832 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Which reminds me, when I had a chance to speak with the VicPD yesterday, the officer whom I was talking to scoffed and laughed at ICBC's proposal. Even the police seem to think it's ridiculous to ding drivers for what can be small driving infractions.

[Sparky]

^ Did you get a chance to clear up those outstanding warrants?

[Mike K.]

No

[sebberry]

Which reminds me, when I had a chance to speak with the VicPD yesterday, the officer whom I was talking to scoffed and laughed at ICBC's proposal. Even the police seem to think it's ridiculous to ding drivers for what can be small driving infractions.

This really bugs me. The police are always tooting the "Speed kills" horn.

They're out to get people for these "small driving infractions" all the time, yet at the same time they're kind of saying "it's worthy of a ticket, but not so indicative of poor driving that you're any more likely to be in a crash and you should pay higher rates because of it."

[Mike K.]

Look at it this way. Police would instantly be placed into a position of causing financial drain on someone who may have otherwise received a relatively inexpensive ticket to "smarten them up," not to cause years of financial repercussions.

As it is, most cops will write you a ticket below the value of the actual infraction if they feel you're going to learn your lesson and have a solid driving record. In some cases they'll let you off with a warning.

[rjag]

I'm challenging a ticket I received a few months back for failing to stop at a yellow light. I asked the officer where he was and he said 3 cars back from me. He agreed the light remained yellow while I cleared the intersection (if it went red while I was in the intersection then it would be a running the red ticket). When I indicated that I wasnt speeding and made the split second decision that I was beyond the point of safely stopping he laughed and said that is a common excuse but doesnt wash as in his 30 years of policing he knows what distance is required to stop and I was within it.

I asked him how, if he was 3 cars behind so perhaps 100' away and with cars blocking his view, he can make that decision and he got all pissy with me and said dont argue with me....

yup I guess with 30 years accident free driving I dont know whats a safe distance to stop....this ones going to court

[jklymak]

^ I challenged that once. The judge sided w/ the cop. I got him to admit I was 1/3 of the block from the light, and then was able to indicate that that was only 50' from the intersection. The judge said that was adequate stopping distance, but elementary physics and knowledge of average reaction times would indicate that was not the case. Next time I'd go into court w/ reaction times, and the braking distance at the speed limit.

I was pretty mad about my yellow light, because I saw the policeman, but still decided it was safer to go through than lock up my brakes. I didn't appeal though, because it was going to cost more to appeal than to just pay up.

[sebberry]

I'm challenging a ticket I received a few months back for failing to stop at a yellow light. I asked the officer where he was and he said 3 cars back from me. He agreed the light remained yellow while I cleared the intersection (if it went red while I was in the intersection then it would be a running the red ticket). When I indicated that I wasnt speeding and made the split second decision that I was beyond the point of safely stopping he laughed and said that is a common excuse but doesnt wash as in his 30 years of policing he knows what distance is required to stop and I was within it.

I asked him how, if he was 3 cars behind so perhaps 100' away and with cars blocking his view, he can make that decision and he got all pissy with me and said dont argue with me....

yup I guess with 30 years accident free driving I dont know whats a safe distance to stop....this ones going to court

See, when the driver behind you is looking down to find that bit of lettuce that fell out of the burger he is eating while driving, his stopping distance increases.

When presented with a yellow light you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

If I notice that the driver of the car behind me is distracted, I typically come to the conclusion that it is unsafe for me to stop without risking a rear-end collision.

Make sure to request disclosure prior to the court date and request a copy of the officer's notes. I'm guessing he hasn't documented what the driver behind you was doing or looking at at the time. An unsafe stop is one that would cause the driver behind you to hit you, and if the officer can't prove that the driver behind you was paying attention.. then.. well... case closed?


And you guys wonder why I sometimes have a camera in the car

[yodsaker]

My daughter got pulled over on Foul Bay Road just north of Fort by a cop standing 30 feet off the road in a driveway. He ticketed her $167 for "using a portable device", her I-phone. Except she wasn't, she was scratching her leg.
Her phone was charging in its cradle in the console well below the window line. There was no way he could have seen the phone unless he was standing at the driver's window, certainly not from where he flagged her to pull over.
He wrote the ticket but neglected to notice her N sticker and did not check the box on the ticket. My daughter disputed it and the ticket was dropped. I guess they looked up her driver info and when they saw he hadn't even noticed her N they figured the overzealous and myopic Keystone Kop wouldn't stand a chance in court. I hope his bosses gave him some.

[rjag]

See, when the driver behind you is looking down to find that bit of lettuce that fell out of the burger he is eating while driving, his stopping distance increases.

When presented with a yellow light you must stop unless it is unsafe to do so.

If I notice that the driver of the car behind me is distracted, I typically come to the conclusion that it is unsafe for me to stop without risking a rear-end collision.

Make sure to request disclosure prior to the court date and request a copy of the officer's notes. I'm guessing he hasn't documented what the driver behind you was doing or looking at at the time. An unsafe stop is one that would cause the driver behind you to hit you, and if the officer can't prove that the driver behind you was paying attention.. then.. well... case closed?


And you guys wonder why I sometimes have a camera in the car

Seberry, were you standing on the corner watching this happen? Thats practically what went on!!! Thanks for the info. Its surprising how much is posted on the interweb about ticket disputes!!! Cheers!

[jklymak]

^ I'll be interested if that works. I'd be surprised if hypotheticals about what the driver behind you may or may not do will carry much weight.

[sebberry]

^ I'll be interested if that works. I'd be surprised if hypotheticals about what the driver behind you may or may not do will carry much weight.

As drivers, we are charged with the responsibility to drive safely and make quick decisions based on surrounding traffic conditions. If a kid runs out into the road, we steer around him. If an oncoming car comes into our lane, we use the shoulder. If weather is poor on a narrow street at night, we drive below the speed limit. If the driver behind us at a yellow light is distracted, we deem it unsafe to stop.

A yellow light means "stop unless unsafe to do so". This means that the driver has legally been given the responsibility to assess the situation to determine if it is safe to stop.

By ticketing a driver for running through a yellow light after the driver deemed it unsafe to stop, the officer is essentially revoking your right to make such a decision after the fact.

If you don't want me making that decision then you need to tell me in advance, otherwise I am legally obligated to ensure it is safe to stop. If you ticket me for it, you are undermining the very law that requires me to ensure a safe stop can be completed.

[sebberry]

http://www.globaltvb...3#stories/video

ICBC not renewing licences of injured clients who cannot afford to pay court and legal fees related to their cases.

[maniac78]

Just some advice on dealing with tickets here. It's wise not to talk to the police during traffic stops. Simply hand them your license and insurance and that's it. Ever notice how they always say "do you know how fast you were going?". Well that's to get you to admit to the crime. Same deal with are you in a hurry? Or did you not see the yellow light or whatever. Just don't say anything because anything you say will be used against you in court. Haven't had a ticket in years but I fought a few when I was younger.

[Mike K.]

That's good advice, m.

[VicHockeyFan]

http://www.vancouver...2766/story.html

The Insurance Corp. of B.C. took an unprecedented step this week to have its services declared essential as unionized staff at the Crown corporation consider strike action.

Jeff Gillies of the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, representing 4,600 ICBC employees, said he was shocked to learn of the application, made to the Labour Relations Board, calling it “heavy handed.”

“We’re certainly not talking about nurses or police officers or fire departments where people are on the front lines saving lives. We’re talking about insurance here,” Gillies said.

Ah, but Mr. Gillies, we are talking about a corporation that operates in a complete government-mandated monopoly. People gotta have insurance. Now, if you want to open all insurance to competition, then we'll see who can afford to strike.

[cakeman]

Now, if you want to open all insurance to competition, then we'll see who can afford to strike.

Speaking as a fan of old cars n motorbikes and a member of club with members of varying ages across Canada.. I hope we NEVER lose icbc.

I may despise dealing with them with every fibre of my being. I may have been screwed over by them in claims to the tune of thousands, but I never want to have to deal with some of the drama friends have dealt with.

From a 'eh, I can kinda see the wisdom' standpoint - I know a few guys in AB and ON who, admittedly are in their early 20's, have to pay 4000 a year for basic car insurance for 70's and 80's Toyotas..

From a 'whaaaaa???' standpoint, a buddy whos into classic brit bikes was mentioning a couple years back that friends of his in Ontario were having problems finding an insurer that would insure their bikes at all.. The companies figured it wasnt worth their time to insure 50+ year old bikes..

The couple private insurers Ive dealt with for non-basic insurance here in BC already have a (from memory) 20 year limit on what they'll insure.. if that became the rule across the board, Id have 5 lawn ornaments.

cakes..

[Bob Fugger]

http://www.vancouver...2766/story.html

Ah, but Mr. Gillies, we are talking about a corporation that operates in a complete government-mandated monopoly. People gotta have insurance. Now, if you want to open all insurance to competition, then we'll see who can afford to strike.

Private Autoplan insurance brokers sell Basic insurance on behalf of ICBC. If ICBC went on strike, my understanding is that policies would still be issued, as the broker network (the sales force) is privately owned. As for driver licences, it wouldn't take anything for Cabinet to pass an Order-in-Council extending licence duration indefinitely.

These are hardly life or death situations we're talking about, here. The whole point of being able to strike is precisely to make things inconvenient for customers, so that they pressure the employer back to the bargaining table. A broad judicial interpretation of what is an essential service (the crack in the wall is the judicial interpretation of "welfare") essentially renders collective bargaining moot.

The fact that it has got to this point is ludicrous. ICBC is saying it's broke and is offering 5 years of zeros. Over the intervening period in which employees have been working without an agreement (since June 2010), payments have increased to ICBC partners (lawyers, body shops, doctors), ICBC Executive, not to mention the Province swooping in like a robber baron and liberating $.75B for their own purposes. In the meantime, drivers and employees are given sweet FA: drivers' rates increase and staff's buying power erodes. I'm just going to remove the swearing here - VHF.

[VicHockeyFan]

These are hardly life or death situations we're talking about, here. The whole point of being able to strike is precisely to make things inconvenient for customers, so that they pressure the employer back to the bargaining table. A broad judicial interpretation of what is an essential service (the crack in the wall is the judicial interpretation of "welfare") essentially renders collective bargaining moot.

But in the private-sector world, where real good-faith bargaining can happen on both sides, employers run the risk of losing customers and employees to the competition while employees strike, and employees risk bankrupting the companies they work for if the strike continues too long, or they push for settlements that make the companies uncompetitive.

Here, ICBC and the union can upset every single motorist in the province while a strike or lockout is on, but afterwards, they have no choice but to re-employ ICBC services afterwards. It's not a good situation for real collective bargaining. And it's not fair to customers that can't just walk across the street to the competition if they don't support the workers.

[Mike K.]

The whole point of being able to strike is precisely to make things inconvenient for customers, so that they pressure the employer back to the bargaining table.

Anyone earning in excess of $20,000 a year to stand at a licensing office and snap photos or accept payment for speeding tickets is grossly overpaid, IMO.

I honestly think you have it backwards if you think the public will rally behind the workers. What the public wants is lower insurance rates. And something tells me higher wages for ICBC workers are highly unlikely to give the public the lower rates it wants.

Further to that the experience of a driver caught up in an accident at the hands of ICBC adjusters is far from pleasant. In fact it can be downright nasty and this erodes sympathy towards ICBC's workers.