|
|
|
Got a ticket from a camera. Defense?
- Thread starter 85K100
- Start date
I still think they should be timed. A ticket for 10 over near a school at 03:00 in the summer is fundraising not safety.
Community safety zones and arbitrarily low speed limits are only partly about safety around schools, the rest being because there's someone on that road who complains to council about the amount of traffic going so fast and making so much noise. I can point out some pretty absurd ones.
HarleyHare
Well-known member
Some whiners are pretty disagreeable and stubborn. But that's life and we need to live with it.
I agree that some radar traps are set up where there is opportunity, there are no houses or pedestrians in the suburbs and the posted speed is ridiculously low for conditions, like Dufferin north of Major Mackenzie Drive in Richmond Hill which 10 years ago was an 80 and was reduced to 60. Expecting to prepare drivers for some grandiose subdivision and to slow down, nothing ever changed except the speed limit. It's still open fields 90% of the way. When nonsense happens and people view it that way, then it reduces respect and people just drive at a comfortable speed for the conditions.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
I believe a ticket for any alleged red-light violation, when the light has JUST turned red,
can be contested in the following fashion. When the cop gives testimony, you (the defendant)
have an opportunity to question the cop.
Ask if the cop timed the duration of the yellow light that preceded the red light.
If not, then ask if the cop can verify that the duration of the yellow obeys HTA.
If not, then ask for a dismissal; if there is no evidence that the light itself is compliant,
then evidence from the light's behavior cannot be used to convict you.
If the cop alleges that the yellow duration is x seconds and that complies with HTA,
then you are facing either a savvy cop or a liar (with whom the magistrate is in cahoots).
Ask if the cop measured the amount that the yellow duration varies from one cycle to the
next over, say, a ten-minute period. NOBODY would have that information, but you can
allege that you noticed the variation by studying the light's operation carefully,
and you recommend that this improper erratic malfunctioning justifies a dismissal.
Call this off-the-wall if you wish, but I have had some nuisance charges dismissed
because of resourceful defenses.
Good luck! Salos Dafee
can be contested in the following fashion. When the cop gives testimony, you (the defendant)
have an opportunity to question the cop.
Ask if the cop timed the duration of the yellow light that preceded the red light.
If not, then ask if the cop can verify that the duration of the yellow obeys HTA.
If not, then ask for a dismissal; if there is no evidence that the light itself is compliant,
then evidence from the light's behavior cannot be used to convict you.
If the cop alleges that the yellow duration is x seconds and that complies with HTA,
then you are facing either a savvy cop or a liar (with whom the magistrate is in cahoots).
Ask if the cop measured the amount that the yellow duration varies from one cycle to the
next over, say, a ten-minute period. NOBODY would have that information, but you can
allege that you noticed the variation by studying the light's operation carefully,
and you recommend that this improper erratic malfunctioning justifies a dismissal.
Call this off-the-wall if you wish, but I have had some nuisance charges dismissed
because of resourceful defenses.
Good luck! Salos Dafee
The other hidden price is when someone else's driving affects you and the case never gets heard because of court delays by people that were 100% guilty but want to trash the system.
They did that in Winnipeg years ago and it was a PITA but they changed the speed limits based on whether school was in or out. Different speed limits for before school, lunch break and after school. Do statutory holidays count? Is the school Catholic and do holy days count?
How? What's your defence? The HTA allows these tickets. Aside from "I just don't like it!" what else can you say in court to cast doubt on the fact that the ticket matches the vehicle speeding at that moment in time?
It's also about habit building. People who are forced to slow down at 3AM in a certain area are just as likely to slow down at 3PM in that same area in the future, so in the case of a school zone, I have zero issue with that. I see it happening in areas where there *was* a camera but it was moved - people still slow down, and honestly, given the free for all on our roads, I'm all good with these sorts of enforcement measures. Speed limits are speed limits, you don't get to choose when to follow them or not.
What I find incredibly stupid is when the government decides to lower a speed limit to somehow try to address speeding in a certain area...as if the people blasting along at 80 in a 60 zone will suddenly slow down if they change the number on the signs to 50. The only thing that will stop a lot of idiots who are chronic gross speeders is...hit them hard in the wallet.
Lots of schools already have variable speed limit. Light on the sign means 40, no light means 50. Only have camera activated with light.
Or proper road design that automatically encourages the desired speed. No signs or expensive cameras required. Doesnt even need to be a super expensive solution. Narrowing lanes with paint drops 85th percentile speed. Add a few planters if you want it to drop more.
Large Egg w/Double Yolks only for Me.I drive like there's an egg between my foot and the pedal.
They've done that in a few areas in my neck of the woods, put up those flappy road-mounted poles that you need to drive between in an effort to slow down traffic. Driving that stretch of road regularly myself I can say with reasonable certainty that for the target audience (those who are significantly speeding), it accomplishes nothing as they just blast through it like it's just a slalom.
It slows down the non-confident and geriatric crowd for sure, but they're not the target audience, they're not usually the people blasting along at 100 in a 50 zone to begin with.
Salos Dafee
Well-known member
I fight all tickets. I learned from Derek Browne, the owner of Toronto Honda in 1963
that you question the witness relentlessly, and when you hear, "I don't know" as the
answer to anything you ask, you ask the magistrate to dismiss the case, "because the
witness is uncertain of his (or her) testimony". By and by you get good enough at this
that you prevail more times than you deserve or expect.
If you are charged with going through a red light, for example, try:
"Did you measure the duration of the amber caution light?"
In the event the answer is "No", ask, "Can you verify that the amber light was
displayed for the duration required by the Highway Traffic Act?" The only valid
answer to that is "No", so you address the magistrate and say, for example:
"Your worship, there is no evidence that the traffic light was in compliance
with the HTA, so I suggest that evidence from the traffic light's behaviour
is not evidence that I disobeyed the HTA. I request a dismissal of the charge."
Now, all the above is ******** and the magistrate knows it, but the magistrate
is also bound by the law, and when you knock a hole in the prosecution's case,
the magistrate must admit it and dismiss the charges.
If you are charged with violating a sign on a post, for example, "NO LEFT TURN",
you can ask if the witness verified that the sign was displayed at the proper height,
which means the distance from the road surface to the bottom edge of the sign
(I learned this one, and got a dismissal, in 1971). Again, you are likely to get an
admission of ignorance. If necessary, you can take the stand and (either truthfully
or in my case not) testify that the sign was only 4 feet nine inches above the road,
and if blended in well with the chain-link fence behind it. HTA has rules for this,
and in my case the sign had to be six feet above the road, so I asked for and got
a dismissal.
Bear in mind that the court cannot go back in time to the date of the offense and
measure the height of the sign THEN, so I ran no risk by misquoting its height.
Keep your wits about you, and you can earn a dismissal of many charges!
Salos Dafee
that you question the witness relentlessly, and when you hear, "I don't know" as the
answer to anything you ask, you ask the magistrate to dismiss the case, "because the
witness is uncertain of his (or her) testimony". By and by you get good enough at this
that you prevail more times than you deserve or expect.
If you are charged with going through a red light, for example, try:
"Did you measure the duration of the amber caution light?"
In the event the answer is "No", ask, "Can you verify that the amber light was
displayed for the duration required by the Highway Traffic Act?" The only valid
answer to that is "No", so you address the magistrate and say, for example:
"Your worship, there is no evidence that the traffic light was in compliance
with the HTA, so I suggest that evidence from the traffic light's behaviour
is not evidence that I disobeyed the HTA. I request a dismissal of the charge."
Now, all the above is ******** and the magistrate knows it, but the magistrate
is also bound by the law, and when you knock a hole in the prosecution's case,
the magistrate must admit it and dismiss the charges.
If you are charged with violating a sign on a post, for example, "NO LEFT TURN",
you can ask if the witness verified that the sign was displayed at the proper height,
which means the distance from the road surface to the bottom edge of the sign
(I learned this one, and got a dismissal, in 1971). Again, you are likely to get an
admission of ignorance. If necessary, you can take the stand and (either truthfully
or in my case not) testify that the sign was only 4 feet nine inches above the road,
and if blended in well with the chain-link fence behind it. HTA has rules for this,
and in my case the sign had to be six feet above the road, so I asked for and got
a dismissal.
Bear in mind that the court cannot go back in time to the date of the offense and
measure the height of the sign THEN, so I ran no risk by misquoting its height.
Keep your wits about you, and you can earn a dismissal of many charges!
Salos Dafee
Please quote the HTA statute that shows the minimum legal duration of an amber light.
This would work anymore even if it did in the 70's. The crown will just state "all traffic signs in the province are installed to current statute and there is absolutely no scenario where a public traffic signage on a public road installed by the province or a municipality would be installed outside statute", and that'll almost certainly be that. Worst case a crown lawyer or the officer could even pull up a google street view of the intersection and introduce it as evidence. And ultimately, a police officers statements hold far more weight than John-Q-Public's claims.
If it was so easy to get off on all these sorts of charges with these sorts of claims literally NOTHING would stick anymore, which simply isn't reality. I've spent some time sitting in traffic court and watched people try all sorts of excuses. The cops/crown have heard them all a million times and know exactly what to say to remove said doubt/question and that's that.
No law for amber light duration (but you already know that). I did find this ""The standards used in Hamilton follow provincial guidelines as identified in the Ontario Traffic Manual Book 12. Generally speaking, the higher the posted speed the longer the amber light stays on. At 50 kilometres per hour, the amber will last 3.3 seconds. At 90 km/h, the amber will last 5.1 seconds". For those interested, here is a link to the book. It has the numbers above but it also outlines a minimum time of 3 seconds. Even though the law doesn't require any time, if you wanted to argue that you only had 4 seconds instead of 5.1 and they were on the ball they could argue that minimum was exceeded and there is no requirement to meet preferred length.
I'm with PP, throwing (*&% at the wall and hoping for the best rarely works in my experience. If you have real evidence that contradicts that can work but just throwing random what ifs out will get you slapped by the JP and asked if you have anything real and supportable to bring forward.
Last edited:
Indeed.
But I think @Salos Dafee needs to look that up and realize that for himself.
My underlying point of course is that people aren't as likely to get off on every charge using these sorts of defences (which many don't even fully vet before assuming something they read somewhere on the internet is true) in front of the crown. They just don't work. I can't find the stats but I'm pretty sure I read in the past that the crown gets north of 90% conviction on non criminal HTA charges.
|
|
|
|
|