By your own admission the court can reduce the fine from $155. How is it not wise to attempt to challenge the ticket in court, then, seeing as he was caught checking his signal at a stop light? What other circumstances would the court lower the fine for?
Yup. It comes down to finding a balance between those who want unrestricted ability to fiddle with electronic gadgets while driving, verses those who want both hands nailed to the steering wheel and stereos ripped out of vehicles. Here in Ontario, the legislators decided that the balance would be found in hands-free use rather than either unrestricted use or prohibition of all use.
It would depend on how much the person values his time. Figure it taking half a day, including court wait time. Is that half a day worth $155? For a Walmartian, it would be. For someone making a decent wage, it would not be.
Anything that tugs at the judges heart strings might succeed. Pleading poverty combined with a family crisis and a clean record is usually the most likely way to succeed in lowering a fine.
That’s an even better plan. Pass an ill-conceived law, and then should one of the subjects DARE question it, then fine them out the ass for their intransigence. That’s teach them to bow down to the proper authority!
At the time I was standing in front of the judge, I had already missed 8 (eight!!!) hours of work to deal with this spurious ticket; that’s a lot of work for anyone to miss, but as a 24 year old recent college grad getting my shit together, that’s particularly damaging. So, because the officer argued on my behalf for about 10 mins, the fine was reduced to a hundred and something dollars (down from the $180ish it was), so I just said fuck it. Which is sad, because that’s exactly what the court is counting on. If I were to get another ticket like this once it becomes a point infraction, I will fight it as far as I can, because that’s ridiculous.
You should have seen my face when the judge said this. Better yet, you should have seen the cop’s. The officer looked at me like, “What…the fuck just happened?” and immediately started defending me (told you he was a nice guy), explaining that I was prepared to defend myself that day and blah blah. But hey, now we know: murdering babies < cell phone while driving (which, I’d again like to note: I wasn’t even doing).
Ill conceived? Hardly.
Don’t like the law? Try going though the legislature to amend or revoke it, or try running a test case based on something of substance. Simply not liking a law but not having any other grounds is not enough for a test case.
OP, I think you overexplained it but I’m on your side. I don’t know what the cost and time would be to go to court, but I think it could be worth going just to state you were not talking on the phone, just glancing at the display. If the judge sees you were not violating the spirit of the law you could get some leniency. It could just as easily have been a MP3 player or your wallet that you were looking at. If you do go to court, shorten you defense down to a few sentences. Just the basics.
The judge would probably hear: “glancing at the display” as “reading a text message”. It’s no different, really, and probably wouldn’t result in a lower fine.
So it will be fine + court costs.
I agree. Here, I’ve thrown in the kitchen sink, and then some. When meeting with the prosecutor, I need to keep it short and sweet.
I am now convinced that disputing the ticket is the right course of action, even though there’s only a small chance that I’ll get the ticket dismissed.
Basically, I need a prosecutor who will sympathize with my genuine belief that the ticket was unfair, who believes that there are actually good reasons for using a cell phone in a car and that there are safe ways of doing so, and who believes that I really am a responsible driver who is very concerned about driving safely. Frankly, given the prevailing sentiment against cell phone use, and the stereotype of the cynical prosecutor who “has seen it all”, I think it’s unlikely but not hopeless, especially if I don’t come across like a smug, overbearing, self-serving, shady, pseudo-intellectual fat cat. And that actually *is *possible. 
Don’t be a jerk, right?
BTW, as for the MP3 player, there’s another section of the law that prohibits “holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.”
Thanks guys. I’ll let you know how it goes.
OH HELL NO. I don’t know what kind of backwater place you live in a civilized country the burden of proof is on the state. Holding a cell phone is not the same as using a cell phone. If it’s too much of a bother for an officer to show up and provide evidence of the crime then that is too damn bad.
Then it should be the burden of the court to prove you were using a different phone.
The law specifically prohibits “holding,” so arguing the difference between holding and using will not succeed.
My guess? Knock down from $155 to $50.
It occured to me that if we placed bets on it and gave you a percentage, you might be able to cover your costs, but there’s probably some law against that too.
The “distracted driver law” covers fiddling around with pretty much anything that has a display screen. So if the cop saw you reading your playlist on your iPod, the same thing would have happened.
In other words: put down your toys and just drive.
Anyone speaking or texting on a cell phone while driving deserves a ticket at least.
Depends on what you consider to be the spirit of the law. If the spirit of it is “Don’t talk on your phone while driving,” then no, he didn’t violate it. But if the spirit of this law is “Quit dicking around with your phone when you’re supposed to be driving,” which I think is more likely given the prohibition on holding said devices, then no dice.
Thanks, but no thanks. 
As I mentioned previously, the amount of the fine doesn’t bother me.
But, I’m wondering about something that might cause me to just pay the fine and be done with it. You said this violation is treated like a parking ticket rather than like a speeding ticket and that it is not used in determining insurance rates. Do you have a cite for that?
Let me clarify my earlier statement, to put the correlation between points and insurance in context.
Demerit points lead up to your losing your license. Convictions lead up to your insurance being raised. The insurance hike is triggered by the frequency and seriousness of convictions, not the collection of demerit points, however, there is a strong correlation between the two. An occasional minor conviction will have no effect on insurance, whereas a series of minor convictions over about a three year period or a single major conviction will often lead to huge insurance hikes or cancellation of insurance. What constitutes a minor conviction and what constitutes a major conviction? It depends of the policy of the insurance company, but as a rule of thumb, 3 points or less is a minor conviction and 4 points or more is a major conviction. Being nailed with a cell phone in hand does not attract any points, just as parking tickets and failure to use sleigh bells if you are hoofing it do not attract any points, so a s. 78.1 conviction in isolation will not affect insurance rates. If in doubt (e.g. if a person has collected a few minor convictions in the last few years and is facing another minor conviction, or if a person is facing a major conviction), a person should call his or her own insurance company and ask if a pending conviction for a particular offence would have an effect on that particular person’s insurance rate, and decide whether to plead or fight accordingly. A minor conviction after a decade of clean driving? I’ll leave you to your own conclusion based on your investigation with your own insurer, but if I were up on such a heinous charge after flyng under the radar for a decade, I wouldn’t waste my dime calling my insurance company.
The basic prohibition against using or holding hand-helds that are not voice controlled is in the Highway Traffic Act at s. 78 and 78.1 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#s78s1
The details concerning making and receiving calls from a hand-held, the affixing of the device to the vehicle, and the positioning of the display screen, are at O.Reg. 366/09, s. 14 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_090366_e.htm#s14s1
The fine range is set out in the HTA at s. 214 (I was $10 dollars off on the low end of the range, which is now $60) Law Document English View | Ontario.ca
Although the range is between $60 and $500, the usual rate is $155 Ontario Newsroom
The Victim Fine Surcharge (which is automatically applied on to of the amount of the fine) is set out at the Provincial Offences Act s. 60.1 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#s60p1s1 and O.Reg. 161/00 Law Document English View | Ontario.ca
Costs (which are ridiculously low compared to the actual costs of prosecution, and which frequently are not applied) are set out in the Provincial Offences Act s. 60 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90p33_e.htm#s60s1 and R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 945 http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900945_e.htm
Offences that incur demerit points are set out at the Table of O.Reg. 339/94 (the basic hand-held offence is not one of them, however, an egregious misuse of a hand-held might lead to an additional charge of careless driving, which does attract demerit points) Law Document English View | Ontario.ca
100% agreement. Just drive people. I’m tired of distracted drivers and yes if I have to wait behind someone at a stop light after it turns green and it causes me to lay on the horn because you are yakking on your cell phone instead of paying attention pisses you off then too bad.
You want people to drive when the light is red because that’s what we’re discussing. The op wasn’t ticketed for not going on green.