Dispute a ticket for red light?

[jhrkskek]

I just caught up for disobeying the red light on the intersection by a police officer. The police car was turning left and I was going straight from the opposite way and got the ticket.

The thing that I am not quite sure about is that I did not completely pass the stop lane; the front wheel did pass the stop lane, but the rear wheel didn't. And I did drive back to the stop lane after I made a stop.

In this case is there any chance that I can win if I dispute? I ask police officer whether he was sure that my rear wheel did pass the stop lane or not, but he was almost yelling at me that doesn't matter and go for the court if I want to dispute.

Anyone knows anything about this case?

[zulutango]

You cannot enter the intersection, (that is cross the stop line/X walk etc) after the light turns red. Your car did and you backed up. Both bad things to do. Don't see what you can dispute?

Red light
129 (1) Subject to subsection (2), when a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal, the driver of a vehicle approaching the intersection and facing the red light must cause it to stop before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no marked crosswalk, before entering the intersection, and subject to the provisions of subsection (3), must not cause the vehicle to proceed until a traffic control signal instructs the driver that he or she is permitted to do so.

[08civicsi_coupe]

if he wants to be XXXX to you waste as much of his time as possible!! hope he doesnt show

[ninjatune]

Court days are scheduled on the officer's work days.... most show up to traffic court these days. Then either OP doesn't show up and looks like a foo, or he does show up with no defense and looks like a foo

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by jhrkskek

I just caught up for disobeying the red light on the intersection by a police officer. The police car was turning left and I was going straight from the opposite way and got the ticket.

The thing that I am not quite sure about is that I did not completely pass the stop lane; the front wheel did pass the stop lane, but the rear wheel didn't. And I did drive back to the stop lane after I made a stop.

In this case is there any chance that I can win if I dispute? I ask police officer whether he was sure that my rear wheel did pass the stop lane or not, but he was almost yelling at me that doesn't matter and go for the court if I want to dispute.

Anyone knows anything about this case?

If these events took place during a yellow light, you wouldn't have a problem. But since your car entered the intersection under a clear red, you probably won't have any chance of successfully disputing the ticket.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by jhrkskek

I just caught up for disobeying the red light on the intersection by a police officer. The police car was turning left and I was going straight from the opposite way and got the ticket.

The thing that I am not quite sure about is that I did not completely pass the stop lane; the front wheel did pass the stop lane, but the rear wheel didn't. And I did drive back to the stop lane after I made a stop.

In this case is there any chance that I can win if I dispute? I ask police officer whether he was sure that my rear wheel did pass the stop lane or not, but he was almost yelling at me that doesn't matter and go for the court if I want to dispute.

Anyone knows anything about this case?

cop probably gave you attitude because there are a lot of people like you that TRY to talk "technicalities" to get out of a ticket, whether in court or while they are being served with a ticket. I am pretty sure the cop had a better visual of where your car was relative to any line, or the intersection, than you did. When you question a cop about whether "you did commit a traffic violation", you are basically questioning whether he is lying, or blind.

[zulutango]

Backing up behind the stop position after running a red light is like slowing down & stopping after you get caught speeding. The law was broken. That was then, this is now. Press hard, 3 copies.

[Gnomes]

I have seen many people doing this (myself included)

Driving straight, entering intersection. Lights turn yellow. I brake but bumper end up entering a bit into the marked pedestrian line. I have crossed the stop line on red light and I stay on that line. Do I get a ticket?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Backing up behind the stop position after running a red light is like slowing down & stopping after you get caught speeding. The law was broken. That was then, this is now. Press hard, 3 copies.

love it

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Gnomes

I have seen many people doing this (myself included)

Driving straight, entering intersection. Lights turn yellow. I brake but bumper end up entering a bit into the marked pedestrian line. I have crossed the stop line on red light and I stay on that line. Do I get a ticket?

Technically, it would seem yes. However as with everything it all depends. Is there an officer nearby? Is he on the way to doing something else? Have you gone so far past the line that you have to say "my rear wheels didn't go over", which would seem to indicate your car went over the line at least half way?

What the law says you can be ticketed for/charged with and what actually happen are often not the same thing. Why? Because cops aren't everywhere, officers are human, and people make mistakes. That having been said, when you clearly make a violation, pull a "come on, man, it wasn't THAT bad, you're not seriously gonna give me a ticket are you? This happens to people all the time, why're you pickin' on ME!?" then the chances of you getting a slap on the wrist (which is what this ticket is) are quite probably much higher.

[Sango]

Bumper possibly hard to judge but I would agree if the front tires which make contact with the ground itself was passed the front line then yes, can get a ticket for that.

On the side, I remember one of the F1 cars, they were in their in their grid position and the commentators were commenting that one of the cars was at the very limit of his line (can see it on TV), where the front wrings were passed the line but the front tires which make contact was just behind the line.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by Sango

Bumper possibly hard to judge but I would agree if the front tires which make contact with the ground itself was passed the front line then yes, can get a ticket for that.

On the side, I remember one of the F1 cars, they were in their in their grid position and the commentators were commenting that one of the cars was at the very limit of his line (can see it on TV), where the front wrings were passed the line but the front tires which make contact was just behind the line.

are you really comparing motor vehicle act offences to f1 racing rules?

[inv4zn]

What I think happened is you wanted to run the late yellow/red, and then noticed the police officer, and slammed on your brakes, stopping over the line.

Any officer with an ounce of common sense will not ticket you for gradually stopping at a red, a little over the line.

As the officer said, if you want to dispute, take it to court...

[Sango]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

are you really comparing motor vehicle act offenses to f1 racing rules?

No, but it is common sense in how close you can stop at the stop line. It would be pretty obvious, if one were to stop their car with the tires contact on the ground is passed the stop line, then yes possibly open for a ticket depending on the situation.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by Sango

No, but it is common sense in how close you can stop at the stop line. It would be pretty obvious, if one were to stop their car with the tires contact on the ground is passed the stop line, then yes possibly open for a ticket depending on the situation.

You must be new here.

[Sango]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

You must be new here.

If only that was true...!!

[jjjleftturn]

i fight all my tickets.. the systems in place. cant hurt to give it a try

[inv4zn]

The system is there for people with genuine cases to be given a fair attempt to prove that there was a mistake in receiving a ticket.

It's not there for you to dispute every ticket you rightfully deserve and clog up the system, you assbag of a human being.

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by jjjleftturn

i fight all my tickets.. the systems in place. cant hurt to give it a try

Stop wasting everyones time. You're one of the people who would dispute a speeding ticket, After he got you on his radar gun, Wouldn't you?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by jjjleftturn

i fight all my tickets.. the systems in place. cant hurt to give it a try

yea, and you look like an idiot, like 90% of people who get owned in traffic court.

[?NR]

the question should be: how come I didn't anticipate the stop light? How fast was I going beforehand to not allow ample stopping distance? Was I paying attention or trying to beat the light but miscalculated? In the end the word of the law is broken hence the ticket, the constable would've been lenient, but probably saw something we here couldn't see thus issuing a ticket. Dispute if you wish as it is your right to dispute, but please reconsider and save everyone some tax money and court time.
Posted via RS Mobile

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by !NR

the question should be: how come I didn't anticipate the stop light? How fast was I going beforehand to not allow ample stopping distance? Was I paying attention or trying to beat the light but miscalculated? In the end the word of the law is broken hence the ticket, the constable would've been lenient, but probably saw something we here couldn't see thus issuing a ticket. Dispute if you wish as it is your right to dispute, but please reconsider and save everyone some tax money and court time.
Posted via RS Mobile

20 bucks says he was a dick to the cop, That = ticket.

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by dared3vil0

Stop wasting everyones time. You're one of the people who would dispute a speeding ticket, After he got you on his radar gun, Wouldn't you?

I know what you're saying but from the legal perspective, he does have a right to dispute the ticket. He's doing nothing wrong.

It makes me want to start doing that too because I heard that ICBC is trying to make this new rule that if you have 1 speeding ticket, you'll be marked as a "dangerous driver" and ICBC will slap you with insurance premium.
Sounds rediculous because who does not go 60km/h on 50km/h zone? I bet police officers, chief constables, justice of the peace, crown council, prime minister, etc...they all have gone 60km/h on 50km/h zone.

If it's a speeding ticket and that's it, I won't have a problem since police officers have to do their job and all, but if ICBC is trying to screw me around with "dagerous driver" status + insurance premium...that's a different story.
I think a lot of people on RS agree too. I think they should stop doing that because now people are thinking speeding tickets(or traffic violation tickets) are nothing but a easy cash grab for ICBC. Some people on Vancouver forum said that more people are gonna hate police officers too.

Sure, it will jam up our court system and there may be some more serious cases that needs to be solved, but that's all ICBC's fault.
They tend to make this excuse how ICBC is charging more money from people with speeding tickets for "traffic safety" but how would charging few hundred bucks from people would direct to traffic safety?
If they're actually concerned about the safety, maybe they could order those drivers to attend driving school or re-obtain license or something. Instead of making the new cash grab rule.

Sorry for going a little off topic.

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by Timpo

I know what you're saying but from the legal perspective, he does have a right to dispute the ticket. He's doing nothing wrong.

It makes me want to start doing that too because I heard that ICBC is trying to make this new rule that if you have 1 speeding ticket, you'll be marked as a "dangerous driver" and ICBC will slap you with insurance premium.
Sounds rediculous because who does not go 60km/h on 50km/h zone? I bet police officers, chief constables, justice of the peace, crown council, prime minister, etc...they all have gone 60km/h on 50km/h zone.

If it's a speeding ticket and that's it, I won't have a problem since police officers have to do their job and all, but if ICBC is trying to screw me around with "dagerous driver" status + insurance premium...that's a different story.
I think a lot of people on RS agree too. I think they should stop doing that because now people are thinking speeding tickets(or traffic violation tickets) are nothing but a easy cash grab for ICBC. Some people on Vancouver forum said that more people are gonna hate police officers too.

Sure, it will jam up our court system and there may be some more serious cases that needs to be solved, but that's all ICBC's fault.
They tend to make this excuse how ICBC is charging more money from people with speeding tickets for "traffic safety" but how would charging few hundred bucks from people would direct to traffic safety?
If they're actually concerned about the safety, maybe they could order those drivers to attend driving school or re-obtain license or something. Instead of making the new cash grab rule.

Sorry for going a little off topic.

I didn't read the whole thing, But i can almost guarantee everyone drives well over the speed limit when off duty, Cops, Citizens, EVERYONE. It's just a matter of if you get caught, And when you do get caught, Pay the damn fine an get over it. It's incredibly hypocritical to knowingly speed, and complain when you get caught speeding. And if you use the "i didn't know i was speeding" argument, You're implying you can't watch a fucking gauge a foot from your head, You shouldn't be driving at all.

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by dared3vil0

I didn't read the whole thing, But i can almost guarantee everyone drives well over the speed limit when off duty, Cops, Citizens, EVERYONE. It's just a matter of if you get caught, And when you do get caught, Pay the damn fine an get over it. It's incredibly hypocritical to knowingly speed, and complain when you get caught speeding. And if you use the "i didn't know i was speeding" argument, You're implying you can't watch a fucking gauge a foot from your head, You shouldn't be driving at all.

OK you didn't even read it so I don't think you should be replying to my post solely on assumptions.

I did not say I have a problem with officers doing their job catching speeders. I'm just saying that what ICBC is doing is dumb.

If you get a $300 insurance premium for next 3 years just because of 1 speeding ticket, it is clearly just a easy cash grab for ICBC.

so you're driving 60km/h on 50km/h zone, the $138 ticket will turn into $1,038.
(ticket price + $300 premium x3 years)

$1,038 is a shit load of money to pay for going 20km/h(or less) over the speed limit.
ICBC's excuse is to make road safe, but seriously, do you think catching a random average soccer mom going 60km/h on 50km/h zone and slap her with $1,038 penalty will actually make a change?