Ticket issued to owner vs driver
 

Hey gais, went to court yesterday and judge changed the ticket to 83.1(2) instead of 148.1.

Which then becomes owner of vehicle, instead of driver.

Does that mean there's no point given and no suspension just like a red light camera ticket?

Was reading on a another forum that there's a box on the ticket that cops will tick off saying driver or owner? Not sure if I even noticed it. But shouldn't the ticket section say it all?

Thanks.. :badpokerface:

What i think you mean is that the ticket was amended under section 83.1(2) to charge the owner instead of the driver. When the registered owner is charged for an offence, icbc doesnt assign points or the premiums or whatever it is they call it now.
Posted via RS Mobile

Yes that's pretty much it. But I believe there's also a box that officer ticks off stating driver or owner.
In this case the box was ticked off as driver.
But with a ticket violation pointed to "owner".
How will this ticket be looked at by icbc?

If the ticket was amended in court to charge the owner instead of the driver, and thats how the conviction was settled, thats all that matters.
Posted via RS Mobile

Might sound ignorant of me but.

I did talk to the prosecutor about changing it to owner and not driver and she agreed on it which was what happened.
However the judge had no idea what happened (we didn't say anything about "Okay let's charge the owner of vehicle, it simply was just the prosecutor and I looking at the section up on the computer and saying yes 83.1 sub 2 is To Owner and Not driver so let's amend it to that but there wasn't anything written down in ink by the judge saying to charge owner") . if thats what your asking sho_bc

So I m pretty much just asking atm : "with a ticket section pointed towards owner BUT with a driver ticked off in the box. Would It still count as the Owner."

And at that time I had my N so there was also a No N sign violation. That was to driver which didn't matter cause Its 0 points anyways. But would it make any different. because count 1 violation is owner and 2nd is driver.

My bad for sucha confusion, Just trying to put my mind at ease with this old old case..

Thanks..

You made things a lot more confusing than it has to. I am assuming you only disputed the count that was had points associated to it, and paid for the "Driving contrary to restrictions/No N sign", right?

So when you attended court, the "prosecutor (ie. police officer that issued the ticket), should have told the judge that the ticket would be amended to the RO and not the driver. Is that what happened? The judge will make note of it, and the result of the court proceeding will be forwarded to ICBC. I am not sure why the section had to be searched on a computer, as it's clearly stated on the ticket as well.

And yes, there are check boxes on the Violation ticket where the ticket can be written out to the driver or the RO. The only times that you would see a VT initially written to the RO is if the Police officer cannot prove who the driver of the offence was... ie fail to stop for police, hit/run etc..

Sorry for confusion.

Ticket was actually 148.1 which was excessive speed
But then amended to 83.1 sub 2.

And no the prosecutor didn't tell the judge to note it down.

Which is what I m worried about because I knew shouldve spoke up and told the judge that I would like to change it to owner to prevent suspension on my license..

So I m just asking" If ticket section is directed to Owner, but with a driver ticked off on top. Would this 83.1 sub 2 violation be towards driver Or Owner and would it cause points or not. "

Thanks again and sorry for confusion.

148(1) is for excessive speeding.

83.1(2) is as follows;
The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the contravention of section 140, 146 (1), (3), (5) or (7), 147 or 148 (1) if evidence of the contravention was gathered through the use of a prescribed speed monitoring device.

"speed monitoring device" means a speed monitoring device prescribed under subsection (8) that is capable of photographing or capturing the image of a motor vehicle while accurately and simultaneously measuring and recording its speed.

So if the ticket was issued under 83.1(2), and you were simply caught speeding by either pacing, or a radar, then technically you shouldn't be charged under 83.1(2), as that section is only for something like a photo radar.

BUT, because you plead guilty to the "lesser" fine (no pts to your dl), all the Police officer had to say was that you are no being charged under 83.1(2), which automatically charges the RO and not the driver. Makes sense?

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but normally, if you were charged for an infraction and wanted to get out of points/the offence listed on your DL, you would plead guilty and have the VT amended to the RO.

Thanks for clearing that for me.

But what I m worried about is that the prosecutor did Not say (my name) is not being charged as a driver. (would saying it out loud and not saying it mean anything different or as long as the section is directed at the owner then I m fine? )

You are over-thinking this, worrying about it too much, and making it seem much more complicated than it should be. Go to the court registry (or an ICBC licencing centre) with your ticket or court notifier, and ask them to look the ticket conviction up to tell you what the conviction was and who it was for (ie. owner vs driver). Your long-winded, convoluted explanations/questions of the situation aren't making sense.

S. 83.1(2) is not a charge. It is simply wording/a section/an explanation/authority under the MVA.

Police can amend many parts of a violation ticket prior to the offence being heard, including (in some cases, not all), the offence being charged as the Registered Owner instead of the Driver as a way of not having it show up on a driver's abstract and not accumulating points.

So if it isn't a charge then what is it?

Is it just like a red light ticket like Spidey said?

The ticket I paid only showed 83.1(2) and that was it.

Again, you're confusing the issue/yourself. Read the section. Section 83.1(2) is not a charge section. It simply explains that the owner of the motor vehicle is held liable for the offences listed, in the situations described. Nothing more, nothing less.

The ticket would not have made it through the OSMV quality assurance people (they've got eagle-eyes) with a charge section of 83.1(2).

Now I m confused.. LOL.

So from what your reading.

Is this ticket going to effect me points wise or go on my record?

Just a yes or no question is fine..

Sorry for the big confusion T_T"

If the offence is charged to the registered owner, then no the points will not affect you.

This. Again.

I can't give yes or no answers to your questions because the questions are never clear in what you're trying to ask.

Thank you.

Section 83.1(2) IS to owner.

So I believe I m good..

Fingers crossed.

Thanks again gais!

You are correct. I was mistaken.

Xilley, your ticket should still read 148(1) for excessive under the offence section of the ticket. Near the top of the ticket, there are small boxes where you can check driver, registered owner etc, regarding who will be receiving the charge. Beside the box for RO it should also have 83.1(2).

If the ticket was correctly amended to the RO instead of the driver, it will not show up on your record.

...

this is what I was concerned about

the judge did not check off registered owner instead of driver.

and the ticket was amended from 148.(1) TO 83.1(2)
both of them was not on the ticket.

I did see the ticket again when I went to pay for it.
it simply just had an arrow pointing to the side of the ticket and then in writing saying "amended to 83.1(2).

did the judge and prosecutor do this whole case wrong..?
if they put 83.1(2) at where 148.1 was supposed to be.
doesn't this whole thing NOT make any sense?

two problem I have here :

1. driver box is checked off instead of RO
2. 83.1(2) was written on the violation box instead of 148.1

fuck.. now i m worried if I amma land myself another suspension.

Maybe you should think about stuff like that before you run the red light then?

:speechless:

:speechless: did you even read the thread. :yuno:

Maybe you should think about stuff like that before you reject an 8 for being too ugly.
:fullofwin:

Sure did! In post #7, you wrote that you actually got nailed for excessive speeding..

Then somehow got changed to a red light ticket... which you tried to evade responsibility for as well, by switching it to your mother, the registered owner of the car.

Then in post #19, you worry publicly that you might get yourself ANOTHER suspension.

Or did I miss something? Obviously you suck at driving, and don't really deserve the privilege of driving. I, for one, will be thankful when you're off the road (again).


EDIT: I did miss the "No N" bit as well... shame on you. You really do know how to attract attention.


Ooh.. I missed that thread. Link? :lawl:

I feel bad for you jlenko. Did you not complete high school English class?
Which part did it say that the ticket has been changed to red light ticket Lmfao.

You're probably hitting 30s soon and yet you act like a immature kid on the Internet.

Oh wells.

Soundy, are you jealous I turned down an 8 because your not getting any?
If so my baaaddd I ll introduce you to the ones I turned down.

Honestly no need to come and shit a thread when someone is seeking help.

If you are so worried then you should call the courthouse and find out.. or call ICBC to find out what is on/if anything is on your driving record (if they've updated it).

As for the judge, chances are he/she did not do anything wrong. If a mistake was done, it was probably the prosecutor. The fact that he/she had to use a computer to search up the section that the RO gets charged, makes it seem like he/she was not experienced in Traffic court.

On another note, if you already received a suspension and STILL got an excessive AFTER that, you deserve to get charged as the driver. Personally, I don't see why a driver should get off the hook from penalty points/a ding on their record unless the officer couldn't prove who the driver was, or if it was the driver's first, ever, offence.