Traffic tickets vs. convictions - by RocketMan
Rug Burn Junky on 5/2/2012 at 17:56
Quote Posted by AR Master
the speeding ticket is the conviction... it's a provincial offence and you were (as you have to be) caught committing. The court is simply the option for you to argue down your fine or give mens rea defence (you were speeding because of some horrible emergency you couldn't avoid like being chased by someone attempting to kill you, the carpet sticking down the accelerator, etc) in which case the ticket is voided and removed from your record.
Now that I have a little more time to expound, let me just say that this is unequivocally and unquestionably wrong. Spectacularly so.
Now, considering that Andy is a bit of a closet-case jack-booted thug himself, it's not surprising that he views the pronouncement of an officer of the law as a "conviction," as though anyone with a badge is Judge Dredd, empowered to deal out sentences and punishment*.
But thankfully, that's not the case. You can not be "convicted" without a trial. That is a basic principle of law, even in Canada. As an administrative matter, they can resolve it by mail, and most likely treat a failure to request a trial as an admission of guilt, but there still needs to be an actual determination of guilt by a judge before it goes on your public record.
*Though to be fair, I'm sure he's at least a little bit conflicted about whether he prefers the carrot or the stick.
Scots Taffer on 6/2/2012 at 02:41
Why are you changing insurance mid-term? If it's purely to avoid potential increases in premium then read on.
I'm not across the differences in insurance law between the US/Canada and Australia, but I'd wager that answering an insurer's question about speeding offences/fines truthfully would be governed by your duty of disclosure which, in essence, legally obliges you to provide full answers. If you fail to do so they will likely have many rights to pursue against you in the event of a claim upon your insurance policy, up to and including denying coverage and refunding your premium rather than paying any loss.
What's worse? Paying an extra $100 on your insurance or being uninsured in an accident?
Whilst they are unlikely to do a license check-up when you take up a policy, if you had an accident they might and then you could be in a world of trouble if you end up having this offence on your permanent record. The duty of disclosure is an ongoing requirement, so if your history is subject to change and that change is relevant to any questions that an insurer may ask, you cannot hide behind "oh, I meant to tell you".
The issue here is that speeding 49 mph over the limit (if I read your last post correctly) isn't a minor traffic infringement, that's pretty much blowing the speed limit out of the water and I imagine it might come with a loss of license or more severe punishment than a dollar fine? In any case, if I was an insurer of private motor cars (I'm not, I'm an insurer of commercial heavy vehicles) I'm pretty sure I'd have speeding offences as a rating factor and almost definitely as a underwriting selection criteria - meaning, if you had a history of offences or were caught doing a one-off dangerous/reckless offence, I might choose not to insure you at all.
Sg3 on 6/2/2012 at 04:46
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
the carrot
I can't believe you went there!
RocketMan on 12/2/2012 at 22:13
Well... in all honesty, I'm pretty conflicted about all of this. I'm a pretty honest guy and I fucked up this one time. I'm pretty sure they're going to rape my insurance premium if they even know about the ticket. I got a drivers abstract request today and to my surprise there's nothing on it. I haven't addressed the ticket yet and don't have to until tues/wed this coming week. I dunno how "complete" these public abstracts are but I appear to be clean still. I called x-coppers and they basically told me don't bother using us because the judge will either leave the charge as is or raise it. Apparently this happens a lot when the cop has already cut you some slack. As for full disclosure... I hate how they ask you "have you had any tickets/convictions?" ... as if they're the same thing. One's a ticket and one's a conviction IMO. What should I do? I really can't afford 2x the insurance for 3 bloody years.
BTW, 49 over is still a minor infraction in Ontario with 4 points, 29 and below is a minor with 3 points, and 50 or over is a major infraction called stunt driving with 6 points, a week's suspension and car impound for a week. I've pretty much decided to plead guilty and pay the ticket to protect myself from anything more serious. The question is when do I pay it and what do I do about the insurance in the interim.
Scots Taffer on 13/2/2012 at 02:29
This isn't legal advice, but if it's not a criminal conviction for speeding and it's just some demerits, I wouldn't bother mentioning it. So why are you still considering changing insurer mid-term?
RocketMan on 13/2/2012 at 04:39
Oh that? Cuz I'm on someone else's policy and I don't want my poor judgement to affect someone elses rates. Besides, there's an insurance company that offers a huge discount to P.Eng's so it's long past time I wised up and took advantage of that anyway.
Scots Taffer on 13/2/2012 at 10:15
I'd give it until after the dust settles next week and then move insurers, this way -
a) you can still get off the other license without causing any fuss
b) you know the score of the demerits/conviction and can decide what to disclose to insurers
