[AE98]

Hi there,

This happend last week to my brother and I want some sound advice and suggestions from police and public here on how to solve this.


My brother whose N license was suspended had his gf drive my dad's car to the mall, the gf has N license, and my dad is currently out of the country.

Inside the mall, the gf was afraid to park so my brother parked the car inside the mall. They then came back after a while and the gf drove the car away. The police then pulled the car over and examed both my brother's and the gf's license. They then decided the gf could not drive the car because she is not a family member (and thus ICBC doesnt cover her insurance) and more importantly, they saw my brother parking inside the mall whose license was suspended. However when they pulled over the car its the gf that is driving.

They then towed the car away and gave it a 60 days suspension. We now have to pay for the storage which is charged by the day and the towing..We been going all over ICBC and the police station and rusty's trying to get the car back and theres no way out.

The question is, can the police tow the car away base on that? shouldnt they just issue a warning and have something else come and drive the car away?

Im absolutely furious as its my dad's work car and hes out of the country on a trip and when he comes back it will be big problem for the family.

any help is appreciated.

[Enecsver]

lemme tell you a story similar to your situation. my friend did the same thing. His license was suspended but still he chose to operate a motor vehicle on public road. The cops pulled him over. Since it was his second offense, they put him in jail for 7 days.

[AE98]

lemme tell you a story similar to your situation. my friend did the same thing. His license was suspended but still he chose to operate a motor vehicle on public road. The cops pulled him over. Since it was his second offense, they put him in jail for 7 days.

well, thing is,

it wasnt my brother that was driving when the car was pulled over. it was the gf
secondly the gf has a license and insurance.

[Presto]

You mentioned that the cops saw your brother driving, when he's not supposed to, and it looks like that's enough reason to do what they did. They probably could've been nice about it, but it is Richmond.

[Gt-R R34]

My brother whose N license was suspended had his gf drive my dad's car to the mall, the gf has N license



Your problem/question/solution is right there.

It's worst to drive without insurance then without your license. Something tells me you're going to have a very angry dad.

[winson604]

Yea in this case I don't think your bros gf being the one driving when pulled over really has anything to do with it since they witnessed your brother driving the car previous to that. The fact that your bros gf "doesn't" have the right to drive the car seems like no issue to me. I've been questioned by cops before while operating my gf's moms car and it was never an issue when I told them I got permission to drive it.

[Chestnut]

If what you say is true and that your brother was only parking the car then I don't really think that is the problem. Plus from your story, you said that they went into the mall and the GF drove the car out. The police usually have better things to do than to wait for a couple finish shopping at the mall (IMO).

I do know that the GF cannot operate the vehicle if her name is not on the insurance and since your bro's license is suspended they were out of luck.

Usually the police will tow the car if the car was pulled over at a NO STOP part of the road and since no one can operate the vehicle at the time they have no choice but to tow the car. Similar situation happened to me but the police said if I can get a family member to come and drive the car away before the tow truck driver arrived then it was fine.. luckily my house wasn't far and my father arrived just in time.

Hope everything works out.

[Teriyaki]

Yea in this case I don't think your bros gf being the one driving when pulled over really has anything to do with it since they witnessed your brother driving the car previous to that. The fact that your bros gf "doesn't" have the right to drive the car seems like no issue to me. I've been questioned by cops before while operating my gf's moms car and it was never an issue when I told them I got permission to drive it.

Thing is, she wasn't insured to drive the car, which is quite a huge offense. That, compounded with the fact that the cops already saw the guy drive while having his license suspended is like a double whammy.

[nns]

Yea in this case I don't think your bros gf being the one driving when pulled over really has anything to do with it since they witnessed your brother driving the car previous to that. The fact that your bros gf "doesn't" have the right to drive the car seems like no issue to me. I've been questioned by cops before while operating my gf's moms car and it was never an issue when I told them I got permission to drive it.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of permission did you get? Verabal? If so, is that the norm and acceptable case?

[Mugen EvOlutioN]

If what you say is true and that your brother was only parking the car then I don't really think that is the problem. Plus from your story, you said that they went into the mall and the GF drove the car out. The police usually have better things to do than to wait for a couple finish shopping at the mall (IMO).

I do know that the GF cannot operate the vehicle if her name is not on the insurance and since your bro's license is suspended they were out of luck.

Usually the police will tow the car if the car was pulled over at a NO STOP part of the road and since no one can operate the vehicle at the time they have no choice but to tow the car. Similar situation happened to me but the police said if I can get a family member to come and drive the car away before the tow truck driver arrived then it was fine.. luckily my house wasn't far and my father arrived just in time.

Hope everything works out.


but if that was the case what IF today i lend my car (say a mini van or a truck) to lend it to my friend/relative/gf;s mom to use for her moving or any other shit that they need for that vehicle. Does that mean insurance wont cover because NOT listed under the insurance??


:confused:

[Chestnut]

If your name is not on the insurance paper you shouldn't be driving the car.

Even if your allow or give permission for a 'friend' to drive your car, since his name is not on the insurance paper you run the risk of being pulled over by the police and getting in trouble. Same thing as operating a vehicle without proper insurance.

[RCubed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lQFee3A4Zw&feature=related

[taylor192]

Is that how dumb ICBC rules are?

My insurance in Ontario allowed anyone within a certain age (mine was 25yo+) to drive my car periodically.

---

The mall parking lot should be private property, and AFAIK you're allowed to drive on private property without a valid license or even obeying the rules of the road (ie race tracks!). In Ottawa, bylaw could not even give you a ticket in a parking lot, cause the rules don't cover private property.

Is it really that much different here?

[LemonH2O]

My friend is an insurance agent, we talked about this once too

Technically, anyone with a valid license can drive an insured car with insurer's permission. There's no law stating you can't lend your insured car to someone.
HOWEVER, if anything were to happen while so and so is driving your car and it's their fault, the insurer gets screwed.

So really, lend your car at your own risk.
My boyfriend was driving my dad's car, we got rear ended, lady who hit us admitted full fault, we were never even questioned.

[Gumby]

Gut feeling: I think there has been a lot of misinformation in this thread so far.

[wouwou]

but if that was the case what IF today i lend my car (say a mini van or a truck) to lend it to my friend/relative/gf;s mom to use for her moving or any other shit that they need for that vehicle. Does that mean insurance wont cover because NOT listed under the insurance??


:confused:yes, that's why you should not lend out your car.

Treat it as your wife and assume anyone borrowing the car is planing to gangbang her

[wouwou]

Is that how dumb ICBC rules are?

My insurance in Ontario allowed anyone within a certain age (mine was 25yo+) to drive my car periodically.

---

The mall parking lot should be private property, and AFAIK you're allowed to drive on private property without a valid license or even obeying the rules of the road (ie race tracks!). In Ottawa, bylaw could not even give you a ticket in a parking lot, cause the rules don't cover private property.

Is it really that much different here?that's actually how SMART ICBC is in making money.

Since an insurance quote is based on not only the type of cars one drives, but also his/her driving record, it is only logical that the insurance applies to that particular people. If you let someone else drive the car, the game changes and he/she is paying more/less than he/she should have paid for insurance. Otherwise EVERY teenager will have their parents take out insurance with roadstar status on their "performance enhanced Civic" and abuse the insurance system.

[twitchyzero]

so what actually happens to the insurer if they lend the car out and the lender was at fault in an accident?

All i've heard different stories all the time, is there a definate rule?

[wouwou]

^ICBC can deny claim and the lender will be stuck with all the costs with the accident.

The lendee, walks.

Correct me if I am wrong

[Presto]

So much misinformation here. You don't need to have your name on the insurance to drive a car. You should have permission from the owner to drive it. The insurance is tied to the car, which is tied to the principal operator. If you get into an accident, the principal operator's insurance takes the hit.

Case in point, my dad was driving my mom's car. He was backing out, and a girl hit him. ICBC deemed it his fault. My mom's insurance takes the hit, and she moves down 3 levels on the claim scale.

[you]

why the hell was ur gf pulled over in the first place?
burnouts? bj?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyM3HVdH1Kw

[Fafine]

im pretty sure you can drive a insured car that doesn't have your name on it as long as its insured. my buddy was driving his gf's moms car and he got pulled over for not displaying N and ticketed. but they didn't tow the car cause his name isn't on the insurance paper, they just gave him the ticket n let him be on his way..

[terkan]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think his bro's gf should gtfo the road if she can't even park. How the hell did she get a license.

[wouwou]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think his bro's gf should gtfo the road if she can't even park. How the hell did she get a license.

she's a female N driver

:D

[Noir]

So much misinformation here. You don't need to have your name on the insurance to drive a car. You should have permission from the owner to drive it. The insurance is tied to the car, which is tied to the principal operator. If you get into an accident, the principal operator's insurance takes the hit.

Case in point, my dad was driving my mom's car. He was backing out, and a girl hit him. ICBC deemed it his fault. My mom's insurance takes the hit, and she moves down 3 levels on the claim scale.

+1. Presto got it right.

The gf can drive the car and is insured. If she gets into an accident, the car's insurance policy will respond.

Me thinks this is whole gf-driving/bf-parking, cops waiting for couple to finish their day in the mall to bust them is just a big elaborate story to maintain innocence.

Nice try but I'd rather bet that it was bf driving illegally as this concoction of a story is not even feasable of situation to begin with. Nice try.

[Honyoung]

my freind with an L was driving on kingsway (burnaby side) with 5 of my other freinds and me
he got pulled over by the rcmp the cop was really nice and just let my other friend with an N to drive his car home which wasnt that far.
insurance didnt really seem like an issue atm but i dunno i just recently got my N and still dont have a clue about insurance my parents handle that part
i thought that insurance was under the actual person and not the car

[Gumby]

Im absolutely furious as its my dad's work car and hes out of the country on a trip and when he comes back it will be big problem for the family.
I don't think you should be furious - but your dad will be with your "brother"...

[impactX]

You should be more mad at your brother.

[StylinRed]

probably already answered but short answer: yes they can do that.

[hk20000]

and the main reason for tow is that they saw ur bro drive.

[Lomac]

The reason why they could have told the G/F that she wasn't allowed to drive the car was possibly because the insurance on the car is only for drivers with 10+ years of driving experience. Many parents have this on their insurance, yet forget all about it when they go to lend it to their son or daughter. It wouldn't necessarily be grounds for having it towed, but when it's compounded by the fact that they saw someone driving it who had a suspended license, that merely was the icing on the cake.

[Lude S]

i think he is pissed is because his brother = him.........

[winson604]

Just out of curiosity, what kind of permission did you get? Verabal? If so, is that the norm and acceptable case?

It was just verbal consent that I got but i'm not sure what is the acceptable way by law

[orange7]

Police literally stolen/taken my family's car from the street?
this title is misleading because the police did not literally stole the car

[jigga250]

If your name is not on the insurance paper you shouldn't be driving the car.

Even if your allow or give permission for a 'friend' to drive your car, since his name is not on the insurance paper you run the risk of being pulled over by the police and getting in trouble. Same thing as operating a vehicle without proper insurance.

This is 100% wrong. How do you think people test drive cars? Why do you think they ask who the "principle operator" is on the insurance? Note "principle operator", not "sole operator".

edit: and the OP's "brother" shouldn't have been making (likely completely unnecessary) trips to the mall if it was OH NOES HIS DADS CAR WHO NEEDS IT FOR WORK ZOMG. Man up and take responsibility.

[wouwou]

This is 100% wrong. How do you think people test drive cars? Why do you think they ask who the "principle operator" is on the insurance? Note "principle operator", not "sole operator".

edit: and the OP's "brother" shouldn't have been making (likely completely unnecessary) trips to the mall if it was OH NOES HIS DADS CAR WHO NEEDS IT FOR WORK ZOMG. Man up and take responsibility.

in many culture, in a situation like this taking responsibility means hurting real bad ;)

[Marco911]

I'm not sure in what warped universe a cop would recall seeing your brother parking a car at the mall and then for some reason pull the vehicle over when his gf was driving? Either your brother drives (parks) like a retard attracting attention, or his gf does (how incompetent can you be to think you can drive on the public street but not park?).

[Culture_Vulture]

Inside the mall, the gf was afraid to park so my brother parked the car inside the mall. They then came back after a while and the gf drove the car away. The police then pulled the car over and examed both my brother's and the gf's license. They then decided the gf could not drive the car because she is not a family member (and thus ICBC doesnt cover her insurance) and more importantly, they saw my brother parking inside the mall whose license was suspended. However when they pulled over the car its the gf that is driving.


uh huh,
how long were they in the mall for?
I don't see why the police would ponder outside the mall for a few hours waiting for the two of them to do their things inside. There's gotta be much more (or much less) information that what you're giving.

I think this is a lot less about ICBC/the police than about what you're trying to cover up with your story to ask a question while maintaining a neutral position in the situation.

Regardless, I hope your dad isn't like Russell Peter's dad.

[lilaznviper]

like lomac said its probably the insurance paper that state is only allow to be driven by a person with 10+ years of driving experience. for me to drive my parents car, my dad had to change his insurance to a more expensive one to cover a person without 10+ years experience
but anyone can drive that car as long as its insured


but im thinking the story this person is telling us is not full
it makes no sense for a cop to stay around a mall for so long just to pull you over
and how did they know at that time he had a suspended licence anyways

[Lude S]

It was just verbal consent that I got but i'm not sure what is the acceptable way by law

so now, u are the brother of the OP?:haha:

this is just getting good, i am sure there is more to the story than what the op had told us.

1, his parents proberly had the 10 years or over driving expreience saving on their insurance which means anyone under 10 years driving experience wont be able to operate the vehicle.

2, he/or his brother was driving the vehicle without a DL and happend to get stopped on the road, and then quickly switch seats with the gf and the pop saw them do it.

[SkinnyPupp]

The reason why they could have told the G/F that she wasn't allowed to drive the car was possibly because the insurance on the car is only for drivers with 10+ years of driving experience. Many parents have this on their insurance, yet forget all about it when they go to lend it to their son or daughter. It wouldn't necessarily be grounds for having it towed, but when it's compounded by the fact that they saw someone driving it who had a suspended license, that merely was the icing on the cake.
I'm going to requote this, because it's true, and I am shocked that it didn't come up sooner in the thread.

[SkinnyPupp]

i think he is pissed is because his brother = him.........
And I'm requoting this, because it's most likely true, and fucking hilarious

[GordonTse]

Lomac hit the spot. when i got pulled over for front tint back in december, the cop said i can't drive the car because it was under my dad's name. but i did not know the insurance was probably insured for 10+ years licensed drivers. so that's why the cop said i couldn't drive it. but now the restriction is off and i can drive the vehicle 49% of the time, according to my insurance agent. so pretty much if there is no 10+ year restriction(cheaper insurance) on the insurance, pretty much anyone can drive the vehicle with the owner's permission.

[jlo mein]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think his bro's gf should gtfo the road if she can't even park. How the hell did she get a license.

Seriously! Why aren't more people concerned about this? How can someone have an N license and not be able to park? WTF is wrong with our driver education system???

[zoomx2]

Your ICBC insurance allows anyone who has the owner's permission to operate the car and be insured, unless the policy explicitly says that can't happen. A random stranger can drive your dad's car if his permission has given.

In the OP's case, I think he should have deny the police's request to see his driver's license. The police have no right to demand your license unless you are operating or in charge of a motor vehicle.

The police could demand to know your name and address only if you were suspected, on reasonable grounds, to have committed or will commit an offense.

In the OP's case, driving a car in a parking lot doesn't give the police reasonable grounds to detain (and question) you...unless the cop knows prior to pulling you over that your license was suspended.

I think you should dispute the ticket in court. The burden of proof lies with the crown to proof that the OP drove the vehicle. Not identifying the driver right away (ie pulling over the car some minutes later) should raise reasonable doubts that the person ticketed and the person driving some minutes earlier is not the same person. Unless the cop was close to you while you parked and/or positively identified you before you went inside the mall, that should fly.

If the charge does that thrown out, you might be able to recover your costs on towing/storage...but I suspect that's more trouble than it's worth.

[zoomx2]

The reason why they could have told the G/F that she wasn't allowed to drive the car was possibly because the insurance on the car is only for drivers with 10+ years of driving experience. Many parents have this on their insurance, yet forget all about it when they go to lend it to their son or daughter. It wouldn't necessarily be grounds for having it towed, but when it's compounded by the fact that they saw someone driving it who had a suspended license, that merely was the icing on the cake.

I don't think this is true. The restriction only applies to people in the same household.

For example, if my GF and her parents live together and her parents have that 10+ year restriction on the policy, my GF isn't allowed (by the policy) to drive the car, but I am (since I don't reside in the same household).

[El Bastardo]

I'm pretty sure what Lomac is saying is sound.

And to deny the cop his license would've been a bad idea. The officer could've considered the vehicle stolen and had it impounded with the driver facing charges.




Time to stop QQing and suck it up.

[zoomx2]

It said in the insurance papers that the 10 year limit applies only to people living at the same address/household.

On what grounds would the cops consider the vehicle stolen? and what charges?

I'm pretty sure what Lomac is saying is sound.

And to deny the cop his license would've been a bad idea. The officer could've considered the vehicle stolen and had it impounded with the driver facing charges.




Time to stop QQing and suck it up.

[Hot Karl]

i've had a friend who had his license suspended before. he was at the beach and his ride was parked.

gets back hours later and a cop is waiting for him. reason? cop was running plates and it said the owners' license was suspended. so he just waited until the driver came back. if he has a license, it's all good. if not, you're screwed.

my buddy hops in and then gets pulled over right after he turns the key.

so yes they can and will wait all day if they feel like it.

[SkinnyPupp]

It said in the insurance papers that the 10 year limit applies only to people living at the same address/household.

On what grounds would the cops consider the vehicle stolen? and what charges?
So you think that if the person lives in the house and has less than 10 years of driving experience, they aren't allowed the drive, but if they live next door, they would be?

[Soundy]

http://www.icbc.com/cs/Satellite?pagename=ICBC%2Ficbc_Redirect&url=%2Fautoplan%2Fcosts%2Fsave-money%2Fexperience-discount

Ten or more years of driving experience

If you have 10 years or more driving experience, talk to your Autoplan broker to see whether your policy qualifies for savings.

Who is eligible?

You must be at the base rate or lower on the Claim-Rated Scale.

The experience rate classes apply to the vehicle and not to the drivers. In order to qualify, the owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more.

If you have a cumulative 10 years' experience, you could also be eligible. This means that if your licence was suspended, prohibited, lapsed or cancelled at any point, but you have a minimum of 10 years' experience in total, you can still apply. (Please note: periods during which a license has been suspended, prohibited, lapsed or cancelled are not included in the 10-year period.)

[Noir]

The reason why they could have told the G/F that she wasn't allowed to drive the car was possibly because the insurance on the car is only for drivers with 10+ years of driving experience. Many parents have this on their insurance, yet forget all about it when they go to lend it to their son or daughter. It wouldn't necessarily be grounds for having it towed, but when it's compounded by the fact that they saw someone driving it who had a suspended license, that merely was the icing on the cake.

Just a polite correction but this is 100% false. I currently work Commercial Insurance but I did my time on entry level auto years ago.

As long as the primary operator of the vehicle has above 10+ years experience, he can still get the 10+ years rate credit and IS still allowed to loan his car to friends, aquaintances, families as long as they have a valid drivers license.

There is always that small margin of leeway. Just like despite rating your car as "pleasure use" you are still allowed a small margin of times when it's allowed to be used "to & from work." Up to 6x per calendar month IIRC.

Now IIRC, there IS a rate credit where a car's policy is given additional credit as long as ALL occupants within the household holds 10+ years driving experience or over. But I doubt this is actually the case as the OP's dad is obviously ineligible due to having N sign drivers within the household, or he has misrepresented the car's rating to be eligible for lower rates.

In any case, the insurance, the cop stakeout, the whole series of complications is only feasable by long stretches to be considered realistic. Still sounds like OP was just driving w/ a suspended license.

[7seven]

I don't see any issues with the vehicle impoundment at all, if anything you should be furious at your brother.

Your brother's license was suspended which means that he is not allowed to operate a vehicle in any manner, he did so by parking so the vehicle was correctly impounded for 60 days. Your brother should be taking responsiblity for this and you need to stop blaming the officers or ICBC, when his license was suspended he should've known all the rules of what he can or can't do. http://www.icbc.com/driver-licensing/tickets/vehicle-impoundment, notice it states that a vehicle will be impounded even if it doesn't belong to the operator, so its irrelevant that its your dads car and he needs it for work or that his gf could have driven it.

The officers caught your brother operating the vehicle while suspended, so they had to impound the vehicle as per the motor vehicle act, see http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20M%20--/Motor%20Vehicle%20Act%20%20RSBC%201996%20%20c.%203 18/00_Act/96318_02.xml#section105.1, notice the key word must "If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has operated a motor vehicle while (a) the person is prohibited from driving a motor vehicle under............the peace officer must cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a place directed by the peace officer"

[Edison_Chen]

The 10 yr experience rule, only applies to members that are within the household (son, daughter, grandchildren, wife, husband, etc).

Now if its a friend's son or daughter and they have less than 10 yrs driving experience than that it ok.

Check the wording on the actual insurance paper, in the the top middle section, where how the vehicle will be driven. It is all mentioned there.

Sometimes if the principal operator and or the owners do not have 10 yrs driving experience, ICBC will then send out a letter to get them to change the rate class aka vehicle usage. If the members who drive the vehicle, they have less than 10 yrs, if they are not the principal or the owner, if there is an accident, ICBC has the right to deny any claim.

[Soundy]

Now IIRC, there IS a rate credit where a car's policy is given additional credit as long as ALL occupants within the household holds 10+ years driving experience or over. But I doubt this is actually the case as the OP's dad is obviously ineligible due to having N sign drivers within the household, or he has misrepresented the car's rating to be eligible for lower rates.

You don't RC :) From the ICBC page quoted below:

"The experience rate classes apply to the vehicle and not to the drivers. In order to qualify, the owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more."

When our son had his L, I got the 10-year discount because I didn't let him drive my car (mainly because it was a standard tranny). We decided he'd use my wife's minivan for his driving practice/training, so she didn't get the 10-year discount. When he left for UVic, she switched her insurance to include the discount again, since he wouldn't be driving anymore.

[InvisibleSoul]

That's actually pretty funny... going by what's written there to the word, it actually does imply that if you are not a member of the household, you don't need 10 years of experience to drive that vehicle... unless there is a specific clause somewhere else that also states ONLY members of your household are allowed to drive the vehicle.

[jonwon]

And I'm requoting this, because it's most likely true, and fucking hilarious

his bro is my friend...

[Gumby]

I'm going to requote this, because it's true, and I am shocked that it didn't come up sooner in the thread.
That's because most of the people on RS don't have 10 years driving experience!

[johny]

The reason why they could have told the G/F that she wasn't allowed to drive the car was possibly because the insurance on the car is only for drivers with 10+ years of driving experience. Many parents have this on their insurance, yet forget all about it when they go to lend it to their son or daughter. It wouldn't necessarily be grounds for having it towed, but when it's compounded by the fact that they saw someone driving it who had a suspended license, that merely was the icing on the cake.

the 10 year insurance thing is only for residents of the household. anyone living outside the house (the GF) can drive it with less then 10 years.

if it wasn't for the guy parking nothing was done wrong... and if you were in the mall for hours, then the GF pulled the car out of the lot, and was pulled over, then I'd be bitching. if the guy pulled it out of the parking spot, and then traded spots before pulling away, that would have attracted attention. (but he says he only parked it, not un parked it, so who knows)

[johny]

That's actually pretty funny... going by what's written there to the word, it actually does imply that if you are not a member of the household, you don't need 10 years of experience to drive that vehicle... unless there is a specific clause somewhere else that also states ONLY members of your household are allowed to drive the vehicle.


yes it's true.... how often do people let their neirbors kid drive there car away. almost never. where as their own kids take it every day = the bigger risk. it also states your own kids can drive it for emgs. like taking the injured parents to the hospital etc.

[ilvtofu]

wait this sounds so stupid
Do they have proof that they saw your brother driving? or just accusing him seems disputable, considering GF has an N she has the ability to park a car in a mall parking lot.

Second, I don't get why it would be wrong for GF to be driving the car even though she's not insured, she has permission, and seems like your bro would've been insured, so they'd be the same rate class? I dunno, but i mean, if i drop my car off at the dealer, and a lot boy decides to joyride it and gets caught. It doesn't seem reasonable to have my car suspended for 60 days... maybe his license but not my car

[ilvtofu]

Isn't there something about principal operator on the insurance? can't you dispute that the GF has only driven it once for like 15 mins, and isn't the principal operator?
hmm... ICBC is confusing

[quasi]

wait this sounds so stupid
Do they have proof that they saw your brother driving? or just accusing him seems disputable, considering GF has an N she has the ability to park a car in a mall parking lot.

Second, I don't get why it would be wrong for GF to be driving the car even though she's not insured, she has permission, and seems like your bro would've been insured, so they'd be the same rate class? I dunno, but i mean, if i drop my car off at the dealer, and a lot boy decides to joyride it and gets caught. It doesn't seem reasonable to have my car suspended for 60 days... maybe his license but not my car

It's because he drove the car with a suspended licence that it got towed and impounded, not because the insurance issue. If I borrowed my friends car, got pulled over and was impaired they would impound my friends car. Thats exactly what happened to this guy/girl, the cops seen him driving and he didn't have a licence. It doesn't matter who's car it is unless it was stolen or something.

Edit: Reading up, 7seven said the exact samething but worded it better. :)

[ilvtofu]

but how'd they prove he was driving?
I think it seems arguable, even though we know he was...

[quasi]

but how'd they prove he was driving?
I think it seems arguable, even though we know he was...

How do the police prove you were speeding? They obviously have a radar gun but it's not like they don't use it again after clocking a speeder, place it in the trunk and save it for the court date if there is one. They write a ticket then testify to the fact in court. Same idea, they seen him do it's all the proof they need.

[ilvtofu]

They have to show you the readings on the radar gun to actually fine you.

but neways, isn't 60 days vehicle suspension a little harsh?

[quasi]

They have to show you the readings on the radar gun to actually fine you.



No they don't.

[ilvtofu]

yeah its actually in your right to look at the readings,
when your caught by the radar gun, you have a right to ask.
They aren't required to show it, but they can't refuse?
otherwise police could pull anyone over.
Sorta like the cameras they install in intersections, they have to send you the actualy picture of you running the red,

Interestingly enough, if your car was in a street race they impound it for 48 hours? strange that its significantly less than driving with a suspended license.

[SumAznGuy]

No they don't.

Exactly. The officers have been trained to use a radar gun, and some have been trained to guestimate your speed when you are driving.
Because they are trainer and certified, their word tends to stand up in court better than the average person.

So when you go to court and say you weren't speeding and the cop says you were, you will lose 100% of the time.

So unless you can go to court and prove that you were not speeding, ie GPS recording, then you are guilty.

[quasi]

yeah its actually in your right to look at the readings,
when your caught by the radar gun, you have a right to ask.
They aren't required to show it, but they can't refuse?
otherwise police could pull anyone over.
Sorta like the cameras they install in intersections, they have to send you the actualy picture of you running the red,

Interestingly enough, if your car was in a street race they impound it for 48 hours? strange that its significantly less than driving with a suspended license.

I'm not going to argue, go post on the police forums and ask the same question. If you ask they'll probably show you but by no means are they required to show you.


http://www.beyond.ca/show-me-the-radar-reading/1877.html

In British Columbia, the police are not required to show radar or laser readings to the alleged offender. Further, I have never used a radar or laser that created any sort of printout to hand to the person receiving the ticket.

Failing to do either one will not make any difference to the case in traffic court.

[ilvtofu]

I wouldn't be surprised actually if they didn't have to show you the radar, considering how tight lipped and biased they are.

But I know people who have been caught for speeding and probably were, but disputed and won the case, because the officer says he has many years of experience in judging speed and could tell you were speeding (argued saying human error)

Without any proof they aren't guaranteed a victory, that's why our country can be considered less corrupt than others, when someone can dispute a speeding ticket against and officer and win.

[johny]

They have to show you the readings on the radar gun to actually fine you.

but neways, isn't 60 days vehicle suspension a little harsh?

they don't need to show you, and don't even need a radar gun to give you a ticket, they could watch you drive by and give you a ticket using their own speed judgement.

[ilvtofu]

Also, a lot of the officers are about attitude, and if your pleasant they may just issue a warning.

I'm assuming the guy in the above story probably wasn't very friendly, and argued with the officers, and got his car suspended for 60 days.

[WHEYsted]

I have somewhat of a similar situation. I was riding in the back seat of my friend's mom's car. His mom was driving and he was in the passenger seat. There was a police road block for some reason, and they noticed that my friend had not been wearing his seat belt. So they pulled us over and told his mom to get out of the car. Originally they were going to issue a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, but when his mom pulled out her driver's license they noticed it was expired so on top they issued a ticket for that as well, coming to a grand total of $400 in tickets. But also on top of that they towed her car since her license was expired and said that if someone came before the tow truck. They could take posession of the car. Unfortunately we called my mom but she didn't get there in time so she had to drive all of us to Autoplan to get her license renewed and then to the impound lot to get the car back.

[ilvtofu]

at least they gave the car back quickly, but this guys getting his car impounded for 60 days!!!
in your case seems like it was clearly non-disputable, when your pulled over while in the drivers seat with an expired license...

[SumAznGuy]

I wouldn't be surprised actually if they didn't have to show you the radar, considering how tight lipped and biased they are.

But I know people who have been caught for speeding and probably were, but disputed and won the case, because the officer says he has many years of experience in judging speed and could tell you were speeding (argued saying human error)

Without any proof they aren't guaranteed a victory, that's why our country can be considered less corrupt than others, when someone can dispute a speeding ticket against and officer and win.

Yes they are.
When it is he said she said, your word against a police officer's, they will win because you (the defendant) did not prove to the courts any reasonable doubt that the officer was incorrect in issuing a speeding ticket.

Now, if the officer said you were going 55 in a 50 zone, that argument might work. But if the officer said you were going 80 in a 50 zone, I don't see it happening. Even going 60 in a 50 zone, I can see the JP siding with the officer.

[ilvtofu]

So when you go to court and say you weren't speeding and the cop says you were, you will lose 100% of the time.


umm... yeah,
the guy i know that won several speeding disputes has a horrible driving record, and currently has a suspended license, and still managed to win in court. so enuf said.

[WHEYsted]

at least they gave the car back quickly, but this guys getting his car impounded for 60 days!!!
in your case seems like it was clearly non-disputable, when your pulled over while in the drivers seat with an expired license...

But it seems like they wanted someone to race the tow truck driver, and the winner got posession of the car. Doesn't this jeopardize public road safety if the person is trying to beat the tow truck?

[ilvtofu]

you don't necessarily race the tow truck driver, its sort of your own fault, although i understand it's human nature to wanna get there ASAP, but the police don't actually insinuate that first one there gets the car.
Would suck for truck driver to drive out there and have the car taken away neways.

So did the car end up getting impounded and having to be retrieved? if so how much was it?

[7seven]

at least they gave the car back quickly, but this guys getting his car impounded for 60 days!!!
in your case seems like it was clearly non-disputable, when your pulled over while in the drivers seat with an expired license...

In nonamehustla's case, the car would only have to be impounded on the spot if his friends mother didn't have a valid driver's license and has previously been convicted of driving without a valid license. I gather that this was the first time she was caught without a valid license, so it was acceptable to have another individual with a proper license drive the vehicle away.

In the original posters case, his brother already had a suspended license and was caught operating a vehicle with a suspended license, so the car must be impounded on the spot. Doesn't matter if its not his brothers car or if someone else with a valid license can drive it away. 60 days was not the officer being harsh, it is the standard impoundment time for this offense.

Those are the rules and regulations set out by ICBC and the Motor Vehicle Act, see my post above http://www.revscene.net/forums/showpost.php?p=6437844&postcount=53

[rslater]

This stories fun and all, but seriously the only thing that should be discussed is the fact that your brothers girlfriend put my life at risk by driving due to the fact that if she can't park, she can't drive.

[SumAznGuy]

umm... yeah,
the guy i know that won several speeding disputes has a horrible driving record, and currently has a suspended license, and still managed to win in court. so enuf said.

No offense, but you didn't prove to anyone here that that is what happened to your friend.

I know for a fact that when you go to court and it goes he said she said, the cop will win. As the person who given the ticket, it is your duty to prove to the JP that you were not guity of the ticket, whether the ticket is for speeding, running a red light. Heck, if the cop gives you a ticket for street racing, you can lose your liscence and there is nothing you can do about it.

[scheng924]

we still need to address the fact the gf can't park....

and not to mention OP's brother must have some driving attitude to have a suspended license in the first place...

last point...

NOT FULL STORY..
your brother may be lying to you