Traffic Tickets

[SD_SC1]

Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving.

W

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

[Coke6pk]

Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving.
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving.

W

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

Coke

[Boxer Dogs]

Zero tickets for me. Got a warning once for going through a late yellow.

Sinner.

[CourtOfficer]

Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving.
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving.

W

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

Coke

I was no SD_SC1, but was far from perfect!

CO

[SD_SC1]

Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving.
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving.

W

If it was anything like my first few years of driving (back when I was invincible ) 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.

[Respond Wayne]

Zero tickets in the past 15.5 years of driving.
Don't bother asking about the first few years I was driving.

W

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

Coke

I was no SD_SC1, but was far from perfect!

CO

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

[SD_SC1]

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.

[NinjaNikki]

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.

[fjacky]

In my book insurance companies are the scum of the earth, but that is another rant.

They're a necessary evil, like lawyers . 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......

[NinjaNikki]

In my book insurance companies are the scum of the earth, but that is another rant.

They're a necessary evil, like lawyers . 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.

[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.

[SD_SC1]

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.

[Stinger]

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.

[SD_SC1]

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.

[Gard]

One ticket for having thick, gorgeous hair,

One for excessive mackin' and unnecessary stylin'.

That is all.