|
|
|
Probable cause for running red light?
- Thread starter elton_t
- Start date
You'd have a tough case. This would be something for Rob's camera recording setup, because at least then the lights changing from green to red would on video. Also, keep in mind that rolling into a stopped intersection might piss people off, but since they are stopped unless you are confronting the extremely braindead they will drive around you and/or wait for the situation to resolve.
If it were me and I had the time on my hands, I'd go and camp out at a corner of the intersection and try and catch the lights jumping from green to red again on camera, then notify the city.
If it were me and I had the time on my hands, I'd go and camp out at a corner of the intersection and try and catch the lights jumping from green to red again on camera, then notify the city.
Any chance you're colour blind?
The traffic light is not supposed to go from Green to Red. It wouldn't just be you running the red, a lot of other vehicles would also be going through the intersection on red for at least a few seconds.
Probably in your best interest to report that intersection (#311); if a cop does pull you over, hopefully he stops you in walking distance to the intersection so you can both re-observe the light jumping from Green to Red.
It would be a very tricky defence of necessity in court, you would have to emphasize the "i felt like if I continue to brake hard the front might eventually lock up then I am totally dead".
hopefully the officer's dashcam also saw the colours change like you described.
The traffic light is not supposed to go from Green to Red. It wouldn't just be you running the red, a lot of other vehicles would also be going through the intersection on red for at least a few seconds.
Probably in your best interest to report that intersection (#311); if a cop does pull you over, hopefully he stops you in walking distance to the intersection so you can both re-observe the light jumping from Green to Red.
It would be a very tricky defence of necessity in court, you would have to emphasize the "i felt like if I continue to brake hard the front might eventually lock up then I am totally dead".
hopefully the officer's dashcam also saw the colours change like you described.
Good thing you weren't on your uninsured second bike lol
So your defense is that you didn't have the skill, knowledge and attention to come to a complete stop? Good luck.
Lights go from green to Yellow, then to red (Not from green to red), they also have the Do Not Cross sign that flashes and goes solid before the light turns yellow. Your defense is going to be you ignored all of these sign designed to help people judge the light and was riding out of your skill level.
Chalk one up for the prosecutor because it seems like it would be an easy win for them
So your defense is that you didn't have the skill, knowledge and attention to come to a complete stop? Good luck.
Lights go from green to Yellow, then to red (Not from green to red), they also have the Do Not Cross sign that flashes and goes solid before the light turns yellow. Your defense is going to be you ignored all of these sign designed to help people judge the light and was riding out of your skill level.
Chalk one up for the prosecutor because it seems like it would be an easy win for them
Last edited:
Their first question will be, how fast were you going to lock the brakes twice?
The road is a 60, there is not way that you can not stop at that speed, so there is no way in hell that you will get a way with it.
I don't preach to anyone not to do stupid ****, I do stupid **** all the time, but I don't come in here crying about it when i get caught
Good Luck
The road is a 60, there is not way that you can not stop at that speed, so there is no way in hell that you will get a way with it.
I don't preach to anyone not to do stupid ****, I do stupid **** all the time, but I don't come in here crying about it when i get caught
Good Luck
My next one would be, why do you care about the rear? The front is where it's at. Ease off the rear and concentrate on the front.
He probably used the rear because of some good GTAM advice.
XenoVibe
Well-known member
Not "mandatory conviction", I think the phrase you were looking for is "absolute liability", meaning if you did it, you're guilty, meaning "probable cause" is not a defence.
If you read the law it says something like "shall stop his or her vehicle if he or she can do so safely". Getting run over by a truck isn't "safely".
Regardless of the fine, points and insurance hits I'll take them over a crushed spine any day.
not true... even absolute liability offences are afforded the Defence of Necessity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_Canadian_law
However, it must be "strictly controlled and scrupulously limited." and can only be applied in the strictest of situations where true "involuntariness" is found. Three elements are required for a successful defence :
1. the accused must be in imminent peril or danger
2. the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook
3. the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused
2. the accused must have had no reasonable legal alternative to the course of action he or she undertook
3. the harm inflicted by the accused must be proportional to the harm avoided by the accused
The peril or danger must be more than just foreseeable or likely. It must be near and unavoidable.
At a minimum the situation must be so emergent and the peril must be so pressing that normal human instincts cry out for action and make a counsel of patience unreasonable.
With regard to the second element, if there was a reasonable legal alternative to breaking the law, then there can be no finding of necessity. Regarding the third element requiring proportionality, the harm avoided must be at least comparable to the harm inflicted.
Strict Liability - The act, itself, is sufficient for conviction. Mens rea need not be present and no defence of Due Diligence is possible.
Absolute Liability - The act, itself, is sufficient for conviction, however, a defence of Due Diligence is possible.
Initially HTA 172's stunt driving charge, the 50+ over speeding issue, was one of Strict Liability. The Supreme Court of Ontario, however, considered this to create a situation in which there was a possibility of imprisonment without giving the accused sufficient chance to mount a defence. For this reason they stated that it must be considered an Absolute Liability offence. This was successfully argued in a case in which a woman started passing a truck on Hwy 7, somewhere up around Tweed, and the truck that she was passing began to speed up in order to block her. It was deemed reasonable that she speed up in order to get around that vehicle, in order to avoid collision with oncoming traffic.
It should also be noted that speeding up in this manner, in order to stop another vehicle from passing, is considered 'racing' under HTA 172.
Absolute Liability - The act, itself, is sufficient for conviction, however, a defence of Due Diligence is possible.
Initially HTA 172's stunt driving charge, the 50+ over speeding issue, was one of Strict Liability. The Supreme Court of Ontario, however, considered this to create a situation in which there was a possibility of imprisonment without giving the accused sufficient chance to mount a defence. For this reason they stated that it must be considered an Absolute Liability offence. This was successfully argued in a case in which a woman started passing a truck on Hwy 7, somewhere up around Tweed, and the truck that she was passing began to speed up in order to block her. It was deemed reasonable that she speed up in order to get around that vehicle, in order to avoid collision with oncoming traffic.
It should also be noted that speeding up in this manner, in order to stop another vehicle from passing, is considered 'racing' under HTA 172.
|
|
|
|
|