as tons of people do on every major hwy in Ontario??? It's just ridiculous ....
Click to expand...

Which is precisely the sort of advice that someone, who is here looking for help, really doesn't need.
 
Zangief said:
2) He said that he was about to pull a car over for not having headlights on during the night.
Click to expand...

Another distraction. Another thought is that it is still somewhat light out at 9:30 - it is most difficult to judge distance - nothing really stands out and everything seems obscured/camoflaged in to the background.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
And I didn't say that you did.

.... in this instance.
Click to expand...

nah.....all he offered in his initial response was a "nice catch" for the coppers and told the OP that he would pay, pay, pay, pay and keep paying

totally helpful

every reasonable person says lawyer up and he encourages the OP to go it alone

the guy is totally bent
 
82Seca750 said:
nah.....all he offered in his initial response was a "nice catch" for the coppers and told the OP that he would pay, pay, pay, pay and keep paying
totally helpful
Click to expand...
Which were the direct answers to the OP's initial questions, whether pacing would stand up, and what the actual penalties were.

82Seca750 said:
every reasonable person says lawyer up and he encourages the OP to go it alone

the guy is totally bent
Click to expand...
I think I was the first person who suggested that he would probably want to go out and get a lawyer, but doing that will cost him big dollars that he doesn't necessarily need to spend.

He doesn't need a lawyer to informally test the waters with a Crown. The OP says his driving record is clean, and that will work to his advantage in dealing with the Crown. In testing the waters, he doesn't have to give a song and dance or admit guilt. He just has to pose an informal what-can-you-offer-if-I-plead-guilty-to-something-less question to the Crown now well ahead of his scheduled appearance date. The worst that can happen is the Crown says no deal, in which case he gets a lawyer.

But let's stick with the lawyer angle that everyone is pushing. He will need a lawyer to actually fight in court on his behalf. Given the type of charge, fighting is going to be a big gamble.

It will cost more money to hire a lawyer just to enter the fight than it would to pay a bargained-down 49-over speeding ticket.

The lawyer may be able to plea bargain such a deal ahead of trial, in which case the OP will pay the cost of a lawyer AND the fine on the plea-bargained charge, one that he probably could arrange himself.

If the lawyer does not work out a plea bargain, the OP may have to pay even bigger bucks for the lawyer to actually appear for full trial. Even if the lawyer then wins an outright acquittal, which is something I wouldn't bet money on, the OP is out hefty legal fees far in excess of a plea-bargained speeding ticket.

If the lawyer is not successful and the OP is convicted on the original charge, the costs then go WAY up, and I really doubt that any of the fight-fight-fight-crowd heroes here are going to put up one red cent to help the OP financially if that quite-probable outcome should come to pass.

So who exactly is totally bent? The one suggesting a low-cost way to quickly end matters, or those who are encouraging him to spend big dollars and put it all down on the line with really questionable odds of winning? :rolleyes:
 
turbodish said:
Which were the direct answers to the OP's initial questions, whether pacing would stand up, and what the actual penalties were.


I think I was the first person who suggested that he would probably want to go out and get a lawyer, but doing that will cost him big dollars that he doesn't necessarily need to spend.

He doesn't need a lawyer to informally test the waters with a Crown. The OP says his driving record is clean, and that will work to his advantage in dealing with the Crown. In testing the waters, he doesn't have to give a song and dance or admit guilt. He just has to pose an informal what-can-you-offer-if-I-plead-guilty-to-something-less question to the Crown now well ahead of his scheduled appearance date. The worst that can happen is the Crown says no deal, in which case he gets a lawyer.

But let's stick with the lawyer angle that everyone is pushing. He will need a lawyer to actually fight in court on his behalf. Given the type of charge, fighting is going to be a big gamble.

It will cost more money to hire a lawyer just to enter the fight than it would to pay a bargained-down 49-over speeding ticket.

The lawyer may be able to plea bargain such a deal ahead of trial, in which case the OP will pay the cost of a lawyer AND the fine on the plea-bargained charge, one that he probably could arrange himself.

If the lawyer does not work out a plea bargain, the OP may have to pay even bigger bucks for the lawyer to actually appear for full trial. Even if the lawyer then wins an outright acquittal, which is something I wouldn't bet money on, the OP is out hefty legal fees far in excess of a plea-bargained speeding ticket.

If the lawyer is not successful and the OP is convicted on the original charge, the costs then go WAY up, and I really doubt that any of the fight-fight-fight-crowd heroes here are going to put up one red cent to help the OP financially if that quite-probable outcome should come to pass.

So who exactly is totally bent? The one suggesting a low-cost way to quickly end matters, or those who are encouraging him to spend big dollars and put it all down on the line with really questionable odds of winning? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When it comes to hiring a lawyer or paying the Facility rates, for the next several years, the cost is pretty much a dead heat. That leaves out the cost of the 49 over charge. Personally, I would rather roll the dice on a clean record.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
When it comes to hiring a lawyer or paying the Facility rates, for the next several years, the cost is pretty much a dead heat. That leaves out the cost of the 49 over charge. Personally, I would rather roll the dice on a clean record.
Click to expand...
Those who have but one minor ticket on their records are usually the last to find themselves being forced to go to Facility for insurance. Most will not see any insurance increase at all for that first minor ticket. This would describe the OP even after a conviction for 49-over.

That all changes if he is convicted on the stunting charge. The roll of the dice is already stacked against him, and the loss of that roll will even in the best case cost him several times the cost of avoiding the roll through a simple plea bargain early in the game.

Given the set of circumstances described, he's not holding a particularly strong hand to work with other than a previously-clean driving record. The OP's goal should focus on limiting any risk of further damage arising out of that ticket.
 
Last edited:
Frequently simply having a good working knowledge, of how to navigate the system, is enough to avoid conviction. This is what a lawyer can provide.

As always, it's the OP's choice and the OP's gamble.
 
you don't need a lawyer to get disclosure(your first appearance), which you should get handed to you before the JP comes out, and a chance to speak to duty counsel before(1 in court at that time), and most likely the disclosure will have what the crown wants out of this, and all of what the police have on you( where duty counsel will advise you on what to do)... because of first offence, you will get an option to bargain, where you get to decide if it is fair, which it might be good for you(can be taken care of that day, but with good advice).
on your first appearance, you don't have to plea, its to get disclosure and set a new date(time to hire a lawyer, etc, etc).
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Frequently simply having a good working knowledge, of how to navigate the system, is enough to avoid conviction. This is what a lawyer can provide.

As always, it's the OP's choice and the OP's gamble.
Click to expand...
Which gets back to a question someone else posed earlier. Even in the earliest days of HTA172, convictions whether on original charge or on reduced charge outnumbered acquittals and stays 4 to 1, and the rate of conviction only got better after those early days.
 
turbodish said:
Which gets back to a question someone else posed earlier. Even in the earliest days of HTA172, convictions whether on original charge or on reduced charge outnumbered acquittals and stays 4 to 1, and the rate of conviction only got better after those early days.
Click to expand...

IIRC the rate of acquittal was somewhere between 30 and 32%, in the "early days." Did that number include the number of charges that weren't heard, before the court, and were simply discharged? No, as the charges were dropped essentially prior to trial. If the conviction rate "only got better after those early days", then why are they so loathe to tell us what those rates are?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
IIRC the rate of acquittal was somewhere between 30 and 32%, in the "early days." Did that number include the number of charges that weren't heard, before the court, and were simply discharged? No, as the charges were dropped essentially prior to trial. If the conviction rate "only got better after those early days", then why are they so loathe to tell us what those rates are?
Click to expand...
In the first six months of enforcement, of 1080 completed court proceedings, 229 resulted in non-conviction due to either acquittal or stay of proceedings. That's 1 "off" to 4.7 convictions, or about 21%.
 
turbodish said:
Which were the direct answers to the OP's initial questions, whether pacing would stand up, and what the actual penalties were.


I think I was the first person who suggested that he would probably want to go out and get a lawyer, but doing that will cost him big dollars that he doesn't necessarily need to spend.

He doesn't need a lawyer to informally test the waters with a Crown. The OP says his driving record is clean, and that will work to his advantage in dealing with the Crown. In testing the waters, he doesn't have to give a song and dance or admit guilt. He just has to pose an informal what-can-you-offer-if-I-plead-guilty-to-something-less question to the Crown now well ahead of his scheduled appearance date. The worst that can happen is the Crown says no deal, in which case he gets a lawyer.

But let's stick with the lawyer angle that everyone is pushing. He will need a lawyer to actually fight in court on his behalf. Given the type of charge, fighting is going to be a big gamble.

It will cost more money to hire a lawyer just to enter the fight than it would to pay a bargained-down 49-over speeding ticket.

The lawyer may be able to plea bargain such a deal ahead of trial, in which case the OP will pay the cost of a lawyer AND the fine on the plea-bargained charge, one that he probably could arrange himself.

If the lawyer does not work out a plea bargain, the OP may have to pay even bigger bucks for the lawyer to actually appear for full trial. Even if the lawyer then wins an outright acquittal, which is something I wouldn't bet money on, the OP is out hefty legal fees far in excess of a plea-bargained speeding ticket.

If the lawyer is not successful and the OP is convicted on the original charge, the costs then go WAY up, and I really doubt that any of the fight-fight-fight-crowd heroes here are going to put up one red cent to help the OP financially if that quite-probable outcome should come to pass.

So who exactly is totally bent? The one suggesting a low-cost way to quickly end matters, or those who are encouraging him to spend big dollars and put it all down on the line with really questionable odds of winning? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


why don't you put down the keyboard and take that imaginary bike of yours for a ride....maybe even take some pics while you're out there and post them up here

you're not giving any advise whatsoever to the OP....you're just antagonizing him as you type with glee about your beloved law screwing yet another person

to think that a guy going along a controlled access highway and considers his pace to be going with the flow deserves the kinda punishment he's getting is bent
 
82Seca750 said:
why don't you put down the keyboard and take that imaginary bike of yours for a ride....maybe even take some pics while you're out there and post them up here

you're not giving any advise whatsoever to the OP....you're just antagonizing him as you type with glee about your beloved law screwing yet another person

to think that a guy going along a controlled access highway and considers his pace to be going with the flow deserves the kinda punishment he's getting is bent
Click to expand...

:lmao:
+ 5 - 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom