|
On February 11 2010 15:40 kOre wrote:
I went to court on the day that it told me to go and this is what happened.
My ticket was $270 and 3 demerit points. I talked to the guy and told him why I was speeding and he cut me a break and brought it down to $150 and 1 demerit point and told me to start slowing down when I'm driving.
They don't tell you in writing that they'll reduce anything but it does happen. As far as the insurance I'm not too sure but chances are even if it increases it'll only be by a bit.
Phew, I am happy to hear this. I read that they can only reduce the fine or give you a longer time to pay it, but do nothing about the points. I was thinking that they probably can throw out the ticket, but that they can't say that officially, so good to hear. I'll probably update this blog on Tuesday with my conversation with the Justice, hopefully he's a nice guy (or girl!).
On February 11 2010 15:42 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2010 11:14 igotmyown wrote:On February 11 2010 11:00 Salv wrote:On February 11 2010 07:28 ibutoss wrote:On February 11 2010 07:20 Salv wrote:On February 11 2010 06:55 ibutoss wrote:On February 11 2010 03:39 Salv wrote:
Most likely a good idea, yes. The speed limit is 50 all within the city, so I will just coast at 60 from now on. I'm not sure if I will even go much faster than that when in traffic either. Where I am from at least, most people drive 10 over and that's it, I drive (drove lol) faster than most people, but only because I still felt I was in control of the car.
Going to tell my parents later, hopefully no one breaks out the big spoon. This shows a complete lack of understanding and lack of maturity about this whole situation. Going 60km is still too fast when the signed speed is 50, especially in bad conditions. You THINK you are in control of the car, until you lose control of the car. Oh but you are such a great driver? even professional drivers lose control of their cars because there is one thing you can't control while driving and that's the road conditions. Holy shit mom, I didn't know you posted on TL? Seriously, were you in the car with me? Did you see the roads? The only thing I said about the weather conditions were that it is in the middle of winter, and that my front windshield wasn't clear enough to clearly identify a police vehicle from like fifty yards away. It wasn't even snowing, and the roads were plowed completely, the only reason my windshield wasn't perfectly clear was just because it was a bit dirty, but it still perfectly clear enough to drive with, or else I would have cleaned it. Are you fucking kidding me about going 60 in a 50? You honestly think that's unreasonable? No one goes the speed limit, because it's slow as hell, and because it's dangerous to go against the flow traffic, either by going too slow or too fast. You're fucking insane. P.S No one was on the road, so you can chill out with all your breaking distance statistics. The good thing about knowing I'm right means I don't have to be in the car with you. Yeah I do think driving at the speed limit is reasonable, as do more experienced drivers than yourself who advised government bodies to establish those speed limits. I don't live in Canada but I seriously doubt no one obeys the speed limit since you know, more people from Canada would be posting on tl.net about their fines. Your welcome to act immaturely since this is the blog section so I'll just leave you a quote from our roads and traffic authority (who I'm sure have better driving skills/knowledge AND statistics to back them up, unlike yourself). "The risk of causing death or injury in an urban 60 km/h zone increases rapidly with relatively small increases in speed. The accident risk at 65 km/h is about twice the risk at 60 km/h. At 70 km/h, the accident risk is more than four times the risk than at 60 km/h" Lmao who the fuck is this guy? You're free to ignore information/opinions that disagree with yours, don't know why what he's posting is so upsetting to you. From the point of view of insurance companies, people who get speeding tickets are such and such more likely to be in accidents, and therefore the expected cost to cover them is higher. So of course their premiums should be raised. Of course, some people who get speeding tickets aren't more likely to be in accidents, but why should they take anyone's word for it? It's not that it's disagreeing with Salv's beliefs, it's just blatantly wrong. For one thing, the guy has never driven in Canada and don't know the general behaviour of Canadian drivers. As someone who has been driving for several years in Canada, I can tell you that you will get tailgated and honked at if you follow the speed limit exactly. The unspoken rule is 10 km/hr above the speed limit. Cops will never pull you over at that speed and everyone goes at least 10 over. On the highway, it is common to see the general traffic move at 120-130km/hr and if you're going 100, then fuck you.
Haha thank you Jesung. Completely agree here, if you drive the speed limit, you're in more danger than driving 10 over like every body else. 10 over is pretty much the speed every person drives at unless:
- They are eldery
- They are taking driving lessons
Seriously beyond this I barely see any one driving the limit, they slow every one up and it is IMO way too slow. I think the only reason they don't change the limit to 60 for example is because then people would be driving 10 over that, which is 70. It's funny how I am talking about what a reasonable speed is to not be pulled over, considering that I did, but that's the lesson I learned.
|
How do you know his first name ... lol stalker
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
|
I dunno how it is in Canada but in usa/california (probably said before but anwyays) you can usually go to arraignment/court hearing thing. Where they offere you alternatives to reduce the fine or remove the points. For moving violations I think they offer driving classes where you go and watch movies like red asphalt.
|
On February 10 2010 22:47 FaCE_1 wrote:
none yet, I always drive 20km\h over the limits when the limits of 60km\h or more (expect for the morning when the trafic it self go at 130km\h)
I Arleady come REALLY close to. I was speeding with another car at 100km\h in a 50km\h route and a cops cross road us. we both hit the brake, cops turn his light on and do a U turn. We are both at a red light so we are pretty much doom. Luckly, I was in the left road when the other dudes was in the right road so the cops only took him and I ran away =)
God I was scare ( I was like 17 years old by that time)
Oh Gawd, this reminds me of when I once did 160 km/hr in a 72 km/hr to catch up with another car that was maybe doing 120 km/hr...
Exact same thing happened.
Or the time I was doing like 240 km/hr on a completely clear hwy and this bastard was parked on the side ahead near the bridge, and I thought he was a cop, got so scared.
|
On February 11 2010 17:52 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2010 17:33 igotmyown wrote:On February 11 2010 17:23 infinity21 wrote:Honestly, with the increased safety of modern cars getting fatter (  ) and equipped with more technology (abs, traction control, stability control, emergency maneuvers, etc), I think they should increase the speed limit on a lot of our streets. Of course, pure residential streets should stay at 40/50 during school time but having to go at 50 on those roads at 10 pm is just nonsensical imo. You could safely go 70 on many 50 roads. I thought oh my god, are you insane, until I realized you're using that newfangled metric system. The problem isn't whether you can drive safely 99% of the time, the problem is the <1% of the time when there are accidents, and how much driving faster increases the accident rate. You're looking at the wrong data set. There's a big problem with the modern cars argument. Aside from the obvious one, is there research that modern safety measures decrease accident rates? If you're not convinced that automatic brakes that perform better than >99% of the driving population, a system which allows you to get maximum traction in any situation and a system that brakes individual wheels to correct sliding will NOT decrease accident rates then I'm obviously wasting my time.
I can't find the article that brought it to my attention, but it was following Ralph Nader's quest to reduce traffic fatalities by increasing automobile safety. Edit: here it is http://www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1144
Do you even drive? If you can't follow anything other than direct obvious reasoning, I can spell it out the example.
1. Increasing automobile safety save lives in accidents.
2. Yet automobile deaths have increased while there have been more safety measures.
3. Traffic fatalities are caused by accidents.
4. Do safety regulations cost lives in accidents? No, that contradicts 1.
5. This makes no sense! Wait, traffic fatalities = rate of accidents x average fatalities in an accident.
6. So by 1, safety regulations probably decrease the average fatalities in an accident. But then, rate of accidents must have significantly increased.
7. Is 6 significant? Well, if safety measures have significantly decreased fatalities per accident, then the increase in fatalities is at least if not more significant.
Now let's spell out not what's wrong about your conclusion, but why you should reconsider your conclusions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect
You've relied on personal experience and came up with exactly the wrong conclusion. In fact it's the conclusion that drives the effect in the first place. Hence, your personal experience reasoning towards adequate safety is suspect and is not something you should trust.
|
wow your tickets are expensive. My one ticket was for going 94 in a 65 zone (that's like 150 in a 105 zone in kph) Ticket was $65
Granted, he let me off a little. He pulled over me and my buddy I was following. Since my friend was only doing 15 over, he ticketed me for that since the guy behind sometimes is a little slower, sometimes a little faster. I wasn't going to argue.
|
I had my fair share, mostly rolling stops >.<
|
aka the California Stop. I prefer to call it a "California Roll". People probably don't call it that up north do they :D
|
On February 12 2010 07:49 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
aka the California Stop. I prefer to call it a "California Roll". People probably don't call it that up north do they :D
Haha, here in Canada we call it a rolling stop.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On February 12 2010 05:52 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2010 17:52 infinity21 wrote:On February 11 2010 17:33 igotmyown wrote:On February 11 2010 17:23 infinity21 wrote:Honestly, with the increased safety of modern cars getting fatter ( ) and equipped with more technology (abs, traction control, stability control, emergency maneuvers, etc), I think they should increase the speed limit on a lot of our streets. Of course, pure residential streets should stay at 40/50 during school time but having to go at 50 on those roads at 10 pm is just nonsensical imo. You could safely go 70 on many 50 roads. I thought oh my god, are you insane, until I realized you're using that newfangled metric system. The problem isn't whether you can drive safely 99% of the time, the problem is the <1% of the time when there are accidents, and how much driving faster increases the accident rate. You're looking at the wrong data set. There's a big problem with the modern cars argument. Aside from the obvious one, is there research that modern safety measures decrease accident rates? If you're not convinced that automatic brakes that perform better than >99% of the driving population, a system which allows you to get maximum traction in any situation and a system that brakes individual wheels to correct sliding will NOT decrease accident rates then I'm obviously wasting my time. I can't find the article that brought it to my attention, but it was following Ralph Nader's quest to reduce traffic fatalities by increasing automobile safety. Edit: here it is http://www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1144If you can't follow anything other than direct obvious reasoning, I can spell it out the example. 1. Increasing automobile safety save lives in accidents. 2. Yet automobile deaths have increased while there have been more safety measures. 3. Traffic fatalities are caused by accidents. 4. Do safety regulations cost lives in accidents? No, that contradicts 1. 5. This makes no sense! Wait, traffic fatalities = rate of accidents x average fatalities in an accident. 6. So by 1, safety regulations probably decrease the average fatalities in an accident. But then, rate of accidents must have significantly increased. 7. Is 6 significant? Well, if safety measures have significantly decreased fatalities per accident, then the increase in fatalities is at least if not more significant. Now let's spell out not what's wrong about your conclusion, but why you should reconsider your conclusions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effectYou've relied on personal experience and came up with exactly the wrong conclusion. In fact it's the conclusion that drives the effect in the first place. Hence, your personal experience reasoning towards adequate safety is suspect and is not something you should trust.
Go troll somewhere else retard
|
wow salv ur speeding story is like the most popular blog atm XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
