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 05-10-2012, 10:40 AM   #1
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
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.

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!

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?
Advertisement
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 12:42 PM   #2
PM me for my nudes
 
smoothie.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 3,640
Thanked 3,353 Times in 886 Posts
link?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonturbo View Post
Too bad it isn't about flipping cars to lose money, I'm really good at that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkunkWorks View Post
This wouldn't happen if you didn't drive a peasant car like an Audi...
Quote:
[14-05, 14:59] FastAnna You tiny bra wearing, gigantic son of a bitch
[15-05, 10:35] FastAnna Yeah I was dreaming of those big titties in that tiny bra
Quote:
Originally Posted by westopher View Post
I'd probably blow someone for that 911
smoothie. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 12:50 PM   #3
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnut View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 05-10-2012, 12:52 PM   #4
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothie. View Post
link?
B.C. drivers to fight tickets over phone
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 12:57 PM   #5
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Did you try reading the whole article, or just go off the deep end when you read the headline?

Quote:
Under proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, drivers would be able to appeal tickets for offences such as speeding, texting while driving and disobeying traffic signs through an administrative review over the phone.
Not REQUIRED to use the phone-in process... but would have the option.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:06 PM   #6
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
So wait... first you 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?
HUH???? I complained what? You must have me mistaken for someone else..........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
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?
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 01:14 PM   #7
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
B.C. drivers who want to fight traffic tickets may soon have their complaints heard by the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles over the phone, rather than by a judge.
Where does it say there, that it will be an option??

Quote:
The system also would eliminate the ability to question an officer's evidence in person, Vonn said, bringing the matter down to a "he said she said" situation.
Doesn't say the OPTION would eliminate....but the SYSTEM.........

Quote:
But civil liberties advocates and a defence lawyer warn justice could be sacrificed for administrative expediency.
Why are they worried if it was just an option?

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..............
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 05-10-2012, 01:17 PM   #8
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
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.
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 02:06 PM   #9
I am grateful grapefruit
 
gars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,094
Thanked 831 Times in 392 Posts
this is the official press release from the BC Justice Ministry

Quote:
VICTORIA - B.C.'s proposed new approach to driving-related tickets will be key to B.C.'s justice reform strategy, freeing up court resources for higher priorities while enhancing road safety.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act have the potential to deal with traffic offences that currently may be disputed in court, such as speeding, texting while driving, and disobeying a traffic signal.

Moving these disputes to an administrative process will free up about 10 judicial justices for other work and 33 court services registry administration staff to address other priority registry court work. The change could relieve 34 to 68 enforcement officers from attending traffic court. All of these positions have a combined value of $8 to $11 million per year. Traffic matters that do remain in the court system will be heard more quickly, reducing backlogs.

Other benefits of the new legislation, if passed, will include:

Strengthened road safety. The changes will reduce the time taken to resolve disputed tickets to an estimated 90 days from the current seven to 18 months.

Savings for taxpayers. Fewer disputed tickets will be cancelled due to errors or delays, and electronic ticketing will reduce administration costs.

Streamlined dispute resolution. Most driving notice disputes will be resolved by phone.

Discounted penalties for prompt payment. New online payment options will let a driver who pays an undisputed ticket within 30 days receive a discount.

The new law will also streamline the ticketing process by replacing written citations with electronic ones generated at the roadside by new devices mounted in police vehicles. If passed, the traffic safety initiative is expected to take until 2014 to be fully implemented.

Quote:

Shirley Bond, Minister of Justice and Attorney General -

"These are the kind of efficiencies we're making as part of our ongoing justice review, which is working to build a more efficient, responsive justice system. This new ticket dispute process goes well beyond freeing up court resources - it will save taxpayers money and provide a fair, timely approach to disputing tickets. We expect this change to strengthen the deterrent value of traffic enforcement - and, in turn, public safety on B.C. roads."

Quick Facts:

The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles has authority over licensing and driving behaviour.

The new administrative justice model will apply to B.C. drivers who engage in unsafe driving behaviour.

Infractions that fall outside the scope of the superintendent's authority will not shift to the new administrative process. For example, serious criminal charges, such as dangerous or impaired driving causing death, will continue to proceed through the courts.

About 500,000 traffic tickets are issued each year in B.C. Of these, roughly 14 per cent are disputed through traffic court. This volume of disputes has contributed to significant delays in the courts.
Justice reform strengthened by traffic ticket changes | BC Newsroom
__________________
Proud member of GRAPE Great Revscene Action Photographers Enthusiasts
gars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 02:28 PM   #10
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
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!!!!
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 04:17 PM   #11
Rs has made me the man i am today!
 
ninjatune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: LMD
Posts: 3,145
Thanked 228 Times in 71 Posts
Here we go agan is right.... time to take a vacation from the police forum until Simnut is all tuckered out from overposting again
ninjatune is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 05-10-2012, 05:14 PM   #12
I *Fwap* *Fwap* *Fwap* to RS
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,506
Thanked 102 Times in 61 Posts
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.
wing_woo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 05:50 PM   #13
What hasn't Killed me, has made me more tolerant of RS!
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 193
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
^ I'm one of those people, god damnit.
BraedenDA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 05:53 PM   #14
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjatune View Post
Here we go agan is right.... time to take a vacation from the police forum until Simnut is all tuckered out from overposting again
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.........
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 05:58 PM   #15
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjatune View Post
Here we go agan is right.... time to take a vacation from the police forum until Simnut is all tuckered out from overposting again
Won't get tuckered out...so take a looooooooooooooooooonnnnng vacation! Please......
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 06:26 PM   #16
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnut View Post
You tell me WHERE in that article it says that phoning in is an option????
Since you obviously weren't paying attention the first time:

Quote:
Under proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, drivers
would be able
to appeal tickets for offences such as speeding, texting while driving and disobeying traffic signs through an administrative review over the phone.
Not "would HAVE TO".

Quote:
Why are they worried if it was just an option?
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 05-10-2012, 06:30 PM   #17
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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?
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 06:38 PM   #18
Banned (ABWS)
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: B.C
Posts: 72
Thanked 69 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
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"

Quote:
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“.
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
A$AProcky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2012, 09:31 PM   #19
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Well y'all.....from all appearances it looks like this "appeal" process won't be a choice. Hang on to your hats................
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 12:20 PM   #20
Rs has made me the woman i am today!
 
G-spec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,033
Thanked 2,165 Times in 594 Posts
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
__________________
(oO:::\___/:::Oo) (DPE-wheels) // Satin Cocaine White
G-spec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 06:34 PM   #21
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 02:41 PM   #22
Oh goodie, 5 posts already!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BC
Posts: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-spec View Post
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 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.
Transience is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 06:49 PM   #23
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 G-spec View Post
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
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2012, 11:48 PM   #24
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.

Last edited by sebberry; 05-24-2012 at 11:54 PM.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2012, 12:28 AM   #25
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
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.
Graeme S 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 01:20 AM.


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