Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
Is it really bogus though? There seems to be some contradictory information here. It sounds like they often let people get away with it, but not that they are always obligated to. Maybe too many people were taking advantage of the courtesy and so they have to clamp down a little. I agree that inconsistent application of rules is annoying though.
I once had a ticket for going through a yellow light when I know for sure that I was past the point of no return (the roads were really icy). I met a few people that told me they fought similar tickets and didn't have to pay. When I went to court and told the judge that I was past the point that I could stop safely, the only question the judge had was if the light was yellow (which I had just admitted). I had to pay based on that alone. It didn't matter that most people who get that ticket seem to be able to get it cancelled.
|
I don't know if it truly is or not. However, isn't the point of the thread and possible court case to determine clarification?
The contradictory information out there makes it unclear to me.
Ambiguity is to be construed in favour of the accused. So I'm ok with the thread and fighting the ticket.
There is a sentiment that if the ticket is less than X you should just pay it. I disagree.
It sounds to me the OP asked the CPA for clarification on the law. He was told one thing then ticketed for following it. Then when he requested full disclosure he was repeatedly told "no".
Whether a court finds him guilty or not, there are some serious issues there, the amount if the fine is really a non-issue.
Lastly, I quoted FlamesAddiction only for progression of discussion. I don't mean to straw man his arguement or put words in his mouth.