REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-23-2010, 08:15 PM   #1
NOOB, Not Quite a Regular!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quick question about fines and penalties.

Got pulled over for speeding and tinted windows. I know speeding attaches 3 penalty points to your driving record. but after looking through ICBC's link that talks about fines and penalties (http://icbc.com/driver-licensing/tic..._penalties.pdf) there isnt anything about weather a ticket for tinted windows comes with any penalty points and the actual fine amount for the violation.

also, the cop handed me the ticket and just took off without any explanations to my tint and just told me that i was actually speeding excessively but hes only giving me a regular speeding ticket. this leads me to two more questions apart from the one above:

1) he used his radar gun about at least 150 M away to clock me. do you guys know the range and accuracy of these guns when used long ranged? and if i could use this as part of my dispute. (on top of the dispute of me following traffic speed of other cars on road)

2) i know the ticket is still valid even though it wasn't signed (as mentioned in other threads). but has anyone been successful in using this point to dispute their tickets?

thanks!

EDIT: ONE MORE QUESTION: when i went to icbc a few months back to dispute a ticket, the guy there told me that officers were no longer required to show up in person to court in case of dispute. Apparently, they are now able to testify over the phone and that "the judge will always take the officer's words over yours." Is this true?
Advertisement

Last edited by erick; 03-23-2010 at 08:25 PM.
erick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 09:37 PM   #2
Retired Traffic Cop
 
skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nanoose Bay, BC
Posts: 9,023
Thanked 115 Times in 66 Posts
No, the judge will not always take the officer's word over yours. Been there, had it happen to me.

No points for tint, but if you were written under section 219(1) MVA it will show up on your driving record if you are convicted or pay it.

I've used radar quite successfully at distances well over a kilometer. It is generally accurate to +/- 1 km/h at 50 km/h. Laser is just getting started at that distance and is even more target specific.
__________________
Have you ever met anyone that would admit to being less than a better than average driver ??

Learn more at DriveSmartBC
skidmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 09:58 PM   #3
NOOB, Not Quite a Regular!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
thanks for the reply.
could you also tell me what the charge for tinted windows should be?
and also, is it true that officers can now testify over the phone and not show up at court? i think thats rather unappropriate in the sense that it seems to dishonor the judicial system.
erick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 11:03 PM   #4
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 93
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erick View Post
thanks for the reply.
could you also tell me what the charge for tinted windows should be?
and also, is it true that officers can now testify over the phone and not show up at court? i think thats rather unappropriate in the sense that it seems to dishonor the judicial system.
I quick read lead me to this MVA section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motor Vehicle Act
Windshields and windows

7.05 (1) No person shall drive or operate on a highway a motor vehicle the windshield or any window of which is in such condition that the vision of the driver is impaired.
And I see no problem with peace officers giving statements over the phone. It is not like someone else is impersonating that officer and making ridiculous claims. And talking about dishonesty towards the judicial system, you are the one receiving tickets for your own doing. Now you come here looking for a way to get out of your fines. Are you trying to fraud the system? Who's more dishonest now? Man up and pay the fine, and continue on with your daily activities.
Sp0r3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2010, 11:18 PM   #5
NOOB, Not Quite a Regular!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
its always interesting to see people come onto threads and talk like they are omniscience. first, there is a difference between dishonesty and dishonoring and the word i used was dishonor. How am i trying to "fraud" the system by asking general questions here when this section of the forum is designated for that? If there was no issue with having indirect trials in courts, then we may as well have all trials be performed over tools like the computer. I dont understand what the point of your post is nor are you stating anything factual by calling me dishonest. When convicted of a violation, we all have the right to dispute the ticket. I, like many others, would like to do all my research before doing so. whats wrong with that again? and frankly, I agree that received the ticket for my own doing and here I am "man-ing up" and trying to deal with the situation.
erick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2010, 01:20 PM   #6
Ready to be Man handled by RS!
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 93
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
I agree with you that everyone should research and exercise their options. However, in the case of speeding and tinted windows, it is a pretty clear cut picture. Here's two questions I would like you to ask yourself. Did you speed? Did you tint your windows? If you answered yes to those questions, then the ticket is justified and you should accept the responsibility (and consequences).

You are right, dishonesty and dishonor are two completely different words. But in the context of peace officers not appearing in court, I don't find that in any way dishonoring the system. If a peace officer has to appear to court to dispute every ticket they issue, they would probably be in the courtroom more than they are patrolling the streets. As I posted earlier, it is still the same peace officer who is giving the statements over the phone. In regards to "cheating" the system, if you try to disprove your wrong doing to avoid the consequences in a court trial, then I believe you have committed a dishonest act; therefore, dishonoring yourself in the justice system.

It may be blunt but there are many others before you who came here and asked ideas on how to prove that their violation is justified by disproving tools that were deployed to catch their acts. I apologize if this isn't your intention. But if it is, then I would still stand by my words: man up and pay.
Sp0r3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2010, 04:21 PM   #7
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by erick View Post
thanks for the reply.
could you also tell me what the charge for tinted windows should be?
and also, is it true that officers can now testify over the phone and not show up at court? i think thats rather unappropriate in the sense that it seems to dishonor the judicial system.
Section 7.05 (8) is the charge under the Regulations and 219 (1) is the generic section used for any vehicle defects. Sorry can't help about the call in testimony. Never had it in any of the areas I worked.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net