[DC5-S]

Okay so as you know it was snowing today.. I took my dad's car to go pick up something for him.. it was freezing out and before I went into the car I cleaned off the snow with my hands on the front and sides of the car.. I didnt bother to do the back because I could just use my side mirrors fine and my hands were freezing, and also the store was 2 minutes away so it was a very short trip.. this cop going in the opposite lane saw that i hadnt done the back so he made a U-turn and pulled me over.. he told me it was obstructing my view im like umm no its not actually I can use my side mirrors fine to see the back how do you think I saw you following me.. He said well if you got in an accident it would be your fault.. im like no it wouldnt because the person that hit me would be at fault for rear ending me and I wasn't backing up anywhere so whats the problem?.. anyways he gave me a ticket for visibility obstruction.. Does he also give tickets to semi trucks when they have a load in the back? or those white vans with doors on the back with no windows? or people with trucks and a truck hatch on the back that is filled up with stuff? NO! so what the hell, I should be able to dispute this.. I just want some opinions cause this is bullshit I deserved a warning there not a freaking ticket I mean comon.. I could see fine in the back.. its not like im driving on the highway.. but even then if i was in the highway the snow would have just flown off..

[orange7]

lol..

you got balls to talk to a cop like that..

dammnn.. for me.. i would auto suck up...

haha.. no offence, but i think you could have got away with it if you didn't argue back and agreed with him..you would have gotten a warning instead..


Lol..

um.. ya... i know what you mean man...

[MarkyMark]

This ticket could have been avoided by a simple "sorry officer I didnt know that was illegal i'll get out and brush the snow off right now", but hey, you decided to argue.

[wacko604]

you should be able to argue it. It dosn't state anywhere that you need to see out the back window. You could paint the window black and they can't do anything about it as long as you have side mirrors.

[InvisibleSoul]

Wow, that's a pretty BS ticket. Definitely go dispute it. I mean, logically just those arguments you presented above should be enough to get the ticket thrown out.

[DC5-S]

this arguement was actually when he gave me the ticket not before lol.. he knew he had nothing to argue with so he just walked away after a tiny bit of arguing.. and i doubt he would give me a warning.. these days its very rare for cops to give warnings.. i will definetly dispute.. this is a bullshit ticket and all it deserved was a warning..

[Rich Sandor]

I'll chime in with the facts instead of just another pointless opinion:

The ticket is absolute bullshit, you can dispute it, and you will win. What you "should" do first, it save some time & money by phoning the officer's detatchment supervisor, explaining the situation - politely - and asking for the ticket to be dismissed instead of wasting court resources.

Let us know how it goes.

EDIT, you should let us know exactly what the ticket is written for (section # and fine amount)

[orange7]

The ticket is absolute bullshit, you can dispute it, and you will win. What you "should" do first, it save some time & money by phoning the officer's detatchment supervisor, explaining the situation - politely - and asking for the ticket to be dismissed instead of wasting court resources.

Let us know how it goes.

EDIT, you should let us know exactly what the ticket is written for (section # and fine amount)

definitely a go idea

[Rich Sandor]

..

[DC5-S]

oh well ill still dispute it and see what happens

[Rich Sandor]

Okay, maybe it's just because I'm late and tired, or maybe I'm retarded, but actually I DO think you can dispute it afterall.

The reason being:


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.


If the side-mirrors provide alternative vision, in lieu of using the rear-view mirror, then your vision is not actually impaired.

[DC5-S]

"Requirements for moving vehicle

195 (1) A person must not cause a vehicle to move on a highway if

(a) the control of the driver over the driving mechanism of the vehicle, or

(b) the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle

is obstructed"

this is what i got through google

[Rich Sandor]

Requirements for moving vehicle
195 (1) A person must not cause a vehicle to move on a highway if

(a) the control of the driver over the driving mechanism of the vehicle, or

(b) the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle

is obstructed.

(2) A passenger in a vehicle must not occupy a position in it that interferes with the driver's view ahead or with his or her control over the driving mechanisms of the vehicle.



FRONT OR SIDES - NOT REAR.

Dispute that MOFO!!!

:)

[DC5-S]

it looks like he wrote part (a).. wtf.. what does (a) even mean? how can i find out the supervisoer number?

[Rich Sandor]

Who gave you the ticket? VPD, Richmond RCMP? etc etc? Find out which detatchment it was (should be on the ticket) phone them, and try to get through to either the officer who wrote the ticket, or his supervisor. It might be painful, but worth a shot.

[DC5-S]

coquitlam RCMP.. thanks for your help ill try in the morning. and it happened in port coquitlam. but i guess they have jurisdiction in poco?

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

fuck that cop


tons of my contractors working for me all the work vans back window and side window are blocked, they cant see shit other than using their side mirror.

:rolleyes:

2nd of all , dispute that shit, and u will win

i just recently went to dispute a ticket, officer no show

BUt there was tons of ppl in the same court room as i was, and i was near the last. So i watched a few cases, there was this cop the judge asked him whether he is willing to lower the ticket x 3 (3 cases) the cop gave a attitude like fuck no. one of a black fellow he was caught driving without insurance, no driver license (license expired 7 months ago), which is like $1000 for driving wihtout insurance and like $150 ish for no driver license. the cop refused, the black dude pleade that the ticket is too expensive and he is poor, still going to school blah blah blah. So as soon as the cop refused, judge was like OKAY i will lower ur fine to $300, and no license to $70ish, how long do u need to pay this off, ok i will give u 10 months. The cop got owned 3 times by the judge lowering it to the lowest fine right in his face since 3 cases he refused to give the citizen a break

[tiger_handheld]

^ was the cop white??

[!LittleDragon]

There's no law that even requires you to have a back window...

[$_$]

This ticket could have been avoided by a simple "sorry officer I didnt know that was illegal i'll get out and brush the snow off right now", but hey, you decided to argue.

wow, i love the attitude towards cops

we should be all nice to them because we're scared of them and we're scared of them hassling

WHAT?


how does that make sense ?
heres a guy that did NOTHING WRONG and he has to kiss some fucktards ass just cause he doesnt want to get hassled? fuck THAT shit. i say good on you and you shoulda ripped on him for such a useless ticket. we shouldnt have to be AFRAID of cops, their suppose to be here to PROTECT us.

[Euro7r]

Don't understand the retarded cops logical behind snowing on your rear window and you being liable for a car accident if it happened if someone reared you.

If someone reared you, you would simply report rear ender accident, simple as that. So, what, tell ICBC, you had snow on your rear window? Who the hell would report that with the accident.

[DC5-S]

I called the office and spoke with a traffic cop and he said you have to have a 350 degree unobstructed view.. he also said vans and trucks have different privelages and that for cars you have to be able to see 350 degrees.. is this true? this guy might just be saying this to make me pay..

[MarkyMark]

wow, i love the attitude towards cops

we should be all nice to them because we're scared of them and we're scared of them hassling

WHAT?


how does that make sense ?
heres a guy that did NOTHING WRONG and he has to kiss some fucktards ass just cause he doesnt want to get hassled? fuck THAT shit. i say good on you and you shoulda ripped on him for such a useless ticket. we shouldnt have to be AFRAID of cops, their suppose to be here to PROTECT us.


No, go right ahead and be Mr. Thug Wannabe and tell the cop how you really feel, just don't bitch after the fact when he writes you a ticket.

[tiger_handheld]

did he say 350 - cuz clearly . .. he's missing 10 degrees . . . and that 10 degrees could be the rear window...

[3seriesBeeM]

if im not mistaken your allowed to have blacked out back windows ie. contractor vans. and your allowed to have a presidential tint on the back window and tint obstructs your view i say dispute and tell is what happens. There are some cops who are nice and understand situations than there are others that go on power trips and give you tix gor no reason if i deserved the tix ill pay it but if i dont think i deserve it ill dispute and the tix ive disputed ive always won

[Eff-1]

what section was written on your ticket?

[SkunkWorks]

At the end of the day, how much time would it have taken you to clear the snow off the back window?

What sucks is following some turd who has snow on his roof, rear window, etcetc. which creates a shit whiteout driving experience for those behind him.

[DC5-S]

what section was written on your ticket?

read dude lol

[InvisibleSoul]

I called the office and spoke with a traffic cop and he said you have to have a 350 degree unobstructed view.. he also said vans and trucks have different privelages and that for cars you have to be able to see 350 degrees.. is this true? this guy might just be saying this to make me pay..
WTF?

What, so is it also illegal if you have three people sitting in the back seat and their heads are partially blocking the rear window?

http://i42.tinypic.com/e6x835.jpg

Nobody likes the tuna here.

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

WTF?

What, so is it also illegal if you have three people sitting in the back seat and their heads are partially blocking the rear window?

http://i42.tinypic.com/e6x835.jpg

Nobody likes the tuna here.

or wat if u are moving and have boxes piled up in ur mini van after removing the seats


:rolleyes:

[DC5-S]

ya i know ive seen cars many times with piled up shit in the back seat im fucking disputing this bullshit ticket

[snowball]

that's bs, if you have working mirrors you can have no rear window, check the police forum and skidmark will tell you that.

and the traffic cop told you you need 350 degree view, he shouldnt be saying that unless it's actually written in the MVA as "350 degrees"

[hal0g0dv2]

how much was the ticket, that is BS tho

[skidmark]

Just to make sure, instead of guessing, was it section 195 that you were ticketed for?

[DC5-S]

yes 195 (1) (a)

[impactX]

Moving this to Police forum.

[1983 Z28]

Well it does appear that you're ok; i took a pretty good look through the regs and MVA and couldn't find anything about the rear window being obscured.

Although, it definitely isn't as safe as simply wiping it off.

[DC5-S]

thanks for the help, anything about the rear view mirror either? i dont know where that cop got 350 degrees from i guess he was making stuff on the spot and thought I would be ignorant enough to fall for it. he was also talking about the blindspot but how can the blindspot be affected by the rear view.. i look through my rear passenger window for cars

[1983 Z28]

He was making that up. The law states that so long as you have side view mirrors mounted to both the left and right side of your automobile, you can obscure your rear window as much as you'd like.

[DC5-S]

i also remember him saying trucks and semis have different rules.. im like what about those white vans with doors on the back with no window he said they have the same rules lol

[1983 Z28]

Trucks and vans have certain exemptions from the MVA regulations, but he cited you a MVA section that isn't from the regulations (MVA is the laws pertaining to how you drive, regulations pertain to what you drive).

You're good. Dispute.

[DC5-S]

how would the 195 (1) (a) even affect someone? it says "a person must not cause a vehicle to move on a highway if the control of the driver over the driving mechanism of the vehicle is obstructed" would that mean you would have to be driving with a steering wheel lock on the car or something? lol.. and why would he even write that section on that ticket it has nothing to do with visibility..

[1983 Z28]

Yeah, pretty much.

[zulutango]

DC5-S he would have to be able to convince the JP that the snow on the back window did "obstruct" as stated specifically in that section. Sometimes reading the section from the "cheater' does not give you the correct section.

[DC5-S]

i dont understand..

[1983 Z28]

Uh. Neither do I? What's this "cheater" you speak of, ZT? And who would have to convince the JP that the snow was obstructing the rear window?

195 (1) A person must not cause a vehicle to move on a highway if

(a) the control of the driver over the driving mechanism of the vehicle, or

(b) the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle

is obstructed.

The rear window was obstructed, hence the section simply doesn't apply, and the kid doesn't deserve the ticket.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[skidmark]

Either there is more to the story that we are not hearing or the officer was genuinely mistaken in issuing the ticket. If the latter is the case, you should be able to have it cancelled by speaking to the officer's supervisor. Call the detachment listed on the ticket, ask for the supervisor and see what you can do.

[wing_woo]

I followed that advice when I got the front tinted windows ticket. The officer was mistaken and I showed him the car during the day and he realized his error, but he still couldn't cancel the ticket. He said I'd have to dispute it but he'd plead no contest. He said he couldn't cancel the ticket. If only he knew he could do that.

[DC5-S]

i dont wanna talk to that guy again lol its already been disputed.. should i print out the MVA section and take it with me to court? and tell the judge that it doesnt say anywhere that your rear view window has to be free off obstructions. and that the officer wrote down the wrong section 195 (1) (a) which has nothing to do with visibility.. and i dont think the officer was mistaken in issuing the ticket he told me i have to be able to see through the rear of the car which clearly he is wrong.. and there is nothing more to the story.

[skidmark]

It's a simple form to fill out and submit if the white copy of the ticket has already been sent to ICBC. Once ICBC gets the form they cancel the ticket. Simple.

You can take a copy with you if you wish to, but it would be better to take 3, one for you, one for the JP and one for the officer is standard practice. The JP will have the Act on his desk and the officer should know what the section says, so you can get away in this case with just a copy for yourself.

[DC5-S]

What form do you speak off? The form that I had to fill out when I went to dispute the ticket?

[skidmark]

The officer fills out the form to cancel the ticket.

[Anjew]

sounds like a complete waste of time and money for both parties... sorry dc5

[Rich Sandor]

sounds like a complete waste of time and money for both parties... sorry dc5

It's a waste of time when someone disputes something they are completely guilty of.

It's NOT a waste of time when someone disputes a ticket that was wrongfully issued. (as is the case here.)

[Anjew]

complete miss on what i meant by waste of time....

The ticket was written in flaw or unnecessary and so dc5 has spent his precious time trying to resolve it. Our wasted tax money is paying the cop to show up in court for what most likely be a rescinded ticket.

We are only hearing one side of the story tho, There could have been many factors involved on why it was handed out. dc5's attitude during the incident, whether the car looked safe on the road (regardless of legality/technicality), maybe dc5 drove like he could not see beyond his front windshield. hell maybe the cop was racist, profiling, gf/wife left, hated the snow... who knows..

[DC5-S]

as i said my attitude started AFTER the ticket was issued.. all windows were clear except the rear window which hadn't been touched and I was travelling at a VERY slow speed i was going 30-40 in a 50 zone, as was everyone else since it was snowing

[Eff-1]

read dude lol

I did read. It wasn't clear. Even skidmark wasn't sure either.

:rolleyes:

[Soundy]

Attitude should have no bearing - there's no law against being a twit to a cop, and if the cop wrote up an improper ticket out of spite for the guy's attitude, then he should be reprimanded, and severely.

Now it IS generally required to keep your car clean of snow before heading onto the road, to avoid obstructing OTHER drivers' vision, but this ticket wasn't written under that section (what would that be anyway, drive without consideration?). As it's written, the ticket is bogus.

[DC5-S]

I did read. It wasn't clear. Even skidmark wasn't sure either.

:rolleyes:

sorry I did write it in an earlier post but I think i edited the post later on.

[DC5-S]

I hope when I go to court, this cop doesn't lie that my side windows were unclear as well to make me pay.. and we all know judges take the cops world over civilians

[CRS]

I hope when I go to court, this cop doesn't lie that my side windows were unclear as well to make me pay.. and we all know judges take the cops world over civilians

Not always true.

Ask for his notes. You are allowed to.

[00EM1]

Everytime I go to hockey I put my gear in the back seat because it dosnt fit in the trunk with the subs. Sometimes theres 2 hockey bags in there obstructing my view, so acording to this cop that would be illegal. Theres no way that ticket will stick in court, if you have 2 people in the backseat you dont have a "350 degree view."

[DC5-S]

finally got the court date for this ticket last week!!! its been 2 years.. I filed a charter of rights violation or w/e its called ( forgot).. because it had been so long.. I got a letter today from the crown, saying the ticket will be stayed even tho its been 2 years since it happened.. this is ridiculous!!!! The stupid letter didnt give any reason as to why the ticket will be stayed.. 2 years is a long time to wait for a court date.. im gona come prepared to court with all my research. Ill bring traffic act section 195 (1) (a).. i lost the ticket unfortunately.. but thankfully I have this old thread to read again and get caught up

[Jgresch]

I started reading this thread then I saw the date, I was like wtf.... but now it makes sense lol good luck man

[DC5-S]

2 years wait is ridiculous man.. and on top of that the crown gives me no reason why the ticket is still stayed! even tho its a violation of my charter of rights.. this is so stupid pisses me off

[Acuracura]

Are you sure the court date is still going on. When they say "STAYED" it could mean stay of proceedings which would mean it's not going to happen.

And if it is going on and you plan to put forth a charter violation you will need a good reason still. Can't simply say it's been 2 years so toss it. The judge will grill you; how has the 2 year wait caused you hardship?

[sho_bc]

Yeah. Charges being stayed means a Stay of Proceedings, which means the case has been dropped.

[DC5-S]

ok thanks, look likes the case has been closed then.. i need to learn my law terminology more

[orange7]

at first I was like :wiggle:
then when I saw the date which the threaded start I was like :eek:
but after reading the post which bumped this thread I was like :bigthumb: