Oh no, it's starting all over!
 

In the effort to cut down court time for certain cases, and free up judge and court time.....the province wants to bring in legislation that will have people phone in to dispute their traffic tickets. Guess where the "violators" call? Yup! The Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles!!!! AGAIN taking the "biased" administrative way of disputing...and eliminating the chance for a driver with a dispute to go before an impartial party. :swear:

Remember some of us mentioned that we were treading on dangerous ground with these new IRP's, and removing the court system from disputes? Well, it appears that the government is carrying on with implementing more administrative processes...giving "them" the advantage over "us". This needs to be stopped.....NOW!:moderatorban:

The OSMV is a steam roller that HAS been started and is beginning to move.....who wants to......or CAN get in the way and stop it?

link?

So wait... first you people complain because cops can phone in to their disputes, but you can't... now you'll be able to phone in too, so you STILL need something to complain about? I imagine those who have out-of-town disputes will love this idea too - no more having to travel halfway across the province to dispute a vacation speeding ticket.

How about if we just toss you under? Between you and sebberry and Death2Theft and a few other constant annoyances, should make a pretty effective speed bump.

Did you try reading the whole article, or just go off the deep end when you read the headline?

Not REQUIRED to use the phone-in process... but would have the option.

HUH???? I complained what? You must have me mistaken for someone else..........:failed:

Ummmm........ok....I'll say it again. HUH????? What I am saying is.....we are going to be made to deal with a biased OSMV to DISPUTE a ticket that we would now dispute within the court system. They are REMOVING the closest thing we have to an UNBIASED method with one that is completely BIASED.......an administrative method....an office that has to answer to NO ONE! How would a person bring forth evidence that would normally brought forward in a court room setting over the phone? How would a person be able to deal with the officer that issued the ticket, face to face as in a court room, over the phone?

Ever realized why a violation ticket is thrown out because the officer didn't show up for court? Perhaps it has something to do with our right to face our accuser.....so the "accuser" can be made to answer questions asked by the violator or their representative.

This "dealing with things administratively" is getting way out of hand...and if it isn't "nipped in the bud", will, some day.......bite you(or any other citizen) in the butt too....and then you wouldn't appreciated it either...right?

You tell me WHERE in that article it says that phoning in is an option???? Ok, let's look at a couple of "quotes" from the article.

Where does it say there, that it will be an option??

Doesn't say the OPTION would eliminate....but the SYSTEM.........

Why are they worried if it was just an option? :failed:

If this were going to be an "option", why worry about it then? Anyone who knows where the OSMV "comes from", would take their case to the court system if the "phone in" is an option. Actually, anyone in their right mind would take it to the court system as opposed to the OSMV for dispute!

It appears I read the article a little bit better than you..............:whistle:

My point exactly. Thank you!!! That's all we citizens would be ....speed bumps.....for a administrative body that answers to no one! As opposed to citizens with a right to stand up in court for our rights.

this is the official press release from the BC Justice Ministry

Justice reform strengthened by traffic ticket changes | BC Newsroom

In this report it says that "infractions thAt fall outside the scope of the superintendent authority will not shift......etc". Ummmmm......yes...IF the criminal charges are laid. But, as we all know....they've circumvented the criminal impaired issue by "producing" administrative sanctions that police officers use instead! So they MADE it part of the superintendent authority.

Where will this stop? What's to stop the government from setting up an Office of the Superintendent of Criminals.....and deal administratively with criminals such as murderers? Don't laugh.....they've already dipped into the realm of criminals with the impaired driving sanctions!!!!

Here we go agan is right.... time to take a vacation from the police forum until Simnut is all tuckered out from overposting again :devil:

I like how they say it will reduce wait times for disputes to 90 days instead of the current 18 months. The funny thing is some people dispute based on the fact that they get over a year to do what they need to do to avoid suspensions (such as getting their class 5 licenses while waiting for dispute date). I guess those people will be screwed, haha.

^ I'm one of those people, god damnit.

Well, perhaps some of us have the balls and foresight to see what is happening. Some of us just cover their eyes .....UNTIL new "rules" affect them.........:)

Won't get tuckered out...so take a looooooooooooooooooonnnnng vacation! Please......

Since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time:

Not "would HAVE TO".

Because, like you, the BCCLA are always in a rush to jump to the worst possible conclusion, whether there's any fact to back it up or not.

OK, you tell me what type of ticket you would dispute over the phone and hope to be successful?

You too are jumping to conclusions without any fact to back up what you're saying. You're arguing on how you're interpreting it. Why don't one of you go look up the bill and actually read it?

According to this blog there will be no more judicial challenges just a "board"

Government Giving ICBC Power To Increase Premiums Based on "Driver Assessment Point System" | ICBC Personal Injury Claims Lawyer Erik Magraken | Victoria & Vancouver Island BC

Edit: Heres the link to bill 52
http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/1st_read/gov52-1.htm

Well y'all.....from all appearances it looks like this "appeal" process won't be a choice. Hang on to your hats................:)

IF you guys think the judge at the downtown courtroom is an "unbiased party" you are as naive as the fat fuck eatin lunch at mcdonalds thinking "it's ok, I'll burn it off when I walk that floor of stairs at the office"

the judge ain't on your side when it comes to traffic court trust me, I've got quite a bit of personal experience with this as well as some friends so I speak from personal knowledge

You lose your right to judicial challenge, instead you are now called a “disputant” and must place your challenge with a newly minted “Driving Notice Review Board“. Of note, you won’t have the right to cross-examine your accuser at your “resolution conference“.

Ah right now, and for at least 20 years the term "disputant" has been used....nothing new there. As far as no cross examination of Crown witnesses goes, this new system also prevents cross examination of the disputant as well. Bit of a mexican standoff here.

You make a very good point.

At the same time, one has to ask why they have received a ticket in the first place. Obviously it isn't because they haven't done anything wrong...

This is a great idea since class 7's are bypassing the system by disputing everything until they get their class 5.

Don't be quick to jump to conclsions. Cops run into JPs and judges all the time that can't wait to dump perfectly valid charges for their own reasons that have nothing to do with the law and all to do with their personal bias and egos.

It got so bad with one JP that I used to come up before that we all would just stay the cases rather than waste time trying to give testimony that the JP would completely ignore. No point volunteering for humiliation that was not based on fact or reasonable judgement. This particular JP washed out 3 complete consecutive court dates because they believed that a certain legal process should be followed....in spite of being told by their boss that it shound NOT.
This same JP found a driver not guilty of failing to wear his seatbelt in spite of detailed testimony I gave concerning the design, angle, colour of belt and clothing and the fact that I had seen him pull it on in front of me as we passed driver door to driver door with open windows on both vehicles...in a 30 kmh playground zone. He also had a small boy standing on the seat beside him. He was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt. The doubt was based on the fact that he was one of the local EMTs and drove the ambuulance in a small town.

This JP was later relieved of duties. Identity witheld to protect the guilty.

Just give it a few more years and the cops will be requesting payment at the roadside. No hearing at all.

This whole mess could have been avoided if traffic laws were a bit more reasonable leading to a decrease in disputes by those who feel unfairly treated by the system.

Watch for a surge in frivolous tickets such as speed for 5 over since the officer no longer has to waste time in court.

Reasonable is relative. If the laws were a bit more "reasonable" people might pay them even less attention because the penalties would be low enough to scoff at.