# Careless driving...anyone?



## Pea (27 Nov 2006)

Hi All.. Looking for a little advice if you don't mind.

This past Thursday I was in a car accident. We had crappy weather all day.  As I was on my way home at night, I was approaching a red light and tried to stop, only to find I was on a huge sheet of ice and unable to stop in time. I ended up rear ending a vehicle in front of me. His vehicle suffered minor damage (cracked bumper), where as my whole front passengers side pretty much caved in. (good ole plastic Honda's) Thankfully we were all ok, with minimal soreness. I'm dealing with my insurance company now, to see what will be done with my car. (the darn thing was only 5 months old... GAH!) 

I've since been charged with careless driving. It's a $400 fine and a loss of 6 demerits! I'm curious if anyone here as fought this? Due to road conditions or something? I'm just trying to weigh my options here. I've got a call into my lawyer, and just waiting for him to call back. In the meantime, can anyone offer any words of wisdom? I'd really appreciate it.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Nov 2006)

As I recall (from my wife's various minor accidents), whenever you rear-end somebody, you are almost ALWAYS the guilty party.  Could be "careless driving", "following to close", "driving too fast for conditions", or whatever.

Fortunately, in your case no one was hurt, and that's the big thing.

My advice?  Wait for your lawyer's advice.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Nov 2006)

I once witnessed an accident where a truck rear-ended a small car, fortunately without injuring anyone. When the case came to trial several months later, I was asked by the crown attorney if I could swear that the vehicle was following too close. He also cautioned me that the defence attorney would challenge my testimony as I was not an expert witness. The bottom line is that the crown withdrew the charge, much to the annoyance of myself and the other witnesses. However the police officer who had investigated the accident and laid the charge told us that the truck driver would have paid two or three times his potential fine in legal fees, albeit without having a conviction registered with all that that meant in demerit points and increased insurance.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (27 Nov 2006)

Well, I don't know about where you live but in my city, The Crown will often plead out the tickets.  Because they are very busy they are willing to reduce the work load.  In Calgary, you could (not sure about now) go down to the courthouse and speak to The Crown.  Generally, it went like this.  

Sorry, I hit buddy but I was not being carless the roads were really out of this world icy.  I am willing to pay the full $400, if you can waive the demerits.  You should know that your insurance may increase more than $400 total over the next 3-5 years due to the accident.  So although the $400 hurts, it is economically better.

You may also want to call you insurer and see if you qualify for accident grace, you know, long time customer few if any prior accidents.  Also, some insurers will allow you to "pay them back" the costs of the claim.  Again, do the math, is this cheaper than the rate increase?

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2006)

Usually in cases where you are involved with a collision on ice, you will be nailed with "Driving too fast for conditions".


----------



## Scratch_043 (27 Nov 2006)

Okay, similar question.

2 weeks ago, I was involved in a collision, I was driving a company vehicle, at 4am (security) and a Taxi stopped in the middle of the road to kick out a drunk passenger, I tried to avoid him, and almost succeeded. I was charged with careless, because I hit him. (I am more than reasonably certain that he is at fault, and should have been charged with stopping in a roadway, but taxi drivers get special treatment around here, it seems.) I have just gotten off the phone with the courthouse, and it turns out, I can't even get a first attendance meeting (meeting with the prosecutor to settle out of court if possible) until the second week of January.

Will this completely screw up my application to the CF? (filling out the papers as I type this)
Will I be delayed in getting my application approved until after I get done with the traffic ticket?
and
Will I be barred from enrolling for a set amount of time afterwards? (I asked the Sgt. at the RC about this one, and she said that she didn't know for sure about careless, or other infractions, but speeding is essentially a non issue. But she also said that it may prevent me from applying for 2 years from date of conviction, since it is more than a simple speeding ticket.)

If the second is the only one that is true, I will just plead guilty to the ticket, so I can still enroll, but I would prefer not to, because I feel as though I am not. My car insurance is going to skyrocket though, I'm affraid.

If someone who knows about this stuff, or has applied with a traffic ticket either still in court, or recently on record, please let me know what the score is. I don't want to wait for 2 years to join because of some stupid cabby who couldn't take the pressure of a drunk passenger.


----------



## condor888000 (27 Nov 2006)

Points is the perfect place to go. Or any other similar idea such as X-Copper out here. They are good. It'll cost you about $400, but its worth it. I was charged with unsafe lane change, fine of $410. Went to X-Copper, they managed to get it reduced to a bylaw. Fine was $150 AND it doesn't carry any demerits so my insurance doesn't go up. 

It is more immediately, however works out to a lot less in the long run. I'd much rather shell out now, get those demerits wiped off and then not have my insurance go through the roof.

Oh and before I forget, did you have winter tires on? Cause if not, get them! Well worth paying the cash and being safer in the long run than on "all seasons."


----------



## Pea (27 Nov 2006)

Thanks for the quick advice all. I heard back from my lawyer, and he too suggested trying to get it brought down to a lesser charge. 

Niner Domestic, thank you very much for your advice. I have contacted POINTTS and they are taking a look at my case, and preparing a quote for me. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Now.. if only my insurance company would get on the ball and return some calls. It's bloody cold out, and I want my rental!


----------



## Lost_Warrior (27 Nov 2006)

> 2 weeks ago, I was involved in a collision, I was driving a company vehicle, at 4am (security) and a Taxi stopped in the middle of the road to kick out a drunk passenger, I tried to avoid him, and almost succeeded. I was charged with careless, because I hit him. (I am more than reasonably certain that he is at fault, and should have been charged with stopping in a roadway, but taxi drivers get special treatment around here, it seems.)



Wow.. That should most definately be the fault of the taxi driver, but the law is funny like that.  Say for instance you are driving down the street and slam on the breaks (doesn't really have to be a reason) and the guy behind you slams into you, although logic and reason would make you think that this was your fault, the law will still blame the guy who hit you.

It happened to someone I know, and coincidentally it involved a taxi driver too.  The guy was driving downtown, and the cab driver in front on him slammed on the breaks in the middle of the street and started to pull over to someone waiving him down.   My buddy couldn't stop in time and went right into the back of the cab.

He wasn't driving too fast, and it was a busy downtown street, so you can't really drive at the recommended separated distance.  Someone will just pull in between you.

1200$ in damages, and charged with driving too close.  

But I know what you mean about special treatment for cab drivers.  I think its like that everywhere.  Here in Montreal, I can't count how many times I saw cab drivers go right through red lights, or speed in school zones, and cops around don't do a thing.


----------



## ThatsLife (27 Nov 2006)

I'm guessing you live in Vancouver because we have just got a crap load of snow this weekend and people here have never seen snow before...they're terrified of driving. Anyways, in a car I recommend you pump the brakes instead of  you just holding the brake down because if you hold it down during a slide there's no momentum working against you. And when coming to a stop try and slow down and feather the brake and give some more room for yourself to stop.

As for $400's you lost...All I can say is 'damn'..


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2006)

ThatsLife said:
			
		

> I'm guessing you live in Vancouver



No...she doesnt.....


----------



## ThatsLife (27 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> No...she doesnt.....



My  bad, didn't check her profile


----------



## aesop081 (27 Nov 2006)

ThatsLife said:
			
		

> , in a car I recommend you pump the brakes instead of  you just holding the brake down



Pumping the brakes in an ABS equiped car WILL work against you.........


----------



## ThatsLife (27 Nov 2006)

Some cars do not come equipped with ABS, but yes you're right it would work against you if your vehicle does come equipped with ABS. Forgot to mention that


----------



## GUNS (27 Nov 2006)

Can't believe you were charged. I rear-ended a car due to ice on the road and nothing happened to me. My insurance looked after the car I hit and then increased my premiums. As a matter of fact, the police never even showed up. We just exchanged insurance information and went on our way. I am not sure but here we don't bother with the police if the damage is less than $500


----------



## Pea (27 Nov 2006)

Thanks for providing some of that info for me cdnaviator.  :-*

I had to involve the police, as my damage is over $1,000 on my car. (getting an estimate done shortly, and will update, but my damage is looking pretty pricey. Silly plastic imports!) I guess whenever they report a rear end they have to charge the person with careless driving. They asked no questions, just made some rude assumptions and charged me. *sigh*

We'll see how it goes I guess. I'm gathering more info for the POINTTS guys now. Wish me luck!

*Editited to take personal info out.


----------



## camochick (27 Nov 2006)

ThatsLife said:
			
		

> Some cars do not come equipped with ABS, but yes you're right it would work against you if your vehicle does come equipped with ABS. Forgot to mention that



All new cars come equipped with ABS.

Pea, I feel for you. I hope that you can fight this and atleast keep your points. They should take your demerits away from the bonehead who rear ended the husband at the red light in completely dry conditions. That guy should have lost his licence.


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2006)

Careless driving
Careless driving is one of the most serious charges under the Highway Traffic Act. 
The Highway Traffic Act (of Ontario) defines careless driving as driving on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.

To qualify as careless, the Court of Appeal held in a 1953 case, *the driving must be considered a breach of duty to the public and deserving of punishment.*
"This principle may be somewhat difficult to apply," the court said, "but I think it might be illustrated by the common example of a motorist attempting to park at the curb in a space between two other parked vehicles. Frequently one or other of the parked vehicles is bumped in the process. Damage seldom arises, because cars are equipped with bumpers, but if damage were caused it might well give rise to a civil action for damages, but it could hardly be said to be such a lack of care or attention as would be considered to be deserving of punishment as a crime or quasi-crime." 
"*The test, where an accident has occurred, is not whether, if the accused had used greater care or skill, the accident would not have happened. It is whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, in the light of existing circumstances of which he was aware or of which a driver exercising ordinary care should have been aware, failed to use the care and attention or to give to other persons using the highway the consideration that a driver of ordinary care would have used or given in the circumstances."*

Several principles have emerged over the years from court rulings on careless driving:
-*The standard against which the defendant's driving must be measured is not one of perfection*. The driving of the defendant must be measured against a reasonable standard or skill, what an ordinary person would do.
- *A momentary lapse or a simple error in judgment is insufficient to justify a conviction for careless driving*.
- Where an accident has occurred, the fact that serious injury or death has resulted is not, except in unusual cases, relevant to an assessment of whether there has been a departure from the standard of care which would justify a finding of careless driving.
- *Mere inadvertent negligence will not necessarily support a conviction for careless driving*. More than a bare act of negligence must be proven.

http://www.defencelaw.com/careless-driving.html


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2006)

Pea,
a fender bender at low speed does not, a careless driving conviction make.

The material I quoted above relates to Ontario but - per the courts, the defenitions should be portable to other provinces - excl Quebec where jurisprudence does not apply (which can be good or bad - usually bad).

Talk to legal aid


----------



## Byerly (28 Nov 2006)

Had you been driving with due care and attention you would not have been in the collision.  I will not call it an accident, because accidents are what happend before collisions..  Part of excercising due care and attention is being cognizant of the road and weather conditions, and driving accordingly.  If the roads are slick, you put extra space between vehicles and allow yourself extra time to stop.

Stu


----------



## rregtc-etf (28 Nov 2006)

The best advise so far has been given by GEO.   The courts are governed by case law as much as they are by statute law, so previous rulings have to be taken into account by the Justice of the Peace in traffic court.  In certain circumstances the police may just lay a careless driving charge because no other charge can apply  eg. they may not have evidence of follow too closely.   In traffic court you may be approached to plead guilty to a lesser offence but remember that the prosecutor has to prove the charge laid beyond a reasonable doubt.   Slick ice covered roads may provide that doubt.   You are entitled to have the Crown prosecutor's office provide you with full disclosure which would include the police accident report, witness statements, officers notes on observations and measurements taken at the scene of the accident.   Once you plead not guilty, request a copy of the disclosure documents, once you get them have a look at how strong the prosecutors case is.  If you think it's weak, plead not guilty and have a trial on the Careless charge, odds are it will be withdrawn.  Don't fall into the trap of pleading to lesser charge if they can;t prove the original beyond reasonable doubt.
POINTTS or similar can represent you for fee or you can research Case Law on Careless Driving charges and represent yourself.


----------



## DBA (28 Nov 2006)

The advice given was to consult your lawyer or a specialty firm for traffic offences followed by discussion and examples of what they can do for you. When apprenhensive about a legal problem hearing that not all is lost and you can get help can be comforting. Myself I took the information of how a defence against CD can be done as informational as to what a law firm might be able to do for you should the situation warrant it. I didn't read it as legal advice of how to conduct your own defence at all. 

Your advice on the other hand doesn't seem very good. The "you can not charge a person with an offence if it did not occur" shows a lack of knowledge of the reality of our legal system. It's what LEO tries to adhere to but the fact is charges are laid when an offence didn't occur for various reasons all the time. The statement is certainly not an absolute and it is not a Charter violation to be charged with an offence that didn't occur in most cases.


----------



## kincanucks (28 Nov 2006)

ToRN said:
			
		

> Okay, similar question.
> 
> 2 weeks ago, I was involved in a collision, I was driving a company vehicle, at 4am (security) and a Taxi stopped in the middle of the road to kick out a drunk passenger, I tried to avoid him, and almost succeeded. I was charged with careless, because I hit him. (I am more than reasonably certain that he is at fault, and should have been charged with stopping in a roadway, but taxi drivers get special treatment around here, it seems.) I have just gotten off the phone with the courthouse, and it turns out, I can't even get a first attendance meeting (meeting with the prosecutor to settle out of court if possible) until the second week of January.
> 
> ...



A fine under the Highway Act will not show up on a background check and it won't be a problem unless you don't pay it.


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2006)

Pea,

There is the other point that the province (or municipality) might have been negligent.
Shouldn't they have salted the roads?
Shouldn't the police have been out in force - to slow down the vehicles using the public roadways?

There may be plenty of blame to go round - you don't have to carry the can all by yourself.


----------



## Scott (28 Nov 2006)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> 9D and DBA.
> 
> Can you two take the pissing contest to PM?
> 
> Bottom line for PEA.  There are options.  Talk to *your* lawyer.



Thank you. Ruffled feathers do not offer any help to Pea. Note the bold, best advice I have seen here yet.


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Nov 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> All new cars come equipped with ABS.




Actually, no, they don't. For example, the Kia Rio (IIRC) has ABS brakes as an option for the lowest-end model. (As if Kia wasn't low-end enough) I don't know how many other cars come without ABS, but I'm sure the Rio isn't the only one.


----------



## rregtc-etf (28 Nov 2006)

Talk to a person that specializes in traffic court cases such as POINTTS or similar companies that will have an ex traffic officer represent you as you agent in court.  This is not a criminal matter and a lawyer may not be the best option.   My previous post was in plain English, so I omitted the Latin legal terms.  I have seen any people successfully represent themselves in traffic court and have seen real lawyers lose in traffic court. :crybaby:


----------



## camochick (28 Nov 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Actually, no, they don't. For example, the Kia Rio (IIRC) has ABS brakes as an option for the lowest-end model. (As if Kia wasn't low-end enough) I don't know how many other cars come without ABS, but I'm sure the Rio isn't the only one.



 I guess you get what you pay for. I knew KIA's were pieces of junk, but I didn't know that you could choose to make them crappier. I'd go for the ABS, it's saved us this winter (along with the wonderful ESP and 4x4). 
Pea, check out all your options, I'm here to help if you need anything.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Nov 2006)

DBA said:
			
		

> The "you can not charge a person with an offence if it did not occur" shows a lack of knowledge of the reality of our legal system. It's what LEO tries to adhere to but the fact is charges are laid when an offence didn't occur for various reasons all the time. The statement is certainly not an absolute and it is not a Charter violation to be charged with an offence that didn't occur in most cases.



Have to say you lost me here as well, and I've been called in 2 provinces and 1 state. Then again, I'm a corporate type. Are you suggesting that charges are sometimes laid merely for the purpose of an investigative tool?


----------



## Scratch_043 (29 Nov 2006)

rregtc-rr:

I went to pointts (I think it was pointts) for a previous ticket, and the 'guarantee' from them, was that if they were unsuccessful, they would refund _half_ my money. The guy who represented me was a former cop alright.... in England.


----------



## TCBF (29 Nov 2006)

An offence need not have occurred for charges to be laid.   Only reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has occured.


----------



## rregtc-etf (29 Nov 2006)

ToRN - I hope you weren't charged with driving on the wrong side of the road and required a specialist.   I've been told that Canadian courts are based on British system (I have never seen Brit courts except on the tele), so how did the ex-Bobby make out in court ?  Did he address the judge as Ma'Lord ?  I'll bet he was disappointed the judge didn't wear a powdered wig.


----------



## Scratch_043 (29 Nov 2006)

Well, the only reason I hired him to represent, was because I needed to work, and the days set for court would have killed my hours. I get the distinct impression that all he did, was talk to the crown to get the charge reduced. I could have done that. I thought that their guarantee meant that they would fight and win, or no charge for their services. Turns out, the guarantee is only that they would make 'some sort' of benefit to you. he got the charge reduced by I think 1 point, and no $. waste of a good 200something dollars paying him to go in there.


----------



## William Webb Ellis (29 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Pea,
> 
> There is the other point that the province (or municipality) might have been negligent.
> Shouldn't they have salted the roads?
> ...



The idea sounds good, but in my experience you would need to show gross negligence against the province/municipality.  Most provinces have a municipality act (name may be different) that cover this line of thinking.


----------



## rregtc-etf (29 Nov 2006)

Provincial traffic prosecutors are not lawyers and are hired to prosecute traffic cases.  Because traffic courts are so back logged, they'll usually accept a guilty plea on a lesser included charge, unless it is a very serious case of driving like an idiot or person with a history of driving like an idiot convictions.  Your point about doing it yourself, I totally agree.  

 Most people don't get traffic tickets apart from the odd speeding ticket.  And when they do they are more concerned about their car insurance rates rather than the actual fine, people don't have experience going to court and hire others to represent them. 

 Traffic ticket defence para-legals work in a business out to make money and look for loopholes to fulfill their contract obligations to their customers. If your "agent" can win a trial he will try, if he knows he won't win he will do the next best thing and try to have the charge reduced to minimize demerit points.  He should review evidence against you, consult with you in court and give you your options and possible outcomes.

 In most traffic cases the police officer witnesses a driving infraction and can give evidence to register a conviction.  In the case of a motor vehicle accident, the odds are the officer did not see the collision and is basing his decision to lay a charge on his observations at the scene of the accident and statements provided by the drivers or witnesses during his accident investigation. He then lays a charge based on reasonable grounds that a driving offence has been committed   

Careless driving is a catch all offence with a vague definition that can be open to interpretation.  There is a big difference between, "I was stopped for a red light for 3 minutes when the car hit me, I think because he was reading the paper while driving" or "I stopped and the guy hit me right away after his car slid in the snow."   Careless could be laid because it meets the definition, but Follow too closely would be more appropriate in the second scenario.  A trial on the Careless would most likely be tossed.   Some officers will lay the careless and offer a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea in court, so he doesn't have to prosecute a case he probably won;t win.  Don't fall for that b.s.  If he didn't take the time to do a proper investigation, I see no problem with making him/her look like a fool in traffic court.  It's the only way some people learn.  Don't think for a minute the JP doesn't know the difference between a diligent and a lazy investigating  officer.

Dollar amount of damage, injury and insurance outcomes do not dictate charges.  The charge must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in the mind of the JP for him to convict.  Convictions in traffic court can be appealed as well.


----------



## muffin (29 Nov 2006)

ToRN said:
			
		

> Well, the only reason I hired him to represent, was because I needed to work, and the days set for court would have killed my hours. I get the distinct impression that all he did, was talk to the crown to get the charge reduced. I could have done that. I thought that their guarantee meant that they would fight and win, or no charge for their services. Turns out, the guarantee is only that they would make 'some sort' of benefit to you. he got the charge reduced by I think 1 point, and no $. waste of a good 200something dollars paying him to go in there.



I hired Pointts to represent me when I was charged with Careless driving and it cost me $630 - he explained to me that if I REALLY wanted him to he would fight the charge, but if we lost my insurance agent told me my new rate would START at $4000 a year, and Careless is a criminal charge that would remain on my record for some time... needless to say I opted to have him plead me out to Following too closely. Do I think I could have won? Probably. Was I willing to take that sort of chance - Nope.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (29 Nov 2006)

I'd like to caution that advice offered here is not to be construed as legal advice and that anyone acting on any of the advice seen in the thread without independent legal advice does so at their own peril.

Whew! That was my monthly quota of legalese in one sentence. All kidding aside, I think given the variety of advice provided here it would make sense for anyone in this situation to seek actual, live legal advice to be sure their specific situation is handled appropriately.


----------



## Pea (29 Nov 2006)

I've definitely sought legal advice from my lawyer. I basically was just looking for some real person experience from anyone who had been in a similar situation, purely out of curiosity. Thanks to all those that contributed. I've got my fingers crossed for the best possible outcome in my case. I probably won't know my fate until early in the new year.


----------



## DBA (29 Nov 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Have to say you lost me here as well, and I've been called in 2 provinces and 1 state. Then again, I'm a corporate type. Are you suggesting that charges are sometimes laid merely for the purpose of an investigative tool?



No just that sometimes the requirements for a charge aren't actually met when it's laid or one of the exceptions match. The reasons that happens vary. A lawyer or ex-police officer should know what the standards of proof are for the various requirements and what chance you have going this route. In general the more serious the charge the more specific the requirements and standard of proof.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (1 Dec 2006)

> All new cars come equipped with ABS.



No, they dont.   My 2006 Mazda3 didn't come with ABS brakes.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Dec 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No, they dont.   My 2006 Mazda3 didn't come with ABS brakes.



The GS and GT model have ABS


----------



## condor888000 (1 Dec 2006)

Yeah, but 2006 Mazda3 GS you had to buy everything to get ABS, power all, air conditioning, bigger tires, moon roof, etc.


----------



## Pea (7 Dec 2006)

Just thought I'd update on my my car for those that have been following my situation since the night I got in my accident. I talked to the body shop today and my estimate is approx. $4,000 damage. Looks like it's basically all cosmetic, and parts arrived today. Should be good to go for late next week. (Just in time to go home to Mom's for X-mas! *fingers crossed*)

Still working on my charge issue, haven't had time to meet with the POINTTS guy yet, but we have exchanged info back and forth and I think things are looking relatively well in my favour there. Time shall tell. Now to deal with my monster of an insurance company, if you ever want to know what company not to go with, PM me. They've been terrible.

Thanks to those who have shown concern via PM. Ya'll rock.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Dec 2006)

Pea said:
			
		

> *$4,000 ....basically all cosmetic*


  Is your car Zsa Zsa Gabor? (well before your time - - insert some famous person that wears way too much makeup  )


----------



## Armymedic (7 Dec 2006)

camochick said:
			
		

> All new cars come equipped with ABS.





			
				Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> No, they dont.   My 2006 Mazda3 didn't come with ABS brakes.


My 2006 Hyundai doesn't either.


----------



## q_1966 (8 Dec 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> But I know what you mean about special treatment for cab drivers.  I think its like that everywhere.  Here in Montreal, I can't count how many times I saw cab drivers go right through red lights, or speed in school zones, and cops around don't do a thing.



I think its rather interesting to note, when I was in St. Jean the cabbie just slowed down a bit, didnt even stop at the stop sign and kept going, right next to the cop in the left lane who was stopped at the stop sign, if anything like that happened in BC, you'd get pinched for sure.

Edited for Clarity


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Dec 2006)

muffin said:
			
		

> and *Careless is a criminal charge * that would remain on my record for some time... needless to say I opted to have him plead me out to Following too closely. Do I think I could have won? Probably. Was I willing to take that sort of chance - Nope.



No it is not. Careless driving is a provincial offence in Ontario, under the Highway Traffic Act. It stays on your driving record the same length of time as any other driving offence.  You are thinking of *Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle*, which is a criminal code offence (s. 249), and is something completely different. Basically its when you are *intentionally* driving like a jackass, ie running from the police, street racing, stuff like that. Related charges are dangerous operation causing bodily harm and dangerous operation causing death.


----------



## muffin (8 Dec 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> No it is not. Careless driving is a provincial offence in Ontario, under the Highway Traffic Act. It stays on your driving record the same length of time as any other driving offence.



Hmmm.... seems I was misinformed by my insurance and the POINTTS guy then.... either way - I couldn't afford the insurance increase so I am still glad I accepted the lesser charge


----------



## Pea (15 Jan 2007)

UPDATE:

I was able to plead down to a lesser offence of "occupying two lanes". This comes with a $115 fine and a loss of 2 demerits. Much better than the $402 fine and loss of 6 demerits I would have had with the careless driving.

Thanks to all for your advice and kind words.


----------



## 9nr Domestic (15 Jan 2007)

I am glad that in the end it worked out in your favor.


----------



## geo (15 Jan 2007)

good for you Pea

Now.... you drive safely


----------



## AMcLeod (16 Jan 2007)

camochick said:
			
		

> All new cars come equipped with ABS.


not all new cars come with ABS my '01 Sentra didn't but that's ok i think ABS is sh!t anyway


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jan 2007)

Already been mentioned on Pages 2 and 3 of this topic.

Looks like it has served its' purpose....... LOCKED


----------

