Traffic Tickets
- Boxer Dogs
- Rookie Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:27 am
- Location: Everywhere
- Contact:
- CourtOfficer
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6032
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Coke6pk wrote:Westcoast wrote: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
CourtOfficer wrote:Coke6pk wrote:Westcoast wrote: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.
Sed libera nos a malo.
- Respond Wayne
- Public Forum Moderator
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:57 pm
- Location: GTR
- Contact:
CourtOfficer wrote:Coke6pk wrote:Westcoast wrote: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!

LIVE IN THE PEEL REGION AREA?
VOLUNTEERS WANTED!
>>> RSAR.CA <<<
***FREE Standard First Aid & Level "C" CPR Courses Offered To New Members***
(A minimum commitment to the group will be required before certificates are issued)
VOLUNTEERS WANTED!
>>> RSAR.CA <<<
***FREE Standard First Aid & Level "C" CPR Courses Offered To New Members***
(A minimum commitment to the group will be required before certificates are issued)
- NinjaNikki
- Seasoned Member
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:07 pm
- Location: Everywhere you want to be.
- Contact:
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.
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. 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......

!!!2008!!!
- NinjaNikki
- Seasoned Member
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2006 11:07 pm
- Location: Everywhere you want to be.
- Contact:
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. 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.

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.
(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.
who dares almost wins.
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.
Sed libera nos a malo.
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.
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.
Sed libera nos a malo.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests