Page 8 of 10

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:45 pm
by SD_SC1
Westcoast wrote:Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving. :oops:

W

Now I'm curious of your first few years of driving.

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:47 pm
by Coke6pk
Westcoast wrote:Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving. :D
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving. :oops:

W


If it was anything like my first few years of driving (back when I was invincible :roll: ) we could both be SD_SC1 Jr's. :)

Coke

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 4:10 pm
by Boxer Dogs
Chewie wrote:
nkellof wrote:Zero tickets for me. Got a warning once for going through a late yellow.


Sinner.


:D

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:54 pm
by CourtOfficer
Coke6pk wrote:
Westcoast wrote:Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving. :D
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving. :oops:

W


If it was anything like my first few years of driving (back when I was invincible :roll: ) we could both be SD_SC1 Jr's. :)

Coke


I was no SD_SC1, but was far from perfect!

CO

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:57 pm
by SD_SC1
CourtOfficer wrote:
Coke6pk wrote:
Westcoast wrote:Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving. :D
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving. :oops:

W


If it was anything like my first few years of driving (back when I was invincible :roll: ) we could both be SD_SC1 Jr's. :)

Coke


I was no SD_SC1, but was far from perfect!

CO


I had my first traffic-related policial encounter when I was four and got caught riding in the back of our truck with my brother down to the boat launch.

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:57 pm
by Respond Wayne
CourtOfficer wrote:
Coke6pk wrote:
Westcoast wrote:Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving. :D
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving. :oops:

W


If it was anything like my first few years of driving (back when I was invincible :roll: ) we could both be SD_SC1 Jr's. :)

Coke


I was no SD_SC1, but was far from perfect!

CO


:aye:

I'm with the big guy on this one... Been pretty good for quite some time now though! :angel:

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:05 am
by SD_SC1
OPPAux wrote:
Moral of the story, don't speed.


In Saskatchewan a "simple speeding ticket" doesn't affect your safe driver points so your insurance doesn't change. When I asked why that was I was told that it's because simple speeding isn't seen as that much of a safety risk. :ponder:

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:27 am
by NinjaNikki
OPPAux wrote:Here's something interesting that I just found out last week, over a year since my one and only ticket in approximately 19 years of driving.

My auto insurance company is charging me a $104/year "Conviction Surcharge" each year for 3 years after the conviction.

So I got a $50 ticket and it's costing me $362 over three years because of one minor speeding ticket. OK, I'll accept that, I did it, no problem, I've learned my lesson the hard way and I'll take my lumps.

But here's the interesting part. I have a 7 star driving rating and this ticket did not affect that, however, if I get one more ticket within the three years of the first conviction, the $104/year doubles, so that's $624 over the three years plus the cost of the ticket, AND, my 7 star rating would drop to a 5 star rating which would increase my premiums by approximately $500-600 per year.

Now, I have no problem with this at all. The insurance company is a private corporation providing me with insurance and if they have the stats to justify charging convicted drivers more, so be it. But doesn't it seem like they are making, taking a second ticket to court a given even if I am guilty of the offence.

All I'm saying is that the system almost "forces" people to take tickets to court, because even at that rate a $350 POINTS guy seems like a bargain. Now I understand why so many people take tickets to court.

Moral of the story, don't speed.


And that's why most people fight their tickets (or try to) The insurance company doesn't care if you were convicted of doing 1 km over the limit or 100km. The surcharge is ridiculous. In my book insurance companies are the scum of the earth, but that is another rant.

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:09 pm
by fjacky
OPPAux wrote:
NinjaNikki wrote:In my book insurance companies are the scum of the earth, but that is another rant.


They're a necessary evil, like lawyers :twisted: . You don't like them until you need them, then they are your best friend(s).


As they say, If it wasn't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers...... :D

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 1:05 am
by NinjaNikki
OPPAux wrote:
NinjaNikki wrote:In my book insurance companies are the scum of the earth, but that is another rant.


They're a necessary evil, like lawyers :twisted: . You don't like them until you need them, then they are your best friend(s).


And then when you need them you better pray they don't screw you in some loop hole/crookery like the victims of Katrina. ;)

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:41 pm
by myers
I was asked during my home visit if I had ever fought a ticket.
(24 yrs of driving and 5-6 tickets(minor speeding)
The answer was no.
I guess they apprieciate when one can accept one did wrong and not try to
fight tickets based on technicalities which costs officer and court time.
Think about it first.

Myers.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:18 am
by SD_SC1
myers wrote:I was asked during my home visit if I had ever fought a ticket.
(24 yrs of driving and 5-6 tickets(minor speeding)
The answer was no.
I guess they apprieciate when one can accept one did wrong and not try to
fight tickets based on technicalities which costs officer and court time.
Think about it first.

Myers.


It's the person's right to be proven guilty in a court of law. Now, if you know you're guilty and you're trying to get out of it on a technicality, that's not good. However, if someone truly believes that they are innocent, then by all means they should be permitted to contest it in court without it being held against them.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:24 am
by Stinger
SD_SC1 wrote:
myers wrote:I was asked during my home visit if I had ever fought a ticket.
(24 yrs of driving and 5-6 tickets(minor speeding)
The answer was no.
I guess they apprieciate when one can accept one did wrong and not try to
fight tickets based on technicalities which costs officer and court time.
Think about it first.

Myers.


It's the person's right to be proven guilty in a court of law. Now, if you know you're guilty and you're trying to get out of it on a technicality, that's not good. However, if someone truly believes that they are innocent, then by all means they should be permitted to contest it in court without it being held against them.


The innocence stops when you see the cop car, look at your spedo, and slam on your breaks.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:08 pm
by SD_SC1
Stinger wrote:
SD_SC1 wrote:
myers wrote:I was asked during my home visit if I had ever fought a ticket.
(24 yrs of driving and 5-6 tickets(minor speeding)
The answer was no.
I guess they apprieciate when one can accept one did wrong and not try to
fight tickets based on technicalities which costs officer and court time.
Think about it first.

Myers.


It's the person's right to be proven guilty in a court of law. Now, if you know you're guilty and you're trying to get out of it on a technicality, that's not good. However, if someone truly believes that they are innocent, then by all means they should be permitted to contest it in court without it being held against them.


The innocence stops when you see the cop car, look at your spedo, and slam on your breaks.


I'm referring to all types of tickets, not just speeding tickets.

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:30 pm
by Gard
One ticket for having thick, gorgeous hair,

One for excessive mackin' and unnecessary stylin'.

That is all.