ICBC cancelled my violation ticket
 

Long story short, I was driving down Barnet Hwy at around 11PM and "warning" motorists of a speed trap ahead by flashing my highbeams when I was pulled over for improper use of high beams. The officer talked about how I could blind someone and could cause a crash, warn a drunk driver who might injure others, etc, etc. Personally, I think big lifted frat-boy trucks with HIDs in reflector housings are far more blinding than my Civic and her stock head lights, but oh well... fair enough, he's doing his job and I completely understand his line of thinking as an LEO.

So I pled guilty to the ticket but disputed the fine amount, as the officer told me that would give me time to pay. I paid my tuition literally the day before the offense and just didn't have the $$ lying around at the time since I was also between jobs.

This was in Feb 2014.

Got a letter from ICBC saying that "the violation ticket has been reviewed by our office and found to be invalid, and cancelled. No payment or dispute is necessary" a couple of weeks ago.

Just wondering why/how the ticket would be found to be invalid? And if this happens often to high-beam tickets. I looked over the ticket and didn't see any issues, and the MVA act number matched the description of the offense. What gives? Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but just wanted to know if the whole high-beam to warn others method is in fact illegal or the officer was misinformed. Thanks!

strong username

so you won a ticket, and decided to tell RS, where the fine citizens of this amazing forum will come and tell you how wrong it was what you're doing and that you shoulda paid the ticket ?

I didn't "win".. I pleaded guilty and simply needed time to pay it. I just would like some light shed as to why. As in, was it in fact legal what I was doing? Did the LEO not want to do any extra paperwork (if any)... basically, should I keep doing the high-beam thingy to warn of speedtraps? But yes, I completely know what you mean, I am waiting for everyone here to jump on the hatewagon on how I am keeping drunk drivers on the road, any minute now...

If the MVB cancelled the VT it was likely because there was some sort of error on it. Things like wrong date, specific section used, improper fine amount..... that sort of thing.

:failed: :concentrate:

That is literally the exact opposite of what happened...

He was found guilty (i.e. lost) in court. Afterwards they cancelled the ticket for clerical reasons and he is wondering if this is normal.

to me its a win, so w/e

and we all know i got no common sense so;)

How did you plead guilty? to the Cop? Because disputing tickets, you'll be looking at least a year for a trial date. Not sure how you got one so fast if you had it in feb/2014.

When I went to ICBC, I disputed the fine amount, not the allegation. Disputing the fine amount = guilty, but you want time to pay/lower fine amount.

yeah they must have found an error in the ticket so they had to scrap it

Thanks, I never knew there was this option. I wonder if anyone could get an automatic deduction in the fine lol?
A bigger discount than 25 dollars would likely make more individuals pay, then backlog courts with disputes.
Make it 50 off? :concentrate:

So flashing your high-beams is illegal to warn of a radar trap, defined by "improper use of headlamps" or something like that under the guise of blinding oncoming drivers.

What about flashing them to warn drivers of deer on the road or other hazards? I suppose that too would be improper use of headlamps as it could blind the oncoming drivers.

There was recently a court case about this in Ontario, where a person was ticketed for doing exactly what the OP did. The only difference is, the person got pissed off and decided to sue the police about the ticket instead.

I don't remember exactly what happened, but I think the Ontario court ruled that the person was not guilty and the case was closed. Perhaps ICBC was merely following the precedence over there?

Personally, I think there is absolutely no grounds for giving the OP the ticket in the first place. "Improper use of high beams" because you were warning other drivers about the speed trap? As I always say, it is situations like this that give regular citizens legitimate reasons to hate the police.

I was honestly under the impression that it was legal here due to similar cases in the US (yes, I am aware that is a different country/legal system but it's worth pointing out) where it ruled that it was infringing on peoples' rights to "freedom of expression" by warning other motorists of radar traps. By this rule of "improper use of high beams", couldn't it also then be a ticketable offense to honk your horn (aka, "improper use") in support of striking/picketing workers when they are seen? Food for thought.

That being said, I won't be doing this again at all.

You technically can be fined for honking just for the sake of making noise.

It is unlikely the ticket was cancelled by icbc for any other reason except for errors on the VT. ICBC has no say as to whether the fine should be upheld or not, unless the officer requests to cancel the ticket or there was an error.

No grounds? Buddy used his high beams which is an offence under the MVA. Whether he used it to warn another driver about a speed trap or not, doesn't make a difference. If the OP was to dispute it, he would lose. The evidence isn't so much why he used the high beams but that he did.

^^ Undoubtedly the OP flashed his high beams. In court, the argument would rest on what constitute as "improper use", and I suspect the police and the court will have all the necessary legal reasons and tools to make sure the charge stick.

In a general layman / common sense kind of thinking, do you really think a little flashing of the high beams will make it more dangerous for drivers in the on-coming direction? Drivers need to deal with blinding light from on-coming traffic all the time. The OP flashing his is not gonna make it significantly worse, but it will draw a little attention, and that is the intent.

Multiple beam headlamps
4.06 (1) The headlamps of a motor vehicle must function so that the driver may select lamps capable of displaying

(a) an upper beam of light which, regardless of the load on the vehicle, will reveal an object at a distance of 100 m, and
(b) a lower beam of light which, regardless of the load on the vehicle, will reveal an object at a distance of 30 m and the high intensity portion of the lower beam will not strike the eye of an oncoming driver.
(2) The lighting system must include a tell-tale lamp which clearly indicates when the upper beam of light is being displayed.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a motor vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1940.
(4) If an automatic dimmer switch is installed, the device must have a manual control.
(5) A person who drives or operates a motor vehicle must not illuminate the upper beam of a headlamp if another motor vehicle is within a distance of 150 m from that vehicle, unless the driver has overtaken and passed the other vehicle, so that the high intensity portion of the beam does not strike or reflect into the eye of the other driver.
(6) Whenever a motor vehicle is parked or standing on a highway, the upper beam of the motor vehicle headlamps must not be illuminated.

If the driver was trying to warn another driver because of a "deer" on the road or highway, I can see how one can be a bit pissed if they received a ticket.... But if they were flashing another driver to warn them about a speed "Trap"... lol... how do you not expect a ticket from the Police.

Also from what I can see, the wording used, "Improper use of high beam" might also be the reason why the ticket was tossed. From my searches, that term seems to be layman's and the official wording is [B]Fail to dim headlamps.[/B

OP, was your fine 81 bucks and under the above section of the MVAR?

It was $148 I believe, and the sections of the MVAR are correct. I can't seem to find my copy of the ticket to clarify fully, though. Don't quote me on that but it was definitely in the 3 figures, not $81. With the $25 deduction to make it in the $50 range, I wouldn't have needed to dispute the fine amount...

Putting the incorrect fine amount is grounds for a cancelled ticket. That is most likely the reason. It is supposed to be an 81 dollar fine. You can even google it... ok fine.. Ill do it for you.

ctrl F and type "dim" and you will find it.

http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/...eside/89_97_04

Deer, speed trap, loose puppy, a jaywalking Rob Ford... doesn't matter. What it comes down to is use of headlamps contrary to the bolded section of the act.

It's like saying "speeding is OK when it's safe to do so or is necessary in order to not be a nuisance to other drivers".

You are right. I forgot that Police officers have NO discretion.. :suspicious:

God grant me the serenity & the wisdom to know those things I can change....and those I can't...and grant me a great hiding place for the bodies of those who pushed me further than even you could take! :):accepted:

I thought he was charged with impersonating a police officer? Or was that a different case?

Might also be the cop wrote your name or DL# wrong, so when they went to apply it to your record, the info didn't match up.