you rolled through a stop sign and went over the stop line at the red light. pay your ticket and move on..

1) Drunk driving cases are tried in provincial court, not traffic court.
2) If cops gave less b.s. tickets for minor infractions, like catching speeders at the bottom of a hill, it would go a long way to minimizing court resources.

There's no exception for rolling stops at a stop sign. You must reach a dead stop for it to be legal. You have evidence for the police, good job!

They dont' drive that much faster here in Germany. The only difference is the left lane is kind of a free for all, but not everywhere. Many freeways here have speed limits around 110-120kph or so. But they are really twisty and even at night I don't feel safe driving that speed on them. Also, here in Germany when there IS a speed limit, everyone follows it. The penalties are really high and points system.

Here, parents dont' save for a University education because it's practically free (say, 500euro/semester at some of the top schools in Germany) they save for their kids' drivers license which can cost over 2000euro when it's all said and done. Lessons are not optional, they are mandatory. You can't drive until you're 18 either.

I agree with all the licensing stuff they have here and think it should be implemented in Canada (aside from the 18/yr age, just due to the fact we don't have a wicked train/transit system like they do here and it would be impossible to get around efficiently).

HOW did u get this video?

you did a rolling stop but, so did the cop while he was following you without his lights on. Trying to find excuse to give a b.s. ticket. Fight the ticket cause the cop should have done a complete stop if he was completely with the law.

You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

You send them a letter asking them for disclosure. Disclosure is basically any evidence the officer is going to use in court against you, its part of your freedom of rights to have a fair trial. If you want PM me ill send you a template!

^ pm sent

Here's my take.

Basically, you are guilty. I don't even know why you need to post your evidence here. You can even watch it yourself and come to a conclusion. However.

I would suggest you dispute the ticket as there is a possible chance where the cop may not show up. However, if the cop does show up, then simply plead guilty and pay up. There is no point in raising the point that the cop failed to stop completely as they have the rights to break the law to enforce a law. BUT.

Disputing a ticket means you have to attend court. That may take away one of your work days or vacation or whatever. Whether this is worth it to you or not is up to you to decide. If you do pay early, at least you have $25 deduction which is not bad but I think you will get 2 to 3 (?) points deducted since you admit guilt.

No offence to anyone, while to some people disputing may seem like an unethical move, I seriously question the people who fail anyone in this post to reflect on yourself. Have you ever not speeded? Have you ever not performed a rolling stop? Suggesting a dispute is an option provided to us. Whether you choose to dispute or not is based on your decision and conscience.

Sadly, law is law and when the police officer decides to enforce it strictly, technically 95% of the citizens out there can easily get a ticket. To me, your action is one of the typical behaviours of what people normally do (i.e. 10km/h over speed limit, rolling stop, left turn into the right lane, right turn into the left lane, etc.) Is it right? No. Is it dangerous? Depends. In your situation, it is not dangerous because that intersection is extremely wide and you can easily see the oncoming traffic on Lansdowne although this behaviour can lead to an accident in other situations. This is a good lesson to reflect on the potential consequences that can possibly happen in another setting and situation in the future.

If I were the cop, I would still pull you over but give you a warning about the consequences that can happen if you do perform a rolling stop. That's just me. Sadly, cops in Richmond are far from that.

Not sure if you checked this page out yet, but take a read here. It's in the police forum.

Hope that helps.

dL

The right to dispute is there to provide the innocent the chance to defend themselves against undeserved charges. It is NOT there for the cheap or selfish to waste the cop's and court's time in the vague hope that they might get to skate on a well-deserved ticket.

I'm sure a certain van driver recently in Ontario thought it was safe to roll through a stop sign, because it was the middle of the night on little-used country roads across flat, open country with lots of visibility... right up until the grill of a flatdeck smacked him in the face and ended the lives of eleven people.

i completely agree with everything you say, but:

110-120kph is quite a bit faster than 80-90 we get on motorways - so much so that 121 in an 80 zone will lose you your license here, whereas you'll be doing the limit in Germany

and its true that because speed limits are reasonable in europe, ppl follow them - in england you drive at 80mph on the motorway (the accepted limit, the actual limit is 70, but no policeman will ever ticket you for 80, that is accepted), some drive a tad slower, some drive a tad faster, but 80mph is a great speed limit.

education needs to go up here, insurance for <25 yr olds needs to go up here (i say that as a >25 yr old male - i'm now subsidizing <25 yr old idiots with my annual premiums), infrastructure needs to go up, respect for the vehicle needs to go up (they kill, things like drinking and driving shouldn't even be an issue as cars can kill you and others way too easily), and speed limits needs to go up

again, /rant :)

In BC, your age has NOTHING AT ALL to do with your insurance premiums.

that's right - but they should

any other place where the government isn't in control of everything in our life, males under the age of 25 pay SIGNIFICANT premiums for insurance, as they are proven to be a higher risk

And that alone is unique in the insurance world. No other form of insurance bases risk premiums on the participant's AGE.

its based on fact - there is proof that <25 yr old males have a higher risk of causing an accident than just about anyone else

just like how i would pay higher contents insurance for the contents of my apartment in downtown vancouver is higher than it would be in say tsawwassen, on the basis that it is more likely you will have a break in or 'issue' in downtown

this discussion/disagreement is pointless - i'd be really interested to see whether there are any other places (non government run) that don't charge premiums for <25yr old males

It's not the same, actually, because you can choose where you live, and if you want to factor home insurance costs into that choice, you can. You don't get to choose your age, and in general, don't get to choose your gender. In fact, everything that ICBC's rates are determined on - vehicle choice, vehicle use, type of driving, area of residence - are all things that you have a choice in. Things like age, sex, race, ethnicity, and other factors you have no control over, don't come in play, nor should they.

Besides, why is the "dividing line" set at 25? Why not 23? Or 27? Is there some switch in the mail brain that flips on your 25th birthday that magically imbues greater skill and responsibility behind the wheel?

This has been discussed before... there are other jurisdictions where this is not the case. The EU has actually banned the use of gender in assessing insurance risk.

Ultimately, basing YOUR insurance risk on YOUR driving record is ultimately more fair than basing it on the demographic you're a part of.

statistics mandate the 25 yr old switchover, on average people (males particularily) become more responsible, safe drivers.

male/female, i couldn't care less for, but definitely <25 yr old people should be paying more, based on STATISTICS, fact, not perception, ignornace or anything else.

my example re: home contents insurance was not to illustrate an apple vs. an orange, as you have provided, rather the fact that age is a factor in assessing ones insurance risk, much as one's age, based on statistics on at fault incidents, is, or at least should be in a free and open market insurance sector (which BC isn't thanks to our socialist government), a factor in determining one's insurance premium.

again, you seem to be taking what i'm saying and then arguing apples vs. oranges, thus there is no point continuing this = the conclusion from all of this is that >25 yr olds are paying a premium that should be passed down onto <25 year old, yet ANOTHER reason government intervention skews fair market rates, which is not a good thing for the population on the whole.

That would be somewhat redundant given that the higher accident rate among young people is a result largely of inexperience and young drivers begin insuring a car with no experience discount, compared to mature drivers who almost all have significant discounts to reflect experience.

I would not support raising rates on an entire group, regardless of any bias I may have as a young male. Set rates based on individual driving records, punish people with multiple accidents or VTs with ruthlessly high rates if need be.

nevermind :(

Basing it on your individual driving record IS basing it on FACT. Statistics if just punishing good drivers for the collective sins of a few bad ones.

YOU'RE the one comparing auto insurance premiums to home insurance. This is the second time you've surrendered, though, so I shall graciously accept your concession.

I'm 43. My insurance for the last 27+ years has been based on my own driving record and nobody else's. I have no need to see good drivers <25 subsidize my rates.