First, I do not support driving without your seatbelt but a friend got a ticket for it and I promised I would try and find out if you can fight it. Has anybody found a way to fight this ticket? I would think this something you wouldn't even be able to take to court because theres no room for error or judgement. Any info would be appreciated.
well, since ur gonna get a lot of people sayin its his fault, deal with it, shoulda been wearing a seatbelt in the first plase, etc, etc... i wont say it. lol.
but anyways, your best bet is to go to a place that deals with traffic tickets. theres a place on hwy 7 and weston, traffic ticket experts, or xcopper, etc. theyll try to get your points taken off, and maybe the whole ticket
Don't bother fighting it in court. I tried, wasted my time, the courts time and tax dollars.
Just take it, and move on.
Disclaimer: I will probally offend you with what is written in this post.
Is there even any argument to be attempted? Even in special circumstances?
Judge: Were you wearing your seatbelt?
Defendent: No, but...
Judge: Guilty!
Case closed!
you can do what they call "first attendance" at the court sometimes they ither lower the fine or save the points.
Tell the judge you took off the seatbelt to get your wallet and the cop didn't believe you.........worked for me..........I'm such @!#$
...................@!#$ cops
I told him he deserved it too. But I said I would try to find out and got the answers I was pretty much expecting. Thanks.
Cops have asked me about my belt when they pulled me over, and that is exactly how I got away with it. If you have tint, you can prolly argue that due to the overcast etc, there is no possible way the officer could have seen you belt on or off. Otherwise, fight it anyway and definately waste courts time and tax money... you pay for this service annually.
<img src="http://registry.gmenthusiast.com/images/bossman/personal_pic.jpg"></img>
waste the courts time and tax money?? well hell i certainly would, i pay taxes and its my right to take it to court
any medical or religious reasons prevent you from wearing a belt...probably the only way you will get out of it.....im sure its been tried to argue about it being unconstitutional or a violation of rights to force drivers to wear their belt
Phil Thacker
JCO North President
Well, again, not that I support driving without a seatbelt, but here is the legal side of things for you in Ontario: (a little vague, as you haven't provided circumstances, etc.)
section 106 of the HTA states:
Use of seat belt assembly by driver
(3) Subject to subsection (5), every person who drives on a highway a motor vehicle in which a seat belt assembly is provided for the driver shall wear the complete seat belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 106 (3).
Exemption
(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply to a person,
(a) driving a motor vehicle in reverse;
(b) who holds a certificate signed by a legally qualified medical practitioner
certifying that the person is,
(i) for the period stated in the certificate, unable for medical reasons to
wear a seat belt assembly, or
(ii) because of the person’s size, build or other physical characteristic,
unable to wear a seat belt assembly;
(c) who is actually engaged in work which requires him or her to alight from and
re-enter a motor vehicle at frequent intervals and who, while engaged in the
work, does not drive or travel in that vehicle at a speed exceeding 40
kilometres per hour; or
(d) under the age of sixteen years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 106 (5).
---------------------------------
So unless you can squeeze him into an exemption, tell him to buckle up.. for his own good.
<a href="http://www.ontariofires.com"><img src="http://www.ontariofires.com/ofsig.jpg" border="0">
Ontariofires.com - Come Check us out!</a>
Oh, and to be added.. it's laughable to even begin to ponder the notion of trying it as "unconstitutional", "a violation of rights" or otherwise.
It's black and white, and part of your licencing agreement when you got your drivers licence. You don't like it? Don't drive.
-- SImon
<a href="http://www.ontariofires.com"><img src="http://www.ontariofires.com/ofsig.jpg" border="0">
Ontariofires.com - Come Check us out!</a>
i'm sorry.. it must be the hangover.. or the fact that i didn't sleep much.... but under Exemption part (d) under the age of sixteen years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 106 (5).
does that mean that if you are under 16 you don't need to wear a seat belt? or does it mean that the driver gets the fine...
Modfire wrote:i'm sorry.. it must be the hangover.. or the fact that i didn't sleep much.... but under Exemption part (d) under the age of sixteen years. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 106 (5).
does that mean that if you are under 16 you don't need to wear a seat belt? or does it mean that the driver gets the fine...
If you are under 16 you are not legally responsible to ensure your belt is on - that is the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle. And as you guessed, it is the driver who would be charged and fined in that scenario.
<a href="http://www.ontariofires.com"><img src="http://www.ontariofires.com/ofsig.jpg" border="0">
Ontariofires.com - Come Check us out!</a>
unless your friend is pregnant, they're probably sol.
14.82 @ 97 mph
OK OK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORRTANT POST AND THIS WILL GET YOU OFF THE SEAT BELT TICKET> I PRMISE
i am going into law school, but there was a court case not to long, where somebody argued that wearing the seatbelt was an endangeer to his lfe. HE stated that he felt it goes against his constituional rightts which garentee him the right to life liberty and secruity. HE stated that because of hiis size, a nd wewights, and type of attire he was wearing t he seatbelt did not accomodate him and therefore was unsafe (Went agaisnt his morals). i e dd not fit. hey youo could say t hat and if the court says anything. all you say is "ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR" i love that cop line.
or youo can go plan b
and say that yuor a courier a nd you are required to get out of yur car, in and out, in and out.and therefore wearinga seatbelt is not comfotable, a nd not applicable.
THIS WAS A TRUE COURT CASE< and the guy won.
These two things work very w well. i promise. and if you neeed any help. iid be more than happy t o represent you for a small fee.
^ You're going into Law school? Dude, you can't write/type worth crap. You can't spell and your grammer is disgusting!
If you're going into law school and if that was a true court case, prove it to me.
What case was it? I want the names and date, I'll look it up myself, because I think you're a liar!
There is NOTHING unconstitutional about being forced to wear your seatbelt. Read case law regarding this, because there is some. Driving is said to be a priviledge, NOT a right! The courts have already stated this and it is written in stone. If driving was a right, the Police wouldn't have the discretion they do when it comes to random roadside testing and being pulled over for mere suspicion.
As for Mr. Frank and his retarded post, unless he comes up with what case he's talking about, nothing he says should even be considered.
There's already an exception in the law about it being dterimental to the safety of the person. Unless the person gets a note from a doctor, they can't use that excuse.
And saying it's unconstitutional, come on now. Are you retarded Frank? Seatbelts have been provon to save lives! If the person is too big for a seatbelt, then they better not show up to court weighing anything less than 350 lbs, or the judge is going to laugh at them. And even if they are 1500 lbs, without a doctors note, you can't use that exception! That is why the law is written! But you would know that, since you're going into law school.
Also, if he's a courier than I'm sure he can prove it with documentation, and I'm also sure he can prove he was working at the time of the infraction. But then again, if he was going over 40km when the cop saw him, then that excuse can't be used either.
Get your head out of your arse Frank, or you're going to make an awful lawyer!
ps. What school did/are you going to? What course specifically?
bahahahahaha...
"Sam Frank"
You are on crack! - As mentioned in the HTA, it gives exemptions for those that feel they don't fit.. but require legal documentation PRIOR to commiting the act.
Secondly.. the courier Idea only works if you can prove that you are, and why you didn't state that at the time.. any why you weren't actually delivering at the time.. or why you were outside teh speed parameters set in the code..
Anyhow.. that post was a joke I hope.. but would bet that you were serious..
G/L in "law school".. you're gonna need it!
<a href="http://www.ontariofires.com"><img src="http://www.ontariofires.com/ofsig.jpg" border="0">
Ontariofires.com - Come Check us out!</a>
